DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 11/18/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"local computing section" in claims 1-9
"detection unit" in claim 2
"control section" in claim 2
"route following unit" in claim 2
"task management unit" in claims 4 and 5
"task management section" in claim 5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1 and 8 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward an apparatus and a method including at least one step.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1. An agent management system including an agent movable in a management area, and a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position,
wherein the management area is divided into a plurality of control areas, and the local computing section is placed for each of the divided control areas for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a moving route for an agent based on a division of an area into control areas and an assignment of route determination responsibility. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the environment, partitioning the area into regions, and deciding a movement route for an agent within those regions.
Claim 8. An agent management method for determining a moving route for movement of an agent movable in a management area from an initial position to a target position,
wherein the management area is divided into a plurality of control areas, and a local computing section placed for each of the divided control areas determines the moving route for the agent in the control area, and gives the determined moving route to the agent.
The method in claim 8, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a moving route for an agent based on a division of an area into control areas and an assignment of route determination responsibility. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the environment, partitioning the area into regions, and deciding a movement route for an agent within those regions.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”).
Claim 1. An agent management system including an agent movable in a management area, and a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position,
wherein the management area is divided into a plurality of control areas, and the local computing section is placed for each of the divided control areas for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The limitations “An agent management system including an agent movable in a management area, and a local computing section for” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The agent management system including an agent movable in a management area, and a local computing section merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The agent management system including an agent movable in a management area, and a local computing section are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the determining steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “An agent management system including an agent movable in a management area, and a local computing section for” is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, since claims 1 and 8 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more.
As such, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 20180374353 A1) in view of Take (JP 2003196780 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hosokawa teaches An agent management system including an agent movable in a management area (See at least paragraph [0007], “An embodiment of the invention may include a method, computer program product and computer system for managing mobile objects. The embodiment may determine, by a mobile object server, a position of a mobile object in a geographic space managed by the mobile object server. The embodiment may determine a plurality of routes based on the position of the mobile object in the geographic space. The embodiment may calculate, by the mobile object server, a plurality of route parameters for the plurality of routes, wherein the plurality of route parameters includes a passage possibility of the mobile object over each route. The embodiment may calculate a plurality of edge parameters for a plurality of edges, wherein each edge is a segment of a route, and wherein the edge parameter includes the passage possibility of the mobile object over each edge”, paragraph [0048], “FIG. 1 shows a system 100 and a map area corresponding to a geographic space managed by the system 100, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The system 100 manages a geographic space that includes routes on which a mobile object 10 moves. The system 100 is operable to divide the geographic space into a plurality of regions and manage these regions. A mobile object 10 may move on routes including land routes, sea routes, and/or air routes, for example. The geographic space may be land, sea, or air space that includes the routes on which the mobile object travels. The mobile objects 10 may be manned/unmanned automobiles, motorbikes, bicycles, humans having a digital device, airplanes, vessels, drones, or the like”, and paragraph [0049], “FIG. 1 shows an automobile as an example of the mobile object 10, which moves along roads as examples of land routes. The system 100 includes a plurality of subsystems 200 that respectively manage the plurality of regions. FIG. 1 shows an example in which the map area is divided into six regions from region A to region F, and six subsystems 200 respectively manage these six regions.”), wherein the management area is divided into a plurality of control areas (See at least paragraph [0048], “FIG. 1 shows a system 100 and a map area corresponding to a geographic space managed by the system 100, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The system 100 manages a geographic space that includes routes on which a mobile object 10 moves. The system 100 is operable to divide the geographic space into a plurality of regions and manage these regions. A mobile object 10 may move on routes including land routes, sea routes, and/or air routes, for example. The geographic space may be land, sea, or air space that includes the routes on which the mobile object travels. The mobile objects 10 may be manned/unmanned automobiles, motorbikes, bicycles, humans having a digital device, airplanes, vessels, drones, or the like.”), and the local computing section is placed for each of the divided control areas (See at least paragraph [0049], “FIG. 1 shows an automobile as an example of the mobile object 10, which moves along roads as examples of land routes. The system 100 includes a plurality of subsystems 200 that respectively manage the plurality of regions. FIG. 1 shows an example in which the map area is divided into six regions from region A to region F, and six subsystems 200 respectively manage these six regions.”).
Hosokawa does not explicitly disclose, however, Take, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position (See at least paragraph [0036], “Then, the management device T1 creates a search space for route search by referring to the information on the transport route from the route information DB1 (step S6). At this time, the management device T1 may create a search space that excludes routes that are closed in advance. Based on this search space, the management device T1 searches for a transport route from the start point to the end point (step S7), and transmits the search result to the automatic guided vehicle 30. Thereby, the automatic guided vehicle 30 travels on the search route and transports various materials (step S8).”), for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area (See at least paragraph [0036], “Then, the management device T1 creates a search space for route search by referring to the information on the transport route from the route information DB1 (step S6). At this time, the management device T1 may create a search space that excludes routes that are closed in advance. Based on this search space, the management device T1 searches for a transport route from the start point to the end point (step S7), and transmits the search result to the automatic guided vehicle 30. Thereby, the automatic guided vehicle 30 travels on the search route and transports various materials (step S8).”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position, for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].).
Regarding Claim 8, Hosokawa teaches An agent management method for determining a moving route for movement of an agent movable in a management area (See at least paragraph [0007], “An embodiment of the invention may include a method, computer program product and computer system for managing mobile objects. The embodiment may determine, by a mobile object server, a position of a mobile object in a geographic space managed by the mobile object server. The embodiment may determine a plurality of routes based on the position of the mobile object in the geographic space. The embodiment may calculate, by the mobile object server, a plurality of route parameters for the plurality of routes, wherein the plurality of route parameters includes a passage possibility of the mobile object over each route. The embodiment may calculate a plurality of edge parameters for a plurality of edges, wherein each edge is a segment of a route, and wherein the edge parameter includes the passage possibility of the mobile object over each edge”, paragraph [0048], “FIG. 1 shows a system 100 and a map area corresponding to a geographic space managed by the system 100, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The system 100 manages a geographic space that includes routes on which a mobile object 10 moves. The system 100 is operable to divide the geographic space into a plurality of regions and manage these regions. A mobile object 10 may move on routes including land routes, sea routes, and/or air routes, for example. The geographic space may be land, sea, or air space that includes the routes on which the mobile object travels. The mobile objects 10 may be manned/unmanned automobiles, motorbikes, bicycles, humans having a digital device, airplanes, vessels, drones, or the like”, and paragraph [0049], “FIG. 1 shows an automobile as an example of the mobile object 10, which moves along roads as examples of land routes. The system 100 includes a plurality of subsystems 200 that respectively manage the plurality of regions. FIG. 1 shows an example in which the map area is divided into six regions from region A to region F, and six subsystems 200 respectively manage these six regions.”), wherein the management area is divided into a plurality of control areas (See at least paragraph [0048], “FIG. 1 shows a system 100 and a map area corresponding to a geographic space managed by the system 100, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The system 100 manages a geographic space that includes routes on which a mobile object 10 moves. The system 100 is operable to divide the geographic space into a plurality of regions and manage these regions. A mobile object 10 may move on routes including land routes, sea routes, and/or air routes, for example. The geographic space may be land, sea, or air space that includes the routes on which the mobile object travels. The mobile objects 10 may be manned/unmanned automobiles, motorbikes, bicycles, humans having a digital device, airplanes, vessels, drones, or the like.”), and a local computing section placed for each of the divided control areas (See at least paragraph [0049], “FIG. 1 shows an automobile as an example of the mobile object 10, which moves along roads as examples of land routes. The system 100 includes a plurality of subsystems 200 that respectively manage the plurality of regions. FIG. 1 shows an example in which the map area is divided into six regions from region A to region F, and six subsystems 200 respectively manage these six regions.”).
Hosokawa does not explicitly disclose, however, Take, in the same field of endeavor, teaches from an initial position to a target position (See at least paragraph [0036], “Then, the management device T1 creates a search space for route search by referring to the information on the transport route from the route information DB1 (step S6). At this time, the management device T1 may create a search space that excludes routes that are closed in advance. Based on this search space, the management device T1 searches for a transport route from the start point to the end point (step S7), and transmits the search result to the automatic guided vehicle 30. Thereby, the automatic guided vehicle 30 travels on the search route and transports various materials (step S8).”), determines the moving route for the agent in the control area, and gives the determined moving route to the agent (See at least paragraph [0036], “Then, the management device T1 creates a search space for route search by referring to the information on the transport route from the route information DB1 (step S6). At this time, the management device T1 may create a search space that excludes routes that are closed in advance. Based on this search space, the management device T1 searches for a transport route from the start point to the end point (step S7), and transmits the search result to the automatic guided vehicle 30. Thereby, the automatic guided vehicle 30 travels on the search route and transports various materials (step S8).”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize from determining an initial position to a target position, determines the moving route for the agent in the control area, and gives the determined moving route to the agent, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 20180374353 A1) in view of Take (JP 2003196780 A) and Woon (US 20180231972 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hosokawa and Take teach The agent management system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Woon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the agent includes a detection unit for acquiring a value of state quantity of its own (See at least paragraph [0108], “FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating components of an agent 100. It will be appreciated that the agents 101-105 may have similar components and therefore will not be described. The agent 100 comprises an on-board controller 40 coupled to a plurality of actuators 41-44, a battery 45, a telemetry module 46, and a plurality of sensors 47-48” and paragraph [0145], “In general, a sensor may include one or more of GNSS, UWB, RPS, MCS, optical flow, infrared proximity, pressure and sonar, or IMU sensors.”), a control section for controlling the agent using the state quantity acquired by the detection unit (See at least paragraph [0108], “FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating components of an agent 100. It will be appreciated that the agents 101-105 may have similar components and therefore will not be described. The agent 100 comprises an on-board controller 40 coupled to a plurality of actuators 41-44, a battery 45, a telemetry module 46, and a plurality of sensors 47-48” and paragraph [0114], “The memory 53 may also store routines which, when executed under control of the processor 52, control the agent 100 to perform communication, acquire positioning data and attitude estimation, perform sensor reading, calculate feedback control, and send commands to actuators 41-44 and, perhaps, one or more other agents 101-103.”), and a route following unit for controlling a position of the agent, which has been acquired by the detection unit in accordance with the moving route from the agent (See at least paragraph [0109], “FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating components of the on-board controller 40 or an agent controlling device 40 for the agent 100. The agent controlling device 40 has a first communication interface 50 for communicating with a ground control device 3 and a second communication interface 51 for communicating with neighbouring ones 101-105 of the plurality of agents. A processor 52 is coupled to the first and second communication interfaces 50, 51, and a storage device or a memory 53 storing a device identifier code 54 which is an unique identification code for identifying the agent 100 and a trajectory 55 which the agent 100 has been assigned to follow in a path of movement to complete a task” and paragraph [0150], “Since the agent runs its mission based on the path stored in its own memory, after generating the path, the ground control device may be able to access the memory of each agent, and alter the paths or waypoints of the agents if necessary. Depends on the positioning system that is being used, the ground control device may either send the position information to the agents, or request for the agent's position.”); and the local computing section performs a route computing operation for the agent in a target control area to make an evaluation that becomes higher as a position of the agent moved forward by arbitrary steps from a present time makes a closer approach to the target position (See at least paragraph [0115], “After the destination of each agent has been set by a user in the system 1, the ground control device 3 will calculate the optimized path for the respective agent. This path will be stored in the memory 32 as a reference, as well as uploaded into the agent's on-board controller (as shown in FIG. 4) to be followed by the agent 100-105. Depending on an environment or operating region of the agents, the paths taken to reach the destination, and goes back to base may be predefined. There may be various combinations of paths that can be used to allow the agents reach the desired destinations. The ground control station 3 may be configured to select the most optimized path based on factors such as the total distance needed to travel, how crowded the path is, as well as the presence of dynamic disturbances as alerted by other agents in that vicinity, for example, when the environment is already known” and paragraph [0144], “A pre-existing obstacle can be taken into account during the trajectory generation. In the case of a moving intruder into an agent's path, the robot 400 may perform evasive maneuver based on at least one onboard sensor. If the evasion cannot be successfully performed, and the agent suffers damages, the agent may be configured to perform or receive instructions from the ground control station to perform a homing maneuver or a safety landing to control station or other predetermined homing location based on the degree of damages to the agent. The robot 400 can have onboard positioning sensors.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take and Woon such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position, for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), and wherein the agent includes a detection unit for acquiring a value of state quantity of its own, a control section for controlling the agent using the state quantity acquired by the detection unit, and a route following unit for controlling a position of the agent, which has been acquired by the detection unit in accordance with the moving route from the agent; and the local computing section performs a route computing operation for the agent in a target control area to make an evaluation that becomes higher as a position of the agent moved forward by arbitrary steps from a present time makes a closer approach to the target position, as taught by Woon (See paragraph [0108], [0109], [0114], [0115], [0144], [0150].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].). The motivation for doing so would be optimizing trajectories while avoiding collision with other vehicles and spatial boundaries, as taught by Woon (See paragraph [0003].).
Claim(s) 3-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 20180374353 A1) in view of Take (JP 2003196780 A) and Yoshida (US 20150262478 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hosokawa and Take teach The agent management system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches having an initial position of the agent and a target position of the agent located in the different control areas, wherein: among a plurality of local computing sections, a first local computing section for managing the initial position sets an integrated control area for integrating all control areas from the initial position to the target position (See at least paragraph [0027], “The traveling request designates a traveling route of the vehicle. The vehicle travels through the traveling route designated in the traveling request. The traveling request may designate the departure point and arrival point of the vehicle, and the route therebetween may be previously determined depending on the departure point and the arrival point”, paragraph [0030], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a functional configuration of the vehicle control system according to the present embodiment. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the vehicle control system according to the present embodiment comprises a plurality of vehicle controllers 1, a plurality of zone controllers 2, a host system 3 (issuance unit), and a setting update system 4”, paragraph [0036], “The zone controller 2 is installed per zone in the area, wirelessly communicates with the vehicle controller 1 of the vehicle traveling in each zone, and communicates with the host system 3 via a LAN constructed in the area”, and paragraph [0064], “FIGS. 9A and 9B are the explanatory diagrams for explaining traveling request information, where FIG. 9A is a diagram illustrating exemplary traveling request information received by the calculation unit 41. The traveling request information illustrated in FIG. 9A includes traveling request ID, traveling route designated by each traveling request, and the number of issuances of each traveling request. For example, the traveling request A with the traveling request ID of A designates a raveling route from zone 1 to zone 8, and is issued 30 times per hour. This indicates that 30 vehicles per hour move from zone 1 to zone 8 in response to the traveling request A. FIG. 9B is a diagram illustrating the traveling routes designated by the respective traveling requests in FIG. 9A on the area of FIG. 7 in broken lines.”), determines a moving route for each of all the agents in the control area of the integrated control area, which is managed by the first local computing section (See at least paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range” and paragraph [0064], “FIGS. 9A and 9B are the explanatory diagrams for explaining traveling request information, where FIG. 9A is a diagram illustrating exemplary traveling request information received by the calculation unit 41. The traveling request information illustrated in FIG. 9A includes traveling request ID, traveling route designated by each traveling request, and the number of issuances of each traveling request. For example, the traveling request A with the traveling request ID of A designates a raveling route from zone 1 to zone 8, and is issued 30 times per hour. This indicates that 30 vehicles per hour move from zone 1 to zone 8 in response to the traveling request A. FIG. 9B is a diagram illustrating the traveling routes designated by the respective traveling requests in FIG. 9A on the area of FIG. 7 in broken lines.”), sets the moving route from the initial position to the target position based on a condition that the agent does not exist in the control area which is not managed by the first local computing section (See at least paragraph [0027], “The traveling request designates a traveling route of the vehicle. The vehicle travels through the traveling route designated in the traveling request. The traveling request may designate the departure point and arrival point of the vehicle, and the route therebetween may be previously determined depending on the departure point and the arrival point”, paragraph [0036], “The zone controller 2 is installed per zone in the area, wirelessly communicates with the vehicle controller 1 of the vehicle traveling in each zone, and communicates with the host system 3 via a LAN constructed in the area”, and paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range.” The system sets a moving route from a departure point to an arrival point by a zone controller that controls vehicles only within its managed zone, such that route setting is performed based on the condition that the vehicle exists within the control area managed by that controller.), and transmits a determination result to another local computing section for the integrated control area (See at least paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range.”); and the another local computing section determines the moving route for the agent to be managed by the another local computing section on the assumption that the transmitted moving route exists (See at least paragraph [0037], “The zone controller 2 receives a traveling request from the host system 3, assigns a vehicle traveling in a zone to the received traveling request to generate a traveling instruction, and transmits the generated traveling instruction to the vehicle controller 1 of each vehicle. When the traveling request is previously assigned with a vehicle, the zone controller 2 transmits the traveling request received from the host system 3 to each vehicle controller 1.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take and Yoshida such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position, for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), and having an initial position of the agent and a target position of the agent located in the different control areas, wherein: among a plurality of local computing sections, a first local computing section for managing the initial position sets an integrated control area for integrating all control areas from the initial position to the target position, determines a moving route for each of all the agents in the control area of the integrated control area, which is managed by the first local computing section, sets the moving route from the initial position to the target position based on a condition that the agent does not exist in the control area which is not managed by the first local computing section, and transmits a determination result to another local computing section for the integrated control area; and the another local computing section determines the moving route for the agent to be managed by the another local computing section on the assumption that the transmitted moving route exists, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0027], [0030], [0036], [0037], [0044], [0064].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].). The motivation for doing so would be reducing vehicle clog and increasing working effiency, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0003].).
With respect to claim 9, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 3, which is commensurate in scope to claim 9, with claim 3 being drawn to an agent mapping system and claim 9 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 4, Hosokawa and Take teach The agent management system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the local computing section determines the moving route in response to an instruction from a task management unit for managing the target position of the agent in the management area (See at least paragraph [0037], “The zone controller 2 receives a traveling request from the host system 3, assigns a vehicle traveling in a zone to the received traveling request to generate a traveling instruction, and transmits the generated traveling instruction to the vehicle controller 1 of each vehicle. When the traveling request is previously assigned with a vehicle, the zone controller 2 transmits the traveling request received from the host system 3 to each vehicle controller 1” and paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range.”); and upon updating of the target position of each agent, the task management unit preferentially allocates the target position in the control area where a target agent exists (See at least paragraph [0027], “The traveling request designates a traveling route of the vehicle. The vehicle travels through the traveling route designated in the traveling request. The traveling request may designate the departure point and arrival point of the vehicle, and the route therebetween may be previously determined depending on the departure point and the arrival point” and paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take and Yoshida such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position, for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), and wherein: the local computing section determines the moving route in response to an instruction from a task management unit for managing the target position of the agent in the management area; and upon updating of the target position of each agent, the task management unit preferentially allocates the target position in the control area where a target agent exists, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0027], [0037], [0044].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].). The motivation for doing so would be reducing vehicle clog and increasing working effiency, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0003].).
Regarding Claim 5, Hosokawa and Take teach The agent management system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the local computing section determiners the moving route in response to an instruction from a task management section for managing the target position of the agent in the management area (See at least paragraph [0037], “The zone controller 2 receives a traveling request from the host system 3, assigns a vehicle traveling in a zone to the received traveling request to generate a traveling instruction, and transmits the generated traveling instruction to the vehicle controller 1 of each vehicle. When the traveling request is previously assigned with a vehicle, the zone controller 2 transmits the traveling request received from the host system 3 to each vehicle controller 1” and paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range.”); and upon updating of the target position of each agent, the task management unit calculates a priority order of the control area through which the agent passes so as not to make the number of agents in each of the control areas beyond a throughput of the local computing section corresponding to the control area when allocating the target position that requires passage through a plurality of control areas (See at least paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range” and paragraph [0064], “FIGS. 9A and 9B are the explanatory diagrams for explaining traveling request information, where FIG. 9A is a diagram illustrating exemplary traveling request information received by the calculation unit 41. The traveling request information illustrated in FIG. 9A includes traveling request ID, traveling route designated by each traveling request, and the number of issuances of each traveling request. For example, the traveling request A with the traveling request ID of A designates a raveling route from zone 1 to zone 8, and is issued 30 times per hour. This indicates that 30 vehicles per hour move from zone 1 to zone 8 in response to the traveling request A. FIG. 9B is a diagram illustrating the traveling routes designated by the respective traveling requests in FIG. 9A on the area of FIG. 7 in broken lines.” The system issues traveling requests such that the number of vehicles in each control area (Zone) is maintained within a set range when allocating routes that pass through a plurality of control areas, which corresponds to calculating a priority order of control areas so as not to exceed throughput.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take and Yoshida such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position, for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), and wherein: the local computing section determiners the moving route in response to an instruction from a task management section for managing the target position of the agent in the management area; and upon updating of the target position of each agent, the task management unit calculates a priority order of the control area through which the agent passes so as not to make the number of agents in each of the control areas beyond a throughput of the local computing section corresponding to the control area when allocating the target position that requires passage through a plurality of control areas, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0037], [0044], [0064].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].). The motivation for doing so would be reducing vehicle clog and increasing working effiency, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0003].).
Regarding Claim 6, Hosokawa and Take teach The agent management system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein it is possible to change division into the control area in an optional timing so long as the number of agents beyond a throughput of the local computing section corresponding to the control area do not exist (See at least paragraph [0044], “The host system 3 issues a traveling request based on traveling performance information received from the zone controllers 2 or a range of the number of vehicles updated in the setting update system 4. The traveling request is issued such that the number of vehicles in each zone is within the set range. The host system 3 transmits the issued traveling request to each zone controller 2 thereby to control the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range. For example, the host system 3 moves a vehicle from a zone in which more vehicles beyond the set ranges travels to other zone, and controls the number of vehicles in each zone within the set range.” The system manages control areas (Zones) under a constraint that the number of vehicles in each Zone is maintained within a set range. Accordingly, the division of control areas may be changed at an optional timing so long as the number of vehicles in each resulting control area does not exceed the corresponding throughput.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take and Yoshida such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position, for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), and wherein it is possible to change division into the control area in an optional timing so long as the number of agents beyond a throughput of the local computing section corresponding to the control area do not exist, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0044].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].). The motivation for doing so would be reducing vehicle clog and increasing working effiency, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0003].).
Regarding Claim 7, Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida teach The agent management system according to claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a route planning is performed not to cause a direction change in the moving route at a boundary between the control area to be managed by the first local computing section and the control area to be managed by another local computing section (See at least paragraph [0027], “The traveling request designates a traveling route of the vehicle. The vehicle travels through the traveling route designated in the traveling request. The traveling request may designate the departure point and arrival point of the vehicle, and the route therebetween may be previously determined depending on the departure point and the arrival point” and paragraph [0064], “FIGS. 9A and 9B are the explanatory diagrams for explaining traveling request information, where FIG. 9A is a diagram illustrating exemplary traveling request information received by the calculation unit 41. The traveling request information illustrated in FIG. 9A includes traveling request ID, traveling route designated by each traveling request, and the number of issuances of each traveling request. For example, the traveling request A with the traveling request ID of A designates a raveling route from zone 1 to zone 8, and is issued 30 times per hour. This indicates that 30 vehicles per hour move from zone 1 to zone 8 in response to the traveling request A. FIG. 9B is a diagram illustrating the traveling routes designated by the respective traveling requests in FIG. 9A on the area of FIG. 7 in broken lines.” The system plans a single traveling route from an initial Zone to a target Zone across a plurality of Zones, with the route determined between the departure point and arrival point as a whole. Under such route planning, the route is not redefined at the boundary between control areas, thereby avoiding a direction change at the boundary.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Hosokawa with the teachings of Take and Yoshida such that the mobile object management system of Hosokawa is further configured to utilize a local computing section for determining a moving route for movement of the agent from an initial position to a target position, for determining the moving route to be given to the agent in the control area, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0036].), and having an initial position of the agent and a target position of the agent located in the different control areas, wherein: among a plurality of local computing sections, a first local computing section for managing the initial position sets an integrated control area for integrating all control areas from the initial position to the target position, determines a moving route for each of all the agents in the control area of the integrated control area, which is managed by the first local computing section, sets the moving route from the initial position to the target position based on a condition that the agent does not exist in the control area which is not managed by the first local computing section, and transmits a determination result to another local computing section for the integrated control area; and the another local computing section determines the moving route for the agent to be managed by the another local computing section on the assumption that the transmitted moving route exists, and wherein a route planning is performed not to cause a direction change in the moving route at a boundary between the control area to be managed by the first local computing section and the control area to be managed by another local computing section, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0027], [0030], [0036], [0037], [0044], [0064].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be decreasing the communication load, as taught by Take (See paragraph [0005].). The motivation for doing so would be reducing vehicle clog and increasing working effiency, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0003].).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666