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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 03/10/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Status of the Claims
The claims 1-2 and 4-9 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 and cancelled claim 3.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed April 8, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are currently pending in the Application. Applicant's amendments and arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 mental process rejection have been fully considered and they are persuasive. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yoshida fails to teach or suggest the features previously recited in claim 3, as now incorporated into amended independent claims 1 and 8. Applicant additionally argues that Yoshida does not disclose or suggest “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”, “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 that Yoshida’s overall teaching is directed to zone-based population control rather than the presently claimed integrated multi-area route planning and inter-controller coordination (See Applicant’s remarks, pages 14-25). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments do not address the specific findings set forth in the rejection. In particular, the rejection does not rely upon Yoshida in isolation for teaching the argued limitations. Rather, the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida under 35 U.S.C. 103 together with the articulated rationale for combining the references. Hosokawa is relied upon for teaching an agent management system including a management area divided into a plurality of control areas managed by corresponding subsystems. Take is relied upon for teaching distributed route determination from an initial position to a target position and determining a moving route to be given to the agent within the managed control area. Yoshida is relied upon for teaching coordinated routing across multiple zones, communication among distributed controllers, and route coordination between adjacent control areas. Applicant’s arguments repeatedly focus on whether Yoshida alone expressly discloses the claimed terminology. However, obviousness does not require that every limitation be disclosed in a single reference or using identical terminology. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the combined teachings of Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida teach or suggest the argued limitations.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed “integrated control area” are not persuasive because the claims do not recite the additional structural characteristics alleged by the Applicant. The claims broadly recite that a first local computing section sets an integrated control area extending from the initial position to the target position. Yoshida teaches travel routes extending from a departure point to an arrival point across multiple zones (See paragraphs [0027] and [0064].). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the collection of control areas traversed by the designated travel route reasonably corresponds to the claimed integrated control area. The fact that Yoshida utilizes predefined zone partitioning does not preclude a route spanning multiple zones, nor does the claim further define the integrated control area beyond its relationship to the route extending from the initial position to the target position.
Applicant further argues that Yoshida fails to determine moving routes for each of all agents within the integrated control area. However, the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of the cited references. Hosokawa teaches a distributed agent management framework utilizing multiple subsystems assigned to corresponding management regions. Take teaches determining a transport route from a start point to an end point and providing the determined route to the automatic guided vehicle (See paragraph [0036].). Yoshida further teaches coordinated traveling requests for multiple vehicles across multiple zones (See paragraphs [0027], [0037], [0044], [0064].). The rejection does not rely upon regulating vehicle populations as corresponding to the claimed route determination. Rather, the rejection relies upon the distributed routing architecture taught by Hosokawa and Take together with Yoshida’s coordinated multi-zone route planning. Accordingly, the combined teachings reasonably correspond to determining moving routes for agents within an integrated control area.
Applicant additionally argues that Yoshida fails to teach setting the moving route from the initial position to the target position based on the condition that the agent does not exist in the control area not managed by the first local computing section. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection relies upon the combined teachings of the cited references rather than Yoshida alone. Take teaches distributed route planning performed by management devices responsible for respective managed areas. Yoshida likewise teaches that each zone controller generates traveling instructions for vehicles traveling within its designated zone (See paragraph [0037].). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claimed condition reasonably encompasses distributed route planning in which a local computing section performs route determination with respect to its managed control area without considering agents managed by another local computing section during the initial route computation, after which routing information is communicated for subsequent coordinated planning. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification describes an embodiment in which initial route planning is performed by a first local computing section without considering agents managed in another control area before subsequent coordinated planning is performed by another local computing section (See specification paragraph [0084], [0085].). Such an embodiment is consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the combined teachings reasonably correspond to the argued limitation.
Applicant additionally argues that Yoshida fails to teach transmitting a determination result to another local computing section. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoshida teaches communication between the host system and zone controllers, including transmission of traveling requests and traveling performance information (See paragraphs [0037], [0044], [0045].). The rejection further relies on the combined teachings of Take and Yoshida regarding communication and coordination among distributed controllers responsible for respective managed areas. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such communications reasonably correspond to transmitting a determination result between local computing sections within the distributed routing architecture. Applicant’s arguments again rely on importing additional structural limitations into the claims that are not positively recited.
Regarding the limitation reciting that another local computing section determines the moving route on the assumption that the transmitted moving route exists, Applicant argues that Yoshida fails to disclose the claimed dependency. However, the rejection does not rely on Yoshida alone for the limitation. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the combined teachings of Take and Yoshida that subsequent route determination by distributed controllers is performed in recognition of previously determined routing information communicated within the distributed routing system. Yoshida likewise teaches subsequent route planning performed while considering previously determined routes communicated from another controller, therefore reasonably corresponding to the claimed assumption that the transmitted moving route exists. Accordingly, the combined teachings reasonably teach or suggest the argued limitation.
Applicant’s arguments that Yoshida is directed to zone-based population control and therefore teaches a materially different control strategy are not persuasive. The motivation to combine the cited references has been expressly set forth in the rejection and has not been substantively addressed by the Applicant. The Applicant has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from combining the cited references or why the references would have been incompatible. Alleged differences in the primary objectives of the references do not, by themselves, preclude a proper obviousness combination under 35 U.S.C. 103. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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, 3-9 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 1, Hosokawa teaches An agent management system comprising: 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.”); and a local computing section that 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).”); determines the moving route for 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).”), 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).”).
Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches 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.”); wherein the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area (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 [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.”)
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; 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 the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area, 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 8, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1, which is commensurate in scope with claim 8, with claim 1 being drawn to an agent management system and claim 9 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 9, Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida teach The method according to claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa and Take do not explicitly disclose, however, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the initial position of the agent and the target position of the agent being 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; 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 the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area, 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].).
Regarding Claim 4, Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida 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 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; 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; wherein the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area; 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], [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].).
Regarding Claim 5, Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida 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 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; 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; wherein the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area; 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 [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].).
Regarding Claim 6, Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida 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 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; 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; wherein the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area; 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 [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].).
Regarding Claim 7, Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida 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 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; 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; wherein the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area; 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].).
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), Yoshida (US 20150262478 A1), and Woon (US 20180231972 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida teach The agent management system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Hosokawa, Take, and Yoshida 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, Yoshida, 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].), 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; 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 the determined moving route is given to the agent to control movement of the agent from the initial position to the target position in the management area, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0027], [0030], [0036], [0037], [0044], [0064].), 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 reducing vehicle clog and increasing working effiency, as taught by Yoshida (See paragraph [0003].). 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].).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights