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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 May 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “short” and “long” are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by their respective claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined with certainty where the limits are for what makes a “short” or “long” route. To expedite prosecution, both terms will be interpreted as “a distance”.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoofard, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0214694).
For claim 1, Hoofard discloses a conveyance system for connecting a conveyance vehicle to a trailer parked on a site of a delivery center and moving the trailer to a warehouse provided in the delivery center or a parking lot of the delivery center by the conveyance vehicle, the conveyance system comprising: processing circuitry (see Fig. 5A, #501 and related text) configured to generate a travel plan of the conveyance vehicle (see paras. 0135-0136), the travel plan being used to execute conveyance of the trailer from the parking lot to the warehouse or conveyance of the trailer from the warehouse to the parking lot by the conveyance vehicle (see paras. 0142-0144); detect a position of the trailer on the site (see para. 0140); determine a section in which the trailer is parked by the conveyance vehicle from a detection result (see para. 0140); and generates the travel plan using the determined section in which the trailer is parked as a parking position of the trailer (see paras. 0132-0136).
Claim 13 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as to what is defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
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.
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.
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 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoofard, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0214694), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and in view of Nguyenquang, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0380128).
For claim 2, Hoofard does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Nguyenquang discloses wherein when a plurality of sections is specified as sections in which parking of the trailer is possible from the detection result (see paras. 0072-0079), the processing circuitry determines a section in which a time or a moving distance needed for conveying the trailer is short among the plurality of sections as a section in which the trailer is parked (see paras. 0068, 0077). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Hoofard to include the teaching of Nguyenquang based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a conveyance system and a conveying method that can reduce a loss of conveyance time in the entire course on which the automatic conveying device travels (see para. 0010).
With regards to claim 3, Nguyenquang further teaches wherein when a plurality of sections is specified as sections in which parking of the trailer is possible from the detection result (see paras. 0072-0079), the parking position determining unit processing circuitry determines a section having a short distance from the delivery center among the plurality of sections as a section in which the trailer is parked (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an entrance of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
Referring to claim 4, Nguyenquang further discloses wherein when a plurality of sections is specified as sections in which parking of the trailer is possible from the detection result (see paras. 0072-0079), the processing circuitry determines a section having a long distance from a delivery center among the plurality of sections as a section in which the trailer is parked (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an entrance of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
Pertaining to claim 5, Nguyenquang further discloses wherein when a plurality of sections is specified as sections in which parking of the trailer is possible from the detection result (see paras. 0072-0079), the processing circuitry determines a section having a short distance from the delivery center among the plurality of sections as a section in which the trailer is parked (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an exit of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
With reference to claim 6, Nguyenquang further teaches wherein when a plurality of sections is specified as sections in which parking of the trailer is possible from the detection result (see paras. 0072-0079), the processing circuitry determines a section having a long distance from the delivery center among the plurality of sections as a section in which the trailer is parked (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an entrance of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
For claim 7, Hoofard further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer as a conveyance target to the warehouse from trailers parked in the parking lot (see para. 0140), wherein when a plurality of the trailers is candidates for the conveyance target (see para. 0140). Nguyenquang further discloses that processing circuitry determines, as the conveyance target, the trailer having a short time or a short moving distance needed to convey the trailer, from among the plurality of the trailers (see paras. 0068, 0077).
Regarding claim 8, Hoofard further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer as a conveyance target to the warehouse from trailers parked in the parking lot (see para. 0140), wherein when a plurality of the trailers is candidates for the conveyance target (see para. 0140). Nguyenquang further discloses that processing circuitry determines, as the conveyance target, the trailer parked at a position with a short distance from the delivery center, from among the plurality of the trailers (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an entrance of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
For claim 9, Hoofard further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer as a conveyance target to the warehouse from trailers parked in the parking lot (see para. 0140), wherein when a plurality of the trailers is candidates for the conveyance target (see para. 0140). Nguyenquang further discloses that processing circuitry determines, as the conveyance target, the trailer parked at a position with a long distance from the delivery center, from among the plurality of the trailers (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an entrance of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
With reference to claim 10, Hoofard further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer as a conveyance target to the warehouse from trailers parked in the parking lot (see para. 0140), wherein when a plurality of the trailers is candidates for the conveyance target (see para. 0140). Nguyenquang further discloses that processing circuitry determines, as the conveyance target, the trailer parked at a position with a short distance from the delivery center, from among the plurality of the trailers (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an exit of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
Regarding claim 11, Hoofard further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer as a conveyance target to the warehouse from trailers parked in the parking lot (see para. 0140), wherein when a plurality of the trailers is candidates for the conveyance target (see para. 0140). Nguyenquang further teaches that processing circuitry determines, as the conveyance target, the trailer parked at a position with a long distance from an exit of the delivery center, from among the plurality of the trailers (see paras. 0068, 0150). Hoofard teaches the knowledge that an exit of the relevant structure is a consideration for routing and transporting (see para. 0048).
Referring to claim 12, Hoofard further teaches the conveyance vehicle comprising: a second processing circuitry configured to execute driving control on a basis of the generated travel plan included in the conveyance system (see paras. 0132-0136, Fig. 6, #601).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights