CTNF 19/072,295 CTNF 77502 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21 AIA Claim s 1-8, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada (US 2025/0201126 A1), and in view of Ohira et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Ohira”) (US 2024/0184292 A1) . Regarding claims 1, and 15-18, Harada discloses a transportation system which transport system for transporting people from one location to a destination, comprising: a plurality of vehicles (3) (e.g., the vehicle 3A travels on the road 101, and the vehicle 3B travels on the road 102) ( see Fig. 2); an external environment sensor (14), which includes a radar (14A), a lidar (14B), and a camera (14C), that detects position of objects outside the vehicle (3) ( see paragraph 0036), wherein the objects could be peripheral vehicles and pedestrians ( see paragraph 0039); a vehicle control (4), which includes a microprocessor and memory, controls the vehicle (3) ( see paragraph 0035, the brake device 12 and steering device 13 are controlled by the vehicle control device 4), acquiring a first travel route for the first mobile body (3A), and a second travel route for the second mobile body (3B) ( see at least paragraph 0017), evaluating the traffic congestion degree of a first travel route (101) based on inputs such as congestion information from a communication network, the speed of the first vehicle (3A), and the inter-vehicle distance between the first vehicle and the vehicle in front of it ( see paragraphs 0060, 0065, and 0077). Harada is merely missing to disclose the features of “select an automated transport body that will perform a transport operation from among the plurality of automated transport bodies on the basis of the route information and the congestion degree distribution.” Ohira discloses a system/device associated with a control method, and a computer-readable storage. This system is provided for transporting goods to a destination. The system is configured to acquire a scheduled route of each movable apparatuses, calculating a congestion degree indicating a density of movable apparatuses, and determining a following section in which a movable apparatus performs following route with respect to another movable apparatus ( see at least abstract, Fig. 1; paragraphs 0025, and 0026). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system of Harada with the teachings as taught by Ohira to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of reducing the risk of collisions and improving traffic flow, while allowing for independent operation when congestion is low. Regarding claim 2, Harada discloses that the vehicle monitoring sensor (117), which includes a camera, detects the position and speed of the vehicle (3) ( see paragraph 0056). Regarding claim 3, Harada discloses that the external environment sensor (14), which includes a radar (14A), a lidar (14B), and a camera (14C), detects position of objects outside the vehicle (3) ( see paragraph 0036). Regarding claim 4, Harada discloses and suggests an optical scanner mounted on each of the vehicle (3) since the LiDar (14B) has a function of emitting laser light to scan the surrounding environment and measure distances, wherein the detects distance and direction of each object ( see paragraphs 0036, and 0038). Regarding claim 5, Harada discloses that the second travel route (102) includes a first portion (102A), and a second portion (102B), wherein each portion is a floor surface on which the vehicle (3) is positioned ( see paragraph 0029). Harada also suggests the features of “evaluate the congestion degree distribution on the basis of an exposed area of the floor surface” ( see at least paragraphs 0010, 0060, 0065). Regarding claim 6, Harada further discloses that the traffic congestion degree acquirer (45) is configured to evaluate the congestion degree on the basis of the distance between the first mobile body and the second mobile body ( see paragraph 0010). Regarding claim 7, Harada the traffic congestion degree acquirer (38) of the vehicle controller (4) may be the same as the configuration of the traffic acquirer (45) of the server (1) and that is configured to output a congestion degree based on the information on the positions of the objects acquired by the environment sensor (14) ( see paragraphs 0060, 0077). Regarding claim 8, Harada also discloses that the traffic congestion degree of the first travel route (101) is equal to or less than the traffic congestion determination value ( see paragraph 0082). Regarding claim 12, Harada further discloses and suggests the features of “the processor is further configured to: detect an abnormality on the floor surface by recognizing a condition of the floor surface of the work area on the basis of the information on the positions of the objects, and select an automated transport body that will perform a transport operation from among the plurality of automated transport bodies, on the basis of the congestion degree distribution, the route information, and a recognition result of the floor surface condition ( see paragraph 0043, the road information from the map information is determined on the basis of the vehicle position on the map). Regarding claim 13, in Harada, the HMI (19) is shown as a notifier that is configured to give a notification (e.g, image video, audio) to the occupant based on the travel instruction ( see paragraphs 0071-0073). Regarding claim 14, Harada discloses a transportation system which transport system for transporting people from one location to a destination, comprising: a plurality of vehicles (3) (e.g., the vehicle 3A travels on the road 101, and the vehicle 3B travels on the road 102) ( see Fig. 2); an external environment sensor (14), which includes a radar (14A), a lidar (14B), and a camera (14C), that detects position of objects outside the vehicle (3) ( see paragraph 0036), wherein the objects could be peripheral vehicles and pedestrians ( see paragraph 0039) . 07-21 AIA Claim s 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada (US 2025/0201126 A1), Ohira (US 2024/0184292 A1), and further in view of Park et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Park”) (US 12,298,144 B2) . Regarding claim 9, Neither Harada nor Ohira discloses or even suggests the features of “the processor is further configured to: calculate, for each of the plurality of automated transport bodies, a required time for the automated transport body to travel to the transport source of the target object on the basis of the route information and the congestion degree distribution, and select an automated transport body having a shortest required time from among the plurality of automated transport bodies as an automated transport body that will perform a transport operation.” Park discloses a system for determining a recommended personal mobility based on environment information of a route by determining a recommended route that has a shortest time based on route information and congestion degree ( see column 6, lines 3-28, and lines 55-64), and determining the recommended personal mobility for traveling on the route at the mentioned shortest time ( see column 6, lines 35-47). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Harada Ohira with the teachings as taught by Park to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring a chosen transportation vehicle perfectly matches the changes of environment information in real time, and the user’s specific route. Regarding claims 10, and 11, Neither Harada nor Ohira discloses or even suggests the features of “the processor is further configured to select an automated transport body having a minimum degree of congestion on a route from among the plurality of automated transport bodies, on the basis of the route information and the congestion degree distribution, as an automated transport body that will perform a transport operation.” Park discloses a system for determining a recommended personal mobility based on environment information of a route by determining a recommended route that has a shortest time based on route information and congestion degree ( see column 6, lines 3-28, and lines 55-64), and determining the recommended personal mobility for traveling on the route at the mentioned shortest time ( see column 6, lines 35-47). Park further describes a typical personal mobility is determined among a number of personal mobilities of the congestion degree is low ( see column 9, lines 39-48). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Harada Ohira with the teachings as taught by Park to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of optimizing the user’s travel efficiency, safety, and maneuverability based on real-time environmental factors. Citation of Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 2008/0235138 A1 by Yokota et al. which discloses a system that calculates and awards points based on the reduced congestion levels of specific transport modes, guiding users toward less-crowded trains or cars; US 2006/0064236 A1 by Kazumi which discloses a system and method for road traffic congestion degree estimation; EP-4056501-A1 by Kitamura which discloses a transport system for improving efficiency by using a controller to restrict access to a designated "blocking zone" around a vehicle during article transfers at a placement table; EP-1243896-A2 by Koichi which discloses a map information providing apparatus that automatically optimizes an onboard monitor's display by calculating the ideal scale to simultaneously show the user's vehicle and a target object, based on their spatial relationship. Conclusions 07-101 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985 . The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess , can be reached on (571) 272-6011 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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). /TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/072,295 Page 2 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/072,295 Page 3 Art Unit: 3661
Prosecution Insights