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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/026219 filed on 06/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a safety level" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a safety level" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a safety level" in line 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 7 is directed to an apparatus and claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 7 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A path specification system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do path specification process, wherein the path specification process includes:
acquiring information on a center of gravity of an object loaded on a mobile body; and
specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “specifying” and “determined” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A path specification system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do path specification process, wherein the path specification process includes:
acquiring information on a center of gravity of an object loaded on a mobile body; and
specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring step from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information specifying and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 7 further recite “at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do path specification process, wherein the path specification process includes” and “at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do path specification process, wherein the path specification process includes” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of acquiring information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely have additional steps such as “acquiring”, “determining”, “generating”, “calculating” and “specifying”. Therefore, dependent claims 10-14 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 20200002143 A1) in view of Emoto JP2020166737A (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Hasegawa teaches A path specification system comprising (see at least [¶01, 07 & 067]):
at least one memory storing instructions; and (see at least [¶028-030])
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do path specification process, wherein the path specification process includes (see at least [¶028-030]):
acquiring information on a center of gravity of an object loaded on a mobile body; and (Acquiring information on a center of gravity (centroid) of an object loaded onto a mobile body (forklift).see at least [¶033 & 072])
Hasegawa does not explicitly teach specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object.
However, Emoto does teach specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object (Specifying/generating a path/route to where an object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level/rollover risk in transporting the object in the mobile body (transport vehicle) determined based on a control value (number of steering) for controlling the transport vehicle and information on the center of gravity/eccentricity of the object. see at least [¶029-032, 058-078, 082-083 & 085]).
Emoto would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of travel control system for transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa to use the technique of specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object as taught by Emoto. Doing so would lead to a decreased rollover risk when controlling a transport vehicle leading to increased safety (see at least [¶085]).
Regarding Claims 2, 8 and 14, Hasegawa and Emoto teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13 as shown above, furthermore, Emoto teaches wherein the path specification process further includes acquiring information on an obstacle that is present in an area that may be specified as the path (Acquiring information on obstacles present in an area that may be specified as the path/route. see at least [¶029-032 & 073]),
and the safety level is determined based on the control value, the information on the center of gravity of the object, and the information on the obstacle (The safety level/rollover risk is determined based on a control value (number of steering) for controlling the transport vehicle, obstacle information and information on the center of gravity/eccentricity of the object. see at least [¶029-032, 058-078, 082-083 & 085]).
Emoto would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of travel control system for transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa to use the technique of the path specification process further includes acquiring information on an obstacle that is present in an area that may be specified as the path and the safety level is determined based on the control value, the information on the center of gravity of the object, and the information on the obstacle as taught by Emoto. Doing so would lead to a decreased rollover risk when controlling a transport vehicle leading to increased safety (see at least [¶085]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hasegawa teaches A path specification apparatus comprising (see at least [¶01, 07 & 067]):
at least one memory storing instructions; and (see at least [¶028-030])
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do path specification process, wherein the path specification process includes (see at least [¶028-030]):
acquiring information on a center of gravity of an object loaded on a mobile body; and (Acquiring information on a center of gravity (centroid) of an object loaded onto a mobile body (forklift).see at least [¶033 & 072])
Hasegawa does not explicitly teach specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object.
However, Emoto does teach specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object (Specifying/generating a path/route to where an object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level/rollover risk in transporting the object in the mobile body (transport vehicle) determined based on a control value (number of steering) for controlling the transport vehicle and information on the center of gravity/eccentricity of the object. see at least [¶029-032, 058-078, 082-083 & 085]).
Emoto would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of travel control system for transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa to use the technique of specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object as taught by Emoto. Doing so would lead to a decreased rollover risk when controlling a transport vehicle leading to increased safety (see at least [¶085]).
Regarding Claim 13, Hasegawa teaches A path specification method comprising (see at least [¶01, 07 & 067]):
acquiring information on a center of gravity of an object loaded on a mobile body; and (Acquiring information on a center of gravity (centroid) of an object loaded onto a mobile body (forklift).see at least [¶033 & 072])
Hasegawa does not explicitly teach specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object.
However, Emoto does teach specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object (Specifying/generating a path/route to where an object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level/rollover risk in transporting the object in the mobile body (transport vehicle) determined based on a control value (number of steering) for controlling the transport vehicle and information on the center of gravity/eccentricity of the object. see at least [¶029-032, 058-078, 082-083 & 085]).
Emoto would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of travel control system for transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa to use the technique of specifying a path to a place where the object is unloaded in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on a control value for controlling the mobile body and information on the center of gravity of the object as taught by Emoto. Doing so would lead to a decreased rollover risk when controlling a transport vehicle leading to increased safety (see at least [¶085]).
Claims 3, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 20200002143 A1) in view of Emoto JP2020166737A (English Translation) in view of Schulz ‘530 DE102020206530A1 (English Translation).
Regarding Claims 3, 9 and 15, Hasegawa and Emoto teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13 as shown above, Hasegawa and Emoto do not explicitly teach wherein the safety level is determined based on the control value, the information on the center of gravity of the object, and information on a combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object.
However, Schulz ‘530 does teach wherein the safety level is determined based on the control value, the information on the center of gravity of the object, and information on a combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object (The safety level is determined based on control values (speed or acceleration) information on the center of gravity of the objects and information on a combined center of gravity of the forklift and object. see at least [¶012, 015-019, 024-025 & 048-052]).
Schulz ’530 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling forklift based on the center of gravity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa and Emoto to use the technique of having the safety level is determined based on the control value, the information on the center of gravity of the object, and information on a combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object as taught by Schulz ‘530. Doing so would lead to reduced possibility of a forklift tipping during operation (see at least [¶024-025]).
Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 20200002143 A1) in view of Emoto JP2020166737A (English Translation) in view of Schulz ‘552 DE102020206552A1 (English Translation).
Regarding Claims 4, 10 and 16, Hasegawa and Emoto teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13 as shown above, Hasegawa and Emoto do not explicitly teach the path specification process further includes performing control for adjusting a position of the mobile body where the object is loaded based on the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object, and the specifying the path is specifying the path in accordance with the safety level of a result of performing the control for the adjustment.
However, Schulz ‘552 does teach the path specification process further includes performing control for adjusting a position of the mobile body where the object is loaded based on the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object (Controlling the position of the forklift where the object is loaded based on the combined center of gravity of the forklift and object. see at least [¶011-014, 028 & 040-042]),
and the specifying the path is specifying the path in accordance with the safety level of a result of performing the control for the adjustment (Generating/specifying the path/trajectory in accordance with a safety level/tipping risk of a result of performing the controlling adjustment. see at least [¶011-014, 028 & 040-042]).
Schulz ‘552 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling forklift based on the center of gravity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa and Emoto to use the technique of having the path specification process further includes performing control for adjusting a position of the mobile body where the object is loaded based on the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object, and the specifying the path is specifying the path in accordance with the safety level of a result of performing the control for the adjustment as taught by Schulz ‘552. Doing so would lead to reducing the possibility of a forklift tipping over (see at least [¶014]).
Claims 5-6, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 20200002143 A1) in view of Emoto JP2020166737A (English Translation) in view of Nagasaki JP2023017275A (English Translation).
Regarding Claims 5, 11 and 17, Hasegawa and Emoto teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13 as shown above, Hasegawa and Emoto do not explicitly teach generating a temporary path in accordance with map information including a range in which the mobile body may move; calculating the control value for enabling the mobile body to travel along the generated temporary path; performing at least one of processing for calculating a force applied to the center of gravity of the object in accordance with the calculated control value and the information on the center of gravity of the object or processing for calculating a force applied to the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object in accordance with the calculated control value and the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object; and determining the safety level in accordance with the calculated force, wherein the specifying the path is specifying the path based on the determined safety level and the generated temporary path.
However, Nagasaki does teach generating a temporary path in accordance with map information including a range in which the mobile body may move (Generating a temporary path/route in accordance with map information that includes a range/area in which the cargo vehicle can move. see at least [¶027 & 052-053]);
calculating the control value for enabling the mobile body to travel along the generated temporary path (Calculating the control value/speed that enables the cargo vehicle to travel along the generated temporary path/route. see at least [¶047, 062-066 & 074-077]);
performing at least one of processing for calculating a force applied to the center of gravity of the object in accordance with the calculated control value and the information on the center of gravity of the object or processing for calculating a force applied to the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object in accordance with the calculated control value and the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object (Calculating a force/load applied to the center of gravity of the object and vehicle in accordance with the calculated control value/speed and the center of gravity of the object and vehicle. see at least [¶059-063 & 069-071]);
and determining the safety level in accordance with the calculated force, wherein the specifying the path is specifying the path based on the determined safety level and the generated temporary path (Determining the safety level/tipping stability in accordance with the calculated force/load. Specifying the path/route is based on the determined safety level and the generated temporary paths/routes. see at least [¶03, 047, 049, 070 & 085-091]).
Nagasaki would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling a cargo vehicle with a load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa and Emoto to use the technique of generating a temporary path in accordance with map information including a range in which the mobile body may move; calculating the control value for enabling the mobile body to travel along the generated temporary path; performing at least one of processing for calculating a force applied to the center of gravity of the object in accordance with the calculated control value and the information on the center of gravity of the object or processing for calculating a force applied to the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object in accordance with the calculated control value and the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object; and determining the safety level in accordance with the calculated force, wherein the specifying the path is specifying the path based on the determined safety level and the generated temporary path as taught by Nagasaki. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle safety when traveling along a desired route with an object loaded on the vehicle (see at least [¶049 & 070]).
Regarding Claims 6, 12 and 18, Hasegawa and Emoto teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13 as shown above, Hasegawa and Emoto do not explicitly teach calculating an acceptable range of the control value based on at least one of the information on the center of gravity of the object or the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object; generating a temporary path in accordance with map information including a range in which the mobile body may move; and specifying the control value for enabling the mobile body to move along the generated temporary path in accordance with the calculated acceptable range, wherein the specifying the path is specifying the path in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on the specified control value and the generated temporary path.
However, Nagasaki does teach calculating an acceptable range of the control value based on at least one of the information on the center of gravity of the object or the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object (Calculating an acceptable range of the control value/speed based on the center of gravity of the object and the cargo vehicle. see at least [¶047 & 063-071]);
generating a temporary path in accordance with map information including a range in which the mobile body may move (Generating a temporary path/route in accordance with map information that includes a range/area in which the cargo vehicle can move. see at least [¶027 & 052-053]);
and specifying the control value for enabling the mobile body to move along the generated temporary path in accordance with the calculated acceptable range (Specifying the control value/speed that enables the cargo vehicle to move along the generated temporary path in accordance with the calculated acceptable speed range. see at least [¶072-075 & 085-090]),
wherein the specifying the path is specifying the path in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on the specified control value and the generated temporary path (Specifying the path/route in accordance with a safety level/tipping stability in transporting the object in the cargo vehicle determined based on the specified control value/speed and generated temporary path/route. see at least [¶047, 049, 070 & 085-091]).
Nagasaki would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling a cargo vehicle with a load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Hasegawa and Emoto to use the technique of calculating an acceptable range of the control value based on at least one of the information on the center of gravity of the object or the information on the combined center of gravity of the mobile body and the object; generating a temporary path in accordance with map information including a range in which the mobile body may move; and specifying the control value for enabling the mobile body to move along the generated temporary path in accordance with the calculated acceptable range, wherein the specifying the path is specifying the path in accordance with a safety level in conveying the object in the mobile body determined based on the specified control value and the generated temporary path as taught by Nagasaki. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle safety when traveling along a desired route with an object loaded on the vehicle (see at least [¶049 & 070]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MOVING BODY CONTROL SYSTEM, CONTROL APPARATUS, AND MOVING BODY CONTROL METHOD (US 20230315113 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 866-2
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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667