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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on February 26, 2025. Claims 1-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated July 29, 2026, Examiner maintains all previous rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In contrast to Applicant’s assertions (see Response at p. 6-7), Morris discloses defining loading (i.e., pick-up) and unloading (i.e., desired delivery location) locations for trailers to travel based on, for example, a shipment delivery date request (i.e., move request); see at least Morris at Fig. 6, [0045], [0074]-[0078], and the publication generally. Specifically, [0074] indicates that the flow of information between the trailer assignment and prioritization system and distributed ledger system provides information pertaining to “the location of origin where the cargo is provided to the trailer to the distribution center, warehouse, or other last mile location where the cargo is unloaded from the trailer for distribution to the retail store.” Additionally, these scheduling processes are initiated via, for example, a request “to modify a shipping schedule in response to a shipment delivery date request”; see at least [0045]. Because Morris does explicitly disclose the contended limitations, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0273133 (hereinafter, “Morris”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Morris discloses A remote based control method for autonomous operation (see at least Fig. 1, [0032], and [0066]), comprising:
receiving, at a mission control from a yard management system (YMS), a move request defining a destination spot in a yard and one or more of a trailer identifier of a trailer to be moved, a pick-up spot of the trailer, and a trailer type (see at least Fig. 2, Fig. 6, and [0074]-[0078]; the transportation chain from the location of origin to the destination location (i.e., move request) may be assigned for a given trailer and received at the control unit (i.e., YMS));
determining, at the mission control, whether the move request is feasible for an autonomous vehicle (AV) (see at least [0034], [0039], [0055], [0085], [0095], [0118], and [0120]; various criteria is used to determine whether the trailer is capable of being moved via the AV); and
when the move request is feasible:
generating a mission defining directives to control the AV to move the trailer from the pick-up spot to the destination spot (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, and [0074]-[0078]; a control directive is generated for moving the trailer, via the AV, from the origin (i.e., pick-up spot) to the destination); and
setting, via an application programming interface (API) of the YMS, a status of the move request to indicate autonomous move scheduled (see at least Fig. 4, [0045], [0068], [0075], and [0143]; statuses of the trailers may be determined and updated via, for example, a user interface).
Regarding claim 2, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morris discloses the determining comprising:
determining, based on weather data received at mission control, when operation of the AV is not possible (see at least [0065], [0085], [0112], [0118], and [0145]; weather data may be taken into account to determine whether the trailer is capable of being moved by the AV);
updating an operational schema of the AV to indicate that operation of the AV is not possible (see at least [0065], [0085], [0112], [0118], and [0145]; the status and priority for moving the trailer is updated based on the trailer not being capable of being moved by the AV); and
sending the operational schema to the YMS (see at least Fig. 2, [0065], [0085], [0112], [0118], and [0145]; the updated status and priority is received at the control unit).
Regarding claim 5, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morris discloses setting the status of the move request within the YMS to indicate autonomous move not feasible when the move request is not feasible (see at least [0034], [0039], [0055], [0085], [0095], [0118], and [0120]; various criteria is used to determine whether the trailer is capable of being moved via the AV, and the status of the trailer is updated when the move request isn’t feasible).
Regarding claim 6, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morris discloses when the move request defines the destination spot and one or both of the trailer identifier and the pick-up spot of the trailer, the determining comprising determining that (a) the trailer is parked in the pick-up spot, (b) the destination spot is empty, (c) at least one AV is available and capable of moving the trailer from the pick-up spot to the destination spot, and (d) the move meets certain criteria (see at least [0034], [0039], [0055], [0085], [0095], [0118], and [0120]; various criteria is used to determine whether the trailer is capable of being moved via the AV including the pick-up spot, destination area, and other criteria).
Regarding claim 7, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Morris discloses the criteria comprising at least one of: the trailer being undamaged, there is no inventory issue for the trailer, and there are no issues at a loading dock when at least one of the pick-up spot and the destination spot is a loading dock (see at least [0034], [0039], [0055], [0085], [0095], [0118], and [0120]; various criteria is used to determine whether the trailer is capable of being moved via the AV including the pick-up spot, destination area, and other criteria).
Regarding claim 8, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Morris discloses the issues at the loading dock including a dock light of the loading dock not being green (see at least [0034], [0039], [0055], [0085], [0095], [0118], and [0120]; various criteria is used to determine whether the trailer is capable of being moved via the AV including the pick-up spot, destination area, and other criteria. Examiner notes that the loading dock being available is equivalent to the loading dock being green).
Regarding claim 9, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morris discloses when the move request only defines the trailer identifier and the destination spot, the determining comprising searching an inventory of the YMS to determine the pick-up spot (see at least [0052] and [0092]; the origin spot may be established based on stored information previously collected and stored).
Regarding claim 10, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morris discloses when the move request only defines the trailer type and the destination spot, the determining comprising (a) searching a trailer database of the YMS to determine the trailer identifier of a trailer that matches the trailer type, and (b) searching an inventory of the YMS to determine the pick-up spot for the trailer having the trailer identifier (see at least [0048], [0079]-[0081], [0092], [0126]; the blockchain establishes the trailer identifier, the inventory, and the location(s)).
Regarding claim 11, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morris discloses further comprising:
receiving, at the mission control, a mission status indicative of success from the AV when the mission is completed by the AV (see at least Fig. 2 Fig. 3, [0058], and [0092]-[0093]; each step in the process is updated via the blockchain interface, including the completion of loading/unloading); and
updating the YMS to indicate that the move request is done (see at least Fig. 2 Fig. 3, [0058], and [0092]-[0093]; each step in the process is updated via the blockchain interface, including the completion of loading/unloading, and everything is communicated with the control unit (i.e., YMS)).
Regarding claim 12, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Morris discloses further comprising updating inventory information of the YMS to indicate that the pick-up spot is empty and that the destination spot contains the trailer having the trailer identifier (see at least Fig. 2 Fig. 3, [0058], and [0092]-[0093]; each step in the process is updated via the blockchain interface, including the completion of loading/unloading, and everything is communicated with the control unit (i.e., YMS)).
Regarding claim 13, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morris discloses further comprising:
receiving a mission status from the AV indicating that the AV is unable to complete the mission (see at least [0055] and [0085]; statuses may be updated based on the capability of fulfilling the move request); and
updating the YMS to indicate that the move request is not done (see at least Fig. 2 Fig. 3, [0058], and [0092]-[0093]; each step in the process is updated via the blockchain interface, including the completion of loading/unloading, and everything is communicated with the control unit (i.e., YMS)).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morris.
Regarding claim 3, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Morris does not explicitly disclose the determining further comprising determining that the move request is not feasible when gladhand data indicates that the AV cannot move the trailer. Instead, Examiner asserts that this limitation is an obvious variant to the limitation addressed in claim 5 as both limitation pertain to well-known and interchangeable reasons a move may be infeasible for a trailer. Examiner maintains the right to restrict this claim from examination if it is found to not be an obvious variant.
Regarding claim 4, Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Morris does not explicitly disclose the determining further comprising determining that the move request is not feasible when trailer information indicates that the trailer is damaged. Instead, Examiner asserts that this limitation is an obvious variant to the limitation addressed in claim 5 as both limitation pertain to well-known and interchangeable reasons a move may be infeasible for a trailer. Examiner maintains the right to restrict this claim from examination if it is found to not be an obvious variant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are objected to as depending from an objected claim but may be found allowable if re-written in independent form including all intervening claims. Specific reasons for indicating allowable subject matter will be provided when one or more claims is found to be in a state of allowance.
Additional Relevant Art (previously of record)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0037006 which pertains to remotely operating a vehicle is an inventory management facility; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0359682 which pertains to managing a parking lot including determining empty parking spaces and updating vehicle movement based on the analysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights