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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the section titled “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103” starting on page 5 of the reply filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of, for example, newly indicated prior art of record Satake (US 2023/0249688 A1).
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu (US 2025/0182025 A1), in view of Satake (US 2023/0249688 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses an article transport facility (In paragraph [0087], Chu discloses an intelligent horizontal transportation system for automatic loading or unloading at a container terminal that comprises a plurality of autonomous transport robots (ATRs) and an ATR control system) comprising:
a plurality of transport vehicles configured to travel along a predetermined route (In paragraphs [0087-0088], Chu discloses an intelligent horizontal transportation system for automatic loading or unloading at a container terminal that comprises a plurality of autonomous transport robots (ATRs) and an ATR control system, where a task scheduling module is configured to determine a horizontal transportation operational plan for loading and unloading ships and shifting containers, generate an initial transport path based on the horizontal transportation operational plan and real-time positions of the plurality of ATRs within the container terminal, optimize the initial transport path based on principles of minimizing operation time and minimizing operation path, and assign the optimized transport path to at least one ATR; see also paragraph [0132] where a traffic management module is configured to real-time detect number and positions of external container trucks at an intersection located at an entrance or exit of a storage yard using a vehicle-road coordination technology, and real-time determine a passing order of the ATRs at the intersection based on the real-time number and positions of external container trucks); and
a control device configured to control the transport vehicles (In paragraph [0087], Chu discloses that the ATR control system is in real-time communication with the plurality of ATRs, and is configured to manage and control the plurality of ATRs), and
wherein:
the control device is configured to execute merging control for controlling operations of a plurality of the transport vehicles in a merging area where a plurality of portions of the route merge (In paragraph [0087], Chu discloses that the ATR control system comprises a traffic management module; in paragraph [0132], Chu discloses that the traffic management module is configured to real-time detect number and positions of external container trucks at an intersection located at an entrance or exit of a storage yard using a vehicle-road coordination technology, and real-time determine a passing order of the ATRs at the intersection based on the real-time number and positions of external container trucks),
the merging control comprises a sequencing process of determining an order of passage in which a plurality of passage target vehicles pass through the merging area, the plurality of passage target vehicles comprising a plurality of the transport vehicles that are going to pass through the merging area concurrently (In paragraph [0132], Chu discloses that the traffic management module is configured to real-time detect number and positions of external container trucks at an intersection located at an entrance or exit of a storage yard using a vehicle-road coordination technology, and real-time determine a passing order of the ATRs at the intersection based on the real-time number and positions of external container trucks),
in the sequencing process, the control device is configured to determine the order of passage according to waiting time indices for the plurality of passage target vehicles that are determined based on waiting times of the plurality of vehicles at the merging area (In paragraphs [0132-0141], Chu discloses example strategies for dynamically adjusting the passing order and path of the ATRs, for example, when the waiting time for an external container truck exceeds 20 minutes or when the number of waiting external container trucks exceeds three, external container trucks are given forced priority to pass; the Examiner understands the adjusted order and path priority to be waiting time indices under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that they are adjusted based on waiting time, e.g. when the waiting time for an external container truck exceeds 20 minutes, and therefore indicate at least waiting time), and
the waiting time indices are each determined by correcting the waiting time using a correction coefficient determined based on a status of each of the plurality of passage target vehicles (In paragraph [0107], Chu discloses that when multiple ATRs approach a key section of the container terminal, the algorithm uses the priority of the operation tasks to intelligently generate the passing order, driving speed, coordinates, path, and timing of the ATRs, achieving coordinated multi-vehicle driving and avoiding collisions and congestion; in paragraphs [0132-0141], Chu discloses example strategies for dynamically adjusting the passing order and path of the ATRs, for example, inside the container terminal, the ATRs are given higher priority than the external container trucks, and when the waiting time for an external container truck exceeds 20 minutes or when the number of waiting external container trucks exceeds three, external container trucks are given forced priority to pass; the Examiner understands the priority adjustment to include at least a correction coefficient which corrects the waiting time under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the waiting time indices as described above are adjusted based on various statuses of the vehicles).
Chu does not explicitly disclose in the sequencing process, the control device is configured to determine the order of passage according to waiting time indices for the plurality of passage target vehicles that are determined based on waiting times of the plurality of passage target vehicles at the merging area, and
in the sequencing process, the control device is configured to compare the waiting time indices for the plurality of passage target vehicles and allow the passage target vehicle with a highest waiting time index to pass through the merging area before the other passage target vehicles.
However, Satake teaches a plurality of transport vehicles configured to travel along a predetermined route (In paragraph [0025], Satake teaches an autonomous distributed traffic control system 1000 which includes vehicle control devices 200 provided to autonomous driving vehicles 10); and
a control device configured to control the transport vehicles (In paragraph [0025], Satake teaches an autonomous distributed traffic control system 1000 which includes vehicle control devices 200 provided to autonomous driving vehicles 10), and
wherein:
the control device is configured to execute merging control for controlling operations of a plurality of the transport vehicles in a merging area where a plurality of portions of the route merge (In paragraph [0049], Satake teaches that all the autonomous driving vehicles 10 controlled by the autonomous distributed traffic control system 1000 according to the first embodiment operate as described above, whereby, at the intersection CR, the vehicles can enter the intersection CR in the order from the vehicle that has been stopped or waiting for the longest stop time),
the merging control comprises a sequencing process of determining an order of passage in which a plurality of passage target vehicles pass through the merging area, the plurality of passage target vehicles comprising a plurality of the transport vehicles that are going to pass through the merging area concurrently (In paragraph [0049], Satake teaches that all the autonomous driving vehicles 10 controlled by the autonomous distributed traffic control system 1000 according to the first embodiment operate as described above, whereby, at the intersection CR, the vehicles can enter the intersection CR in the order from the vehicle that has been stopped or waiting for the longest stop time),
in the sequencing process, the control device is configured to determine the order of passage according to waiting time indices for the plurality of passage target vehicles that are determined based on waiting times of the plurality of passage target vehicles at the merging area (In paragraph [0049], Satake teaches that all the autonomous driving vehicles 10 controlled by the autonomous distributed traffic control system 1000 according to the first embodiment operate as described above, whereby, at the intersection CR, the vehicles can enter the intersection CR in the order from the vehicle that has been stopped or waiting for the longest stop time), and
in the sequencing process, the control device is configured to compare the waiting time indices for the plurality of passage target vehicles and allow the passage target vehicle with a highest waiting time index to pass through the merging area before the other passage target vehicles (In paragraph [0049], Satake teaches that all the autonomous driving vehicles 10 controlled by the autonomous distributed traffic control system 1000 according to the first embodiment operate as described above, whereby, at the intersection CR, the vehicles can enter the intersection CR in the order from the vehicle that has been stopped or waiting for the longest stop time).
Satake is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining an order of passage at an intersection by allowing vehicles with a highest wait time to pass. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Satake with the facility as taught by Chu, where doing so provides “an effect of achieving smooth traffic at the intersection” as suggested by Satake in paragraph [0054] for example.
Regarding claim 5, Chu further discloses wherein the correction coefficient is set so that the higher a congestion level on a portion of the route where the passage target vehicle is located, the higher the waiting time index (In paragraphs [0132-0141], Chu discloses example strategies for dynamically adjusting the passing order and path of the ATRs, for example, inside the container terminal, the ATRs are given higher priority than the external container trucks, and when the waiting time for an external container truck exceeds 20 minutes or when the number of waiting external container trucks exceeds three, external container trucks are given forced priority to pass; the Examiner understands the number of waiting external container trucks exceeding three to be an example of congestion level on a portion of the route where the passage target vehicle is located).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2025/0182025 A1) and Satake (US 2023/0249688 A1), in view of Otsuki (US 12,062,006 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chu and Satake does not explicitly disclose wherein the correction coefficient is set so that when the passage target vehicle is transporting an article, the waiting time index for the passage target vehicle is higher than when the passage target vehicle is not transporting the article.
However, Otsuki teaches wherein the correction coefficient is set so that when the passage target vehicle is transporting an article, the waiting time index for the passage target vehicle is higher than when the passage target vehicle is not transporting the article (From column 8 line 60 to column 9 line 12, Otsuki teaches that the delivery management server 32 refers to a delivery priority level of the package 60 that the delivery robot 20 is delivering, when determining the order in which the delivery robot 20 passes through the bottleneck section, where the delivery robot 20, whose delivery priority level is zero is not delivering a package, the delivery robot 20 not delivering a package including, for example, the delivery robot 20 having completed the delivery of a package, the delivery robot 20 being on the way to receive a package, and the delivery robot 20 being on standby).
Otsuki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining the priority of vehicles passing depending on if the vehicle is transporting something. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Otsuki with the facility as disclosed by the combination of Chu and Satake, where doing so can increase efficiency of the article transportation, for example, by increasing the contextual sensitivity of the vehicle priority according to a wider variety of variables. For example, doing so may advantageously ensure faster delivery of the articles to their destinations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2025/0182025 A1) and Satake (US 2023/0249688 A1), in view of Choi (US 2018/0239358 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chu and Satake does not explicitly disclose wherein the correction coefficient is set so that when the passage target vehicle is located on a straight segment of the route that merges linearly into the merging area, the waiting time index for the passage target vehicle is higher than when the passage target vehicle is located on a curved segment of the route that merges in a curved manner into the merging area.
However, Choi teaches wherein the correction coefficient is set so that when the passage target vehicle is located on a straight segment of the route that merges linearly into the merging area, the waiting time index for the passage target vehicle is higher than when the passage target vehicle is located on a curved segment of the route that merges in a curved manner into the merging area (In paragraph [0066], Choi teaches that when the vehicles located on different links and roads compete against each other (for example, an intersection, an entry lane, etc.), the waiting time calculation device 132 may, in the case of an intersection, give a higher priority to a straight-ahead vehicle than a left or right-turning vehicle).
Choi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining the priority of vehicles passing depending on if the vehicle is proceeding straight or turning at an intersection. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Choi with the facility as disclosed by the combination of Chu and Satake, where doing so can increase efficiency of the article transportation, for example, by increasing the contextual sensitivity of the vehicle priority according to a wider variety of variables. For example, doing so may advantageously allow vehicle which do not need to decrease their speed at the intersection, i.e. a vehicle proceeding straight rather than requiring turning at an intersection, to maintain their speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights