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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
a transition position defining an area at which a target object is placed during a transition from one process to a subsequent process in the cargo handling operation,
a stopping position defining an area for a transport vehicle, and
a third area, wherein the one process includes moving the target object between the third area and the transition position, and the subsequent process includes moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position;
based on the subsequent process being performable, transmit an instruction to the industrial vehicle to perform the subsequent process including moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a transition position defining an area at which a target object is placed during a transition from one process to a subsequent process in the cargo handling operation.” While there is a mention of “transition position E4” in [0033] of the pg-pub in the instant application, there is not a specific mention of a “transition position” that defines “an area at which a target object is placed during a transition from one process to a subsequent process in the cargo handling operation.”
Claim 1 recites “a stopping position defining an area for a transport vehicle.” While there is a mention of “stopping area E1” in [0033] of the pg-pub in the instant application, an area is not equal to a position. There is no “stopping position” in the specification. Also, there is no mention in the specification of a specific “stopping position” that defines “an area for a transport vehicle.”
Claim 1 recites “a third area.” There is no mention of a third area in the specification. Furthermore, there is no mention in the specification of “wherein the one process includes moving the target object between the third area and the transition position.”
Claim 1 recites “the subsequent process includes moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position.” As shown above, there is no “stopping position” in the specification. There is also no “subsequent process” that includes “moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position.”
Claim 1 recites “based on the subsequent process being performable, transmit an instruction to the industrial vehicle to perform the subsequent process including moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position.” As shown above, there is no “stopping position” in the specification. There is also no “based on the subsequent process being performable, transmit an instruction to the industrial vehicle to perform the subsequent process” that includes “moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position.”
The dependent claims inherit these deficiencies by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 1-4, 9 and 12 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 1 recites the limitations “a transition position defining an area” and “a stopping position defining an area.” It is unclear how a position defines an area in each of these instances.
Claim 1 recites “a third area.” It is unclear how this area is a third area when a first and second area have not been established.
The dependent claims inherit these deficiencies by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (JP-2022155856-A).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses:
A cargo handling system in which an industrial vehicle performs cargo handling operation, the cargo handling system comprising:
the industrial vehicle (Sato: pg 1; abstract; cargo handling vehicles 20);
a work site where the industrial vehicle performs a cargo handling operation, wherein the work site comprises a plurality of areas that are separately arranged from each other in a plan view of the work site (Sato: pg 21; Fig 1; cargo receiving area / pickup area 51; traveling area 52; loading area 53; parking area 54; cargo handling area 55; pg 2; para 4 – 13; cargo handling by the cargo handling vehicle 20 in multiple areas; Fig 3; pg 4; pg 5, last para – pg 6, para 5; S1-7), the plurality of areas comprising:
a transition position defining an area at which a target object is placed during a transition from one process to a subsequent process in the cargo handling operation (Sato: pg 21; Fig 1; cargo receiving area / pickup area 51; pg 2; para 4 – 13; pg 23; Fig 3; pg 4, last para – pg 6, para 5; Fig 3; pg 4; S1-3),
a stopping position defining an area for a transport vehicle (Sato: pg 21; Fig 1; loading area 53; parking area 54; cargo handling area 55; pg 2; para 4 – 13; Fig 3; pg 4, last para – pg 6, para 5; Fig 3; pg 4; S4), and
a third area, wherein the one process includes moving the target object between the third area and the transition position, and the subsequent process includes moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position (Sato: pg 21; Fig 1; traveling area 52 with double sided arrows; pg 2; para 4 – 13; Fig 3; pg 4, last para – pg 6, para 5; Fig 3; pg 4; S1-4; it is noted that since the traveling area 52 has double sided arrows, the Sato mapping of the “transition position” and “stopping position” can also be flipped with traveling area 52 still in the middle as the “third area”);
a camera provided at a position in the work site different from the industrial vehicle and configured to monitor a state of the transition position (Sato: pg 21; Fig 1; cameras 61 and 62; pg 2; last para – pg 3, para 2); and
a processor configured to:
determine whether the subsequent process is performable based on information acquired by the camera about the transition position (Sato: pg 3, para 1; first photographing camera 61 is provided in each pickup area 51 , acquires an image of the cargo handling vehicle 20 in the pickup area 51; S3; pg 5, para 8; the control unit 37 controls the operations of the plurality of cargo handling vehicles 20 to automatically travel the travel area 52 along the travel route set in step S1 (step S3); pg 8, para 8; in step S4 of the cargo handling process, the fact that the cargo handling vehicle 20 has entered the cargo handling area 55 (the end of the automatic traveling) is detected by the first photographing camera 61 or the second photographing camera provided in the work area 10; Fig 3; pg 4; S1-4; pg 4, last para – pg 6, para 5;), and
based on the subsequent process being performable, transmit an instruction to the industrial vehicle to perform the subsequent process including moving the target object between the transition position and the stopping position (Sato: pg 21; Fig 1; traveling area 52 with double sided arrows; pg 2; para 4 – 13; Fig 3; pg 4, last para – pg 6, para 5; pg 4; S1-4; it is noted that since the traveling area 52 has double sided arrows, the Sato mapping of the “transition position” and “stopping position” can also be flipped with traveling area 52 still in the middle).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP-2022155856-A) in view of Anderson-Sprecher (US 2025/0109002).
Regarding claim 2,
Sato teaches:
The cargo handling system according to claim 1 (as shown above),
Sato fails to teach:
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the subsequent process is performable based on removal of the target object having been present from the transition position.
Anderson-Sprecher teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the subsequent process is performable based on removal of the target object having been present from the transition position (Anderson-Sprecher: Fig 3B, 10B; [0090]; [0092]-[0093]; [0096]; [0109]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Anderson-Sprecher with Sato. Using obstacle detection, removal and/or an alternate path of Anderson-Sprecher would benefit the Sato device by enhancing safety and increasing efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using obstacle detection, removal and/or an alternate path, to a known device ready for improvement, the Sato device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Sato in view of Anderson-Sprecher teaches:
The cargo handling system according to claim 2, wherein the target object is a pallet (Sato: Fig 1; pallet (loading platform) 70; pg 2, para 4; Anderson-Sprecher: Fig 3B, 10B; [0049]-[0050]; [0105]-[0106]).
Regarding claim 9,
Sato teaches:
The cargo handling system according to claim 1,
wherein the cargo handling system further comprises a second industrial vehicle configured to perform the one process (Sato: pg 1; abstract; Fig 1, pg 21, pg 2, para 12-13 ), and
Sato fails to teach:
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the subsequent process is performable based on removal of the target object from the transition position by the industrial vehicle or the second industrial vehicle.
Anderson-Sprecher teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the subsequent process is performable based on removal of the target object from the transition position by the industrial vehicle or the second industrial vehicle (Anderson-Sprecher: Fig 3B, 10B; [0090]; [0092]-[0093]; [0096]; [0109]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Anderson-Sprecher with Sato. Using obstacle detection, removal and/or an alternate path of Anderson-Sprecher would benefit the Sato device by enhancing safety and increasing efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using obstacle detection, removal and/or an alternate path, to a known device ready for improvement, the Sato device, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP-2022155856-A) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2025/0083936).
Regarding claim 3,
Sato teaches:
The cargo handling system according to claim 1 (as shown above),
Sato fails to teach:
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the subsequent process is performable based on arrival of the target object at the transition position.
Yamaguchi teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the subsequent process is performable based on arrival of the target object at the transition position (Yamaguchi: Fig 8; loading operation; [0092]; [0101]-[0104]; S16; forklift control unit 21e executes the loading control (dropping off control) at the stage of reaching the motion place in this manner (step S16)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yamaguchi with Sato. Adding the safety features / possibility / impossibility of Yamaguchi would benefit the Sato teachings by enhancing safety. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, adding safety features, to a known device ready for improvement, the Sato device, to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st-2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M PONTIUS whose telephone number is (571)270-7687. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/JAMES M PONTIUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights