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 .
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.
Claims 1-7, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-7, and 12-20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving data, calculating routes, generating signals to coordinate motions. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-7, and 12-20 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-7, and 12-20 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-7, and 12-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perlstein (US Patent Publication 2018/0339890).
Regarding claim 1, Perlstein discloses A system, comprising: a first vehicle and a second vehicle coupled with each other, the first vehicle and second vehicle configured to support a load; and (Fig 2-5; ¶38)
one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain one or more locations in a floorplan of a production system; (¶6, 48, 106)
obtain a route for the first vehicle and the second vehicle, from a first current position of the first vehicle and a second current position of the second vehicle to the one or more locations; and (¶38-39)
generate a series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the route. (¶38-39, 46; the transport mechanisms coordinate motions between themselves to avoid collisions and bottlenecks)
Regarding claim 3, Perlstein further discloses wherein the second vehicle is coupled to the first vehicle by the load, the load extending between and supported by the first vehicle and the second vehicle. (¶6-7, 39-40)
Regarding claim 4, Perlstein further discloses wherein the first vehicle is powered and the second vehicle is unpowered. (¶6)
Regarding claim 7, Perlstein further discloses wherein generating the series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle comprises changing at least one of a position or orientation of the first vehicle relative to the second vehicle or the second vehicle relative to the first vehicle along at least a portion of the route. (¶42-43, 106, 142-143)
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.
Claims 2, 5-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlstein as applied above, and further in view of Duffy et. al. (US Patent 9,079,662).
Regarding claim 8, Perlstein discloses a method of controlling a plurality of vehicles, (¶38)
the method comprising: obtaining one or more locations in a floorplan of a production system; (¶6, 48, 106)
obtaining a route for a first vehicle and a second vehicle from a current position to the one or more locations, the first vehicle and the second vehicle coupled with each other and configured to support a load; (Figs 2-5; ¶38-39)
generating a series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the route; and controlling the first vehicle and the second vehicle to perform the series of coordinated motions along the route (¶38-39, 46)
Perlstein appears to be silent as to transport the load to the one or more locations.
Duffy however teaches to transport the load to the one or more locations. (Claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Perlstein with transport the load to the one or more locations as taught by Duffy with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow the vehicles to repositioned within the bay freeing up valuable resources and space; and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Perlstein discloses a system, comprising: a first vehicle; a second vehicle; and one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Fig 2-5; ¶38)
Perlstein does not appear to disclose moving the load along the route and thus is silent as to
Duffy however teaches determine a load route for a load supported by the first vehicle and the second vehicle between a first position and a second position wherein motion of the first vehicle along the first vehicle route and the second vehicle along the second vehicle route results in the load moving along the load route. (C4 L56-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Perlstein with determine a load route for a load supported by the first vehicle and the second vehicle between a first position and a second position wherein motion of the first vehicle along the first vehicle route and the second vehicle along the second vehicle route results in the load moving along the load route as taught by Duffy with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow the vehicles to repositioned within the bay freeing up valuable resources and space; and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 2, and 13, Duffy teaches wherein the first vehicle and the second vehicle are coupled with each other communicatively, the first vehicle and the second vehicle configured to communicate with each other and operate to maintain a specific distance between each other. (Claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Perlstein with wherein the first vehicle and the second vehicle are coupled with each other communicatively, the first vehicle and the second vehicle configured to communicate with each other and operate to maintain a specific distance between each other as taught by Duffy with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow the vehicles to repositioned within the bay freeing up valuable resources and space; and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 9, 17, and 20, Perlstein discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on a footprint of the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the load, and the floorplan of the production system such that the first vehicle, the second vehicle,
Perlstein does not appear to disclose moving with the vehicle, nevertheless it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling that when moving with the load the load must also avoid obstacles in light of the obstacle avoidance being taught in similar situations.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 18, Duffy further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle such that the first vehicle and the second vehicle maintain a distance between each other along at least a portion of the route. (Claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Perlstein with wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle such that the first vehicle and the second vehicle maintain a distance between each other along at least a portion of the route as taught by Duffy with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow the vehicles to repositioned within the bay freeing up valuable resources and space; and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 19, Duffy further teaches wherein generating the series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle comprises changing at least one of a position or orientation of the first vehicle relative to the second vehicle or the second vehicle relative to the first vehicle along at least a portion of the route. (Claims 1, 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Perlstein with wherein generating the series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle comprises changing at least one of a position or orientation of the first vehicle relative to the second vehicle or the second vehicle relative to the first vehicle along at least a portion of the route as taught by Duffy with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow the vehicles to repositioned within the bay freeing up valuable resources and space; and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, Perlstein further discloses wherein the second vehicle is coupled to the first vehicle by the load, the load extending between and supported by the first vehicle and the second vehicle. (¶6-7, 39-40
Regarding claim 15 Perlstein further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to turn tractive elements of the first vehicle in a first direction to move the first vehicle along the first vehicle route and turn tractive elements of the second vehicle in a second direction to move the second vehicle along the second vehicle route. (¶105, 130-131)
Regarding claim 16, Duffy further discloses wherein generating the first vehicle route for the first vehicle based on the load route and generating the second vehicle route for the second vehicle based on the load route comprises generating a series of coordinated motions between the first vehicle and the second vehicle. (Claim 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights