DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are pending. Claims 1-4 are considered in this Office 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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 3/5/2025 and 7/24/2026 have been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “unit” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) are in Claims 1-4, and consist of the limitations of “configured to travel…”, “configured to cause…”, and “configured to store articles…”, in Claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20 are directed at use of a “configured to travel…”, “configured to cause…”, and “configured to store articles…”. These means (configurations) are not defined in the specification as to what these configurations would be, other than what functions they perform. For instance, the Specification states:
“[0027] As shown in FIG. 1, the control system 2 is configured to cause the transport vehicles 1 to perform transport processing. In this example, a host control device that performs overall control of the transport vehicles 1 constitutes the control system 2. However, in a broad sense, the control system 2 is constituted by various control devices in the article transport facility 100.”
Which is an exemplary description of what these configurations might be is in the Specification, and the Specification generally states what these configurations are capable of doing, but does not define what these configurations are or how these configurations perform the limitations of the claims. There are no details or description as to how the different elements would be configured to perform these processes/limitations. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 18-20 recites use of “configured to travel…”, “configured to cause…”, and “configured to store articles…”. Applicant’s specification is silent as to what these configurations may be for these as per the specification above, and as best taken from above, this is instructions/software which is in communication with the device. For Examination purposes this will be taken as any hardware which can perform the limitations of the claims.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent, and thus the dependents are similarly rejected.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of, in order to select a target transport vehicle to be caused to perform the transport processing from among a plurality of transport vehicles not holding any article, execute selection processing comprising (i) calculating an evaluation cost for each of the plurality of transport vehicles not holding any article, using a cost whose value is related to a factor affecting a travel time of the corresponding transport vehicle and whose value increases as the travel time is longer (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing transportation of goods, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and (ii) selecting a transport vehicle having a smallest evaluation cost as the target transport vehicle (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing transportation of goods, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and in the selection processing executed in a case where the specific holding section is the transport origin, calculates the evaluation cost based on both a receiving cost and a delivery cost, the receiving cost is the cost corresponding to a travel time from a current position of the corresponding transport vehicle to the transport origin, and the delivery cost is the cost corresponding to a travel time of the corresponding transport vehicle from the transport origin to the transport destination (Analyzing and Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing transportation of goods, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of scheduling transportation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an article transport facility, a plurality of transport vehicles configured to travel along a predetermined travel route and transport an article, a control system configured to cause the plurality of transport vehicles to perform transport processing in which a transport origin and a transport destination are designated for respective articles, and a plurality of article holding sections at respective locations along the travel route and configured to store articles and transfer articles with the plurality of transport vehicles, wherein at least one of the plurality of article holding sections is a specific holding section to and from which an article is transferable by a transport vehicle located in a specific zone among a plurality of specific zones on the travel route, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of scheduling transportation, which is Managing Human Behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Activity, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The article transport facility, plurality of transport vehicles, control system, and plurality of article holding sections are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0028] The control system 2 includes, for example, a processor such as a microcomputer, and a peripheral circuit such as a memory. Processing and functions are realized by cooperation between the hardware and a program executed on the processor of a computer or the like.”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the control system, transport vehicles, etc., nor the transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Handley (U.S. Publication No. 2016/017,1882).
Regarding Claim 1, Handley, an origin-destination estimation system for a transportation system, teaches an article transport facility comprising:
a plurality of transport vehicles configured to travel along a predetermined travel route and transport an article ([0025-27] a plurality of transport vehicles to transport articles and people)
a control system configured to cause the plurality of transport vehicles to perform transport processing in which a transport origin and a transport destination are designated for respective articles ([0024] system to control transportation based on origin and destination) and
a plurality of article holding sections at respective locations along the travel route and configured to store articles and transfer articles with the plurality of transport vehicles ([0038] zones with nodes to store and transfer articles), and
wherein:
at least one of the plurality of article holding sections is a specific holding section to and from which an article is transferable by a transport vehicle located in a specific zone among a plurality of specific zones on the travel route ([0038] zones with nodes to store and transfer articles),
the control system is further configured to, in order to select a target transport vehicle to be caused to perform the transport processing from among a plurality of transport vehicles not holding any article, execute selection processing comprising (i) calculating an evaluation cost for each of the plurality of transport vehicles not holding any article, using a cost whose value is related to a factor affecting a travel time of the corresponding transport vehicle and whose value increases as the travel time is longer, and (ii) selecting a transport vehicle having a smallest evaluation cost as the target transport vehicle ([0042-44] destination/evaluation costs are used to find the lowest and optimized cost for fast performance as in [0026] and [0059]), and
in the selection processing executed in a case where the specific holding section is the transport origin, the control system calculates the evaluation cost based on both a receiving cost and a delivery cost, the receiving cost is the cost corresponding to a travel time from a current position of the corresponding transport vehicle to the transport origin, and the delivery cost is the cost corresponding to a travel time of the corresponding transport vehicle from the transport origin to the transport destination ([0055-60] multiple casts are determined such as link costs, distance costs, travel time cost receiving cost, etc.).
Regarding Claim 2, Handly teaches wherein in the selection processing executed in a case where an article holding section other than the specific holding section is the transport origin, the control system calculates the evaluation cost based on the receiving cost, which is the cost corresponding to the travel time from the current position of the corresponding transport vehicle to the transport origin ([0055-60] multiple casts are determined such as link costs, distance costs, travel time cost receiving cost, etc. which are all used to calculate the cost).
Regarding Claim 3, Handley teaches wherein:
the plurality of specific zones comprise a first specific zone and a second specific zone that are next to each other ([0053] points and zones are adjacent to each other such as like bus stops)
the plurality of transport vehicles is permitted to travel in a first travel direction in the first specific zone and permitted to travel in a second travel direction different from the first travel direction in the second specific zone, and the first specific zone and the second specific zone are connected in such a manner that the plurality of transport vehicles can travel between the first specific zone and the second specific zone via a connection zone ([0051-53] the direction of which way a transport vehicle is going is taken into account for the calculation of costs).
Regarding Claim 4, Handley teaches wherein:
the receiving cost and the delivery cost are calculated using at least one of a distance cost, a structure cost, a congestion cost, a transfer cost, and an other vehicle cost ([0053-61] as below)
the distance cost is a cost that increases as a travel distance of the corresponding transport vehicle increases ([0055] distance cost is taken into the costing)
the structure cost is a cost that increases as a maximum travel speed of the corresponding transport vehicle decreases according to a structure of the travel route traveled by the corresponding transport vehicle ([0039] speed is used for calculation of cost)
the congestion cost is a cost that increases as a congestion level in the travel route traveled by the corresponding transport vehicle increases ([0053] traffic/congestion is taken into account in calculation of cost)
the transfer cost is a cost that increases as a transfer time increases, and the transfer time is a time required for the corresponding transport vehicle to perform article transfer with the article holding section and perform article transfer at the transport destination ([0055] travel time and distance cost are taking into this and [0058] transfer costs), and
the other vehicle cost is a cost that increases as a total number of other transport vehicles in the travel route traveled by the corresponding transport vehicle increases ([0061] number of vehicles and passenger/articles are taken into account).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200409392 A1
HARASAKI; Kazumi
TRAVELING VEHICLE CONTROLLER AND TRAVELING VEHICLE SYSTEM
US 20160171882 A1
Handley; John C. et al.
ORIGIN-DESTINATION ESTIMATION SYSTEM FOR A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
US 20200103240 A1
MURAI R
Running route determination device has processing unit which is configured to search for transfer place such that efficiency condition is satisfied, while comparing first running route data and second running route data
JP 2020030723 A
EGUCHI Y et al.
Vehicle control apparatus for allocating the driving request, has a storage unit for acquiring and storing the requirement of a driving, a derivation unit for leading-out the pairing information, which matched with one vehicle
JP 2020030723 A
ENOKI YUJI et al.
RUNNING CAR CONTROL APPARATUS, RUNNING CAR SYSTEM, AND RUNNING CAR CONTROL METHOD
US 20240212506 A1
Li; Chian Chiu
Autonomous Driving under User Instructions and Hailing Methods
US 20240144153 A1
Dohrn; Joseph Charles
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR TRANSPORT OPTIMIZATION
US 20220373352 A1
Turner; Alison Frankowski et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DELIVERY ROUTE OPTIMIZATION
US 20180189717 A1
Cao; Raymond
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRANSPORTATION
US 20150206437 A1
Fowler; Eric Alan
Method For Efficient Dynamic Allocation of Vehicles To Independent Passengers
US 20060241986 A1
Harper; Charles N.
PRODUCTION OPTIMIZER FOR SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
US 20030033179 A1
Katz, Steven Bruce et al.
Method for generating customized alerts related to the procurement, sourcing, strategic sourcing and/or sale of one or more items by an enterprise
US 11513534 B2
Harasaki; Kazumi
Traveling vehicle controller and traveling vehicle system
US 11333511 B2
Murai; Rie
Running route determination device, running route determination method, and non-transitory storage medium in which program is stored
US 9045147 B2
Kasuya; Toru
Article transport facility
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights