Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 7/15/2025.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole since pending claims are very broad. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Foreign Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (a Japanese document with priority date back to 5/12/2022).
Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs)
5. Applicant filed two IDSs on 10/25/2024 and on 3/20/2026; the submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Evidence that claims 1, and 10 fail to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the specification filed on 7/15/2025. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated that the claimed vehicles are EV (electric vehicles), and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claims because independent claims 1, and 10 do not limit that this claimed invention is only for electric vehicles with battery’s SoCs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained. notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara et al (JP 2020155076 A, hereafter Makihara’076) in view of Sumida (JP 2014142704 A).
A. Per independent claims 1, and 10:
Makihara’076 teaches a transport vehicle system comprising:
a plurality of transport vehicles that transport articles (see Makihara’076, pg.5 para. 1; pg.6 para.4);
a controller that assigns a transport instruction to any one of the plurality of transport vehicles; and
a charger that is located on a route along which the plurality of transport vehicles can travel and supplies electric power to the transport vehicles (e.g., a charger/station near/along a road, wherein the controller includes a charging instructor that instructs to start charging each transport vehicle, wherein the charging instructor performs a first determination process to determine whether a charge rate of an entirety of the plurality of transport vehicles is below a first threshold value, and instructs to start charging at least any one of the transport vehicles if the charge rate of the entirety of the plurality of transport vehicles is determined as being below the first threshold value (e.g., a feature of a vehicle SOC is below a certain/threshold SoC, see Makihara’076, pg.7 para. 4), and
wherein the charging instructor performs a second determination process to determine whether the charge rate of each transport vehicle is below a second threshold value that is lower than the first threshold value, and instructs to start charging each transport vehicle if the charge rate of the transport vehicle is determined as being below the second threshold value (e.g., Makihara’076 suggests a capability of may/may not charge all vehicles, see Makihara’076, pg.7 para.5-6).
Although indicating that instruction unit causes the transfer device to execute the instruction (see Makihara’076 the abstract), Makihara’076 does not expressly disclose about using “a charging instructor” to perform the claimed feature; however, charging instructors are merely signals/commands sending from a charging station; Sumida’704 suggests similar action (see Sumida’704 “operation control device 21”on pg. 7, and paragraphs 4 5),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Makihara’076 with Sumida to disclose about using commands/instruction codes to determine current conditions/statuses of vehicles to perform certain required tasks (see Sumida’704, pg. 14, 4th para.).
B. Per independent claim 10: This claim covers obvious limitations of independent claim 1, with similar limitations in body claim 1; the claimed steps/features may be used for different intentions; therefore, similar rationales, and reference are applied for an obvious rejection.
C. Per dependent claim 2: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Per dependent claim 2: The transport vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the charging instructor checks a system margin rate, which indicates a degree of margin in the entirety of the plurality of transport vehicles, at predetermined timings against processing of the transport instruction,instructs to start charging at least the any one of the transport vehicles if the degree of margin indicated by the system margin rate is higher than or equal to a predetermined degree and also the charge rate of the entirety of the plurality of transport vehicles is determined as being below the first threshold value, and instructs to start charging a transport vehicle if the degree of margin indicated by the system margin rate is higher than or equal to the predetermined degree and also the charge rate of the transport vehicle is determined as being below the second threshold value.
The examiner submits that applicant claims obvious features: checking/comparing a battery’s temperature against a predetermined degree, and a battery SoC before charging because in very cold conditions, a car battery’s chemical reactions slow, reducing its capacity and making it harder to accept a charge — and in extreme cold, charging can even risk freezing the electrolyte and damaging the battery ). The examiner submits that these claimed features are obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art.
D: Per dependent claim 3: The transport vehicle system according to claim 2, wherein the charging instructor checks the system margin rate periodically at the predetermined timings (periodically checking a vehicle’s SoC level is suggested by Sumida’704 pg.4, 3rd para. ).
E.Per dependent claim 4: The transport vehicle system according to claim 2 or 3, wherein the charging instructor checks whether or not at least one of following is satisfied: an effective transport vehicle ratio, which serves as the system margin rate to represent a proportion of transport vehicles that are on standby relative to the entirety of the plurality of transport vehicles, is higher than or equal to a predetermined ratio; a transport volume of the entirety of the plurality of transport vehicles is below a predetermined transport volume; and a utilization rate of the entirety of the plurality of transport vehicles is below a predetermined utilization rate.
Applicant claims about an effective transport vehicle ratio – the examiner submits that this feature has been a normal task to see how many vehicles of a fleet are in good shape, how many vehicle in the fleet may not be in a good shape (e.g., having battery with a low SoC/below threshold level) for a transport operation.
F. Per dependent claim 5:The transport vehicle system according to any one of claims 1, wherein the charging instructor instructs to start charging two or more of the transport vehicles at different timings.
Applicant claims about starting to charge different vehicles at different points/timings (e.g., first-come first serve) – this claimed feature is suggested by Makihara’076 at a charging station.
G. Per dependent claim 6: The transport vehicle system according to claim 5, wherein the charging instructor instructs to start charging the transport vehicles in order from the transport vehicle closest to the charger.
Applicant claims about starting to charge different vehicles depending on “first-come-first-serve”/FIFO order – this claimed feature is suggested by Sumida’704 pg.4, 3rd. para. (a normal way of operating a business/station).
H Per dependent claim 7: The transport vehicle system according to claim 5, wherein the charging instructor instructs to start charging the transport vehicles in order from the transport vehicle with the lowest charge rate.
Applicant claims about starting to charge different vehicles depending on a low SoC level (e.g., a lowest SoC/a low gas tank level) of vehicles timings – this claimed feature is suggested by Makihara’076 pg. 27, 3rd para.“a difference value between a maximum value and a minimum value,”).
at a charging station, and “, it is possible to charge the low SOC automatic guided vehicle” from Sumida’704 pg. 4 last para.)
I. Per dependent claim 8: The transport vehicle system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the controller acquires state information of the plurality of transport vehicles through periodic communication with the plurality of transport vehicles.
Applicant claims about obtaining status of vehicles via communication - this claimed feature is suggested by Makihara’076 at a charging station (e.g., “The transport system control device 40 transmits and receives necessary information by wireless communication with the AGV 30a.”see Makihara’076 pg. 11, 4th para., “The charge amount of the above is transmitted to the transfer system control device 40.” see Makihara’076 pg. 11, 4th para.).
J.Per dependent claim 9: The transport vehicle system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the plurality of transport vehicles can move in a first direction and a second direction along a grid- patterned track that extends in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction, and wherein the charger is provided so as to correspond to one of grid cells of the grid-patterned track.
Applicant claims about selecting/planning a route that is near a charging station for a travelling convenience – this claimed feature has been well-known.(e.g., before starting, planning/determining an energy- supplied station near traveling routes – see Sumida’704 pg. 3, 2nd para.)
Conclusion
8. Pending claims 1-10 are rejected.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights