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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” 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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An operation control means in at least claim 1 at least described in Par. [0008-0025, 0044-0047, and 0056-0061] of the specification.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A detecting portion in at least claim 1 and its dependents and at least described in Par. [0008-0025 and 0047-0061] of the specification.
A position grasping portion in at least claim 1 and its dependents and at least described in Par. [0008-0025 and 0047-0057] of the specification.
A control portion in at least claim 1 and its dependents and at least described in Par. [0008-0025 and 0044-0061] of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/414,936 (reference application – also published as U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0246797). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite the same subject matter except for the inclusion of the control signal instruction recited in claim 1 of the 18/414,936 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(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, 5, 8-10, and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018092393.
Regarding claim 1, JP 2018092393 discloses: an unmanned transport system configured to transport a weight object by traveling on a designated virtual flow line to a designated destination location (At least at Par. [0002, 0010]; Fig. 2), the unmanned transport system comprising: an unmanned transport vehicle (At least automated guided vehicle, Par. [0010]) configured to travel unmanned according to a control signal (At least vehicle control system for controlling an automated guided vehicle, Par. [0010-0012, 0033]); one or more cameras (At least an imaging unit including a camera for imaging an area in which the automated guided vehicle moves, Par. [0010]) configured to image a field on which the unmanned transport vehicle is to travel from above the field to generate a still image or video (At least the imaging means includes a plurality of cameras on a ceiling of a region in which the automatic guided vehicle moves, and images the traveling region of the automatic guided vehicle by dividing the traveling region into a plurality of regions, Par. [0011]); and an operation control means (At least control means may include a travel control unit, Par. [0010-0012, 0033]) configured to generate the control signal for controlling such that the unmanned transport vehicle travels on the virtual flow line based on the still image or video (At least a position recognition unit that superimposes the map and the automated guided vehicle imaged by the imaging unit and recognizes a current position of the automated guided vehicle in the map, [0012, 0026]; The operator operates the input apparatus 30B such as a mouse based on the image of the floor surface 2 displayed on the display means 30A, thereby setting the conveyance path on the image of the floor surface 2 displayed on the display means 30B and creating the map M. Par. [0024]), wherein the operation control means comprises: a detecting portion configured to detect the unmanned transport vehicle from the still image or video (At least based on the recognized two dimensional bar code 12, the positions and directions of the automatic carrier vehicles 10A to 10D on the floor surface 2 are specified. Par. [0026]); a position grasping portion configured to grasp a position of the unmanned transport vehicle in the field without being based on a sensor equipped with the unmanned transport vehicle using a result of a detection by the detecting portion (At least a position recognition unit 304 that superimposes the map M on the automated guided vehicle captured by the cameras 31A and 31B and recognizes the position of the automated guided vehicle on the map M; Par. [0019]); and a control portion configured to generate the control signal based on the position of the unmanned transport vehicle which the position grasping portion grasps, wherein the control signal includes an instruction for at least one of moving forward, stopping, and steering (At least a travel control unit 305 that instructs the automated guided vehicle to travel, and a communication unit 306 that communicates with the automated guided vehicle via the transmitter/receiver 32, Par. [0019]; The traveling instruction includes traveling speed (acceleration, deceleration), forward movement, backward movement, stop, right turn, and left turn, Par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, JP 2018092393 discloses that the field is indoors, and the one or more cameras are mounted on a ceiling or wall and configured to image the field from above (At least where the camera constituting an imaging unit is installed on the ceiling, 3; Par. [0032]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, JP 2018092393 discloses that the operation control means further comprises an orientation grasping portion configured to grasp an orientation of the unmanned transport vehicle based on the still image or video, and the control portion is configured to generate the control signal based also on the orientation grasped by the orientation grasping portion (At least when the automatic carrier vehicles P1 to P4 are made to travel toward the destinations 10A to 10D, the current positions and directions of the automatic carrier vehicles 31A to 31B are recognized by a position recognition part 304 on the basis of the imaging date of the cameras and 10D 10A. Then, the information on the destination P1 to P4 and the current position information on the AGV 10A to 10D are processed by the information communication unit 307 and transmitted to the computers mounted on the AGVs 10A to 10D via the communication unit 306; Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, JP 2018092393 discloses that the unmanned transport vehicle includes a manipulating portion which a user is to manipulate in order to start traveling on the flow line, and the control portion of the operation control means is configured to start generating the control signal in accordance with a manipulation to the manipulating portion (At least where an operator sets the conveyance path with an input apparatus 30B, operators load and unload the automatic transport vehicle and operator instructs the vehicle that loading and unloading is complete so the vehicle may proceed to another set destination or standby position; Par. [0017, 0024, 0028]).
Regarding claim 9, JP 2018092393 discloses that the unmanned transport system comprises a plurality of unmanned transport vehicles whose destination locations and-flow lines are designated respectively, the detecting portion of the operation control means is configured to detect the plurality of unmanned transport vehicles from the still image or video, the position grasping portion of the operation control means is configured to grasp respective positions of the plurality of unmanned transport vehicles in the field, and the control portion of the operation control means is configured to generate the control signal for each of the plurality of unmanned transport vehicles based on the plurality of positions grasped by the position grasping portion (At least via an identification mark for distinguishing an automated guided vehicle from other automated guided vehicles is attached to the upper surface of the automated guided vehicle, and each automated guided vehicle is recognized by capturing an image of the automated guided vehicle from the ceiling using the imaging unit, and the travel of the automated guided vehicle is individually controlled; Par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, JP 2018092393 discloses that the unmanned transport system comprises a plurality of cameras whose fields of view are different from each other, and the position grasping portion is configured to grasp the position of the unmanned transport vehicle in the field by integrating a plurality of still images or videos generated by the plurality of cameras (At least cameras 31A and 31B installed on the ceiling 3 are activated based on a command from the control unit 30 to capture images of the left floor surface 2a and the right floor surface 2b the automatic carrier vehicles 10A to 10D is recognized from the image information by the image processing program incorporated in the position recognition unit 304 the positions and orientations of the automated guided vehicles 10A to 10D are specified on the coordinate axes indicating the positions on the floor surface 2, and the image information of the floor surface 2 is formed together with the automated guided vehicles 10A to 10D; Fig. 1 and 4a; Par. [0023, 0026]).
Regarding claim 12, JP 2018092393 discloses that the unmanned transport vehicle includes a predetermined mark on a top surface thereof, and the detecting portion is configured to detect the unmanned transport vehicle by detecting the predetermined mark (At least via an identification mark for distinguishing an automated guided vehicle from other automated guided vehicles is attached to the upper surface of the automated guided vehicle; Par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, JP 2018092393 discloses that the operation control means is configured to store a map of the field in which the flow line is defined, and the position grasping portion is configured to grasp the position of the unmanned transport vehicle by mapping the unmanned transport vehicle detected by the detecting portion on the map (At least the control means 30 includes a map setting unit 301 that sets a map based on the images captured by the cameras 31A and 31B, a map storage unit 302 that stores the set map M, a position recognition unit 304 that superimposes the map M on the automated guided vehicle captured by the cameras 31A and 31B and recognizes the position of the automated guided vehicle on the map M, a destination setting unit 303 that sets a destination P to be reached by the automated guided vehicle on the map M based on the map M, a travel control unit 305 that instructs the automated guided vehicle to travel, and a communication unit 306 that communicates with the automated guided vehicle via the transmitter/receiver 32; Par. [0019, 0024]).
Regarding claim 14, JP 2018092393 discloses that the unmanned transport system comprises a predetermined mark at a predetermined position in the field, the detecting portion is configured to detect the predetermined mark, and the position grasping portion is configured to grasp the position of the unmanned transport vehicle based on the predetermined mark which the detecting portion detects (At least the map M set in advance by the map setting unit 301 is stored in the map storage unit 302 of the control means 30, and all the positions on the floor surface 2 of the production site are specified by the coordinates (X, Y). By using the input unit 30A, it is possible to set a destination P to which each automatic carrier is to move as required; Par. [0025]; The cameras 31A and 31B capture not only the area constituting the conveyance path but also the production equipment arranged in the production area 1a, the worker performing the work, and the like, and the two dimensional bar code 12 attached to the upper surfaces of the automatic carrier vehicles 10A to 10D is recognized from the image information by the image processing program incorporated in the position recognition unit 304 and the positions and orientations of the automated guided vehicles 10A to 10D are specified on the coordinate axes indicating the positions on the floor surface 2, and the image information of the floor surface 2 is formed together with the automated guided vehicles 10A to 10D as illustrated in Fig. 1 and 4a; Par. [0026]).
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, 4, 6, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018092393 in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0174473 to Moriya et al.
Regarding claim 2, JP 2018092393 discloses the claimed invention (an unmanned vehicle capable of carrying articles) except for the specifics related to the forklift structure.
Nevertheless, Moriya, in the field of controlling plural autonomous vehicles via a control/imaging system, teaches an unmanned transport vehicle is a forklift vehicle configured to lift and transport the weight object placed on a pallet together with the pallet (At least Par. [0023, 0055, 0063]; Fig. 1; forklifts, 103; transport pallets, 104).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of JP 2018092393 to utilize forklifts that load and unload pallets, as taught by Moriya, to provide a means for vertical space utilization for increased storage.
Further, since forklifts constitute vehicles which are used to transport articles, substitution of a forklift for lifting pallets within JP 2018092393 would merely require routine skill in the art and yield the predictable results of providing a more efficient means for loading/unloading items for transport and storage.
Regarding claim 4, JP 2018092393 describes a system indoors, but does not appear to make clear whether the system could be practiced outdoors wherein "the one or more cameras are mounted on an outdoor structure and configured to image the field from above."
Moriya teaches both indoor and outdoor control of automated vehicles using cameras and a central controller (At least Fig. 9; cameras 105; Par. [0030, 0038]).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have practiced the control of autonomous vehicles as described by JP 2018092393 outdoors, as taught by Moriya in order to provide greater utility to the invention of JP 2018092393. These modifications would only require routine skill in the art, and as taught by JP 2018092393, the cameras can be mounted to beams as opposed to a ceiling (At least at Par. [0032]). Since not all article handling is performed indoors (for example, a shipyard or outdoor storage area), it would be desirable to apply the same system as taught by JP 2018092393 to an outdoor setting at least because it provides greater applicability of the transport/control system across a multitude of indoor/outdoor applications.
Regarding claim 6, JP 2018092393 does not appear to explicitly disclose that the unmanned transport vehicle is configured to perform an autonomous operation for loading or unloading of the weight object at the destination location.
However, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have applied the teachings of Moriya’s forklifts capable of autonomously loading and unloading a pallet therefrom (At least Par. [0023, 0025, 0055, 0068]) for the same reasons as explained above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, JP 2018092393 does not appear to explicitly disclose "wherein the detecting portion is configured to detect the unmanned transport vehicle by using a neural network." JP 2018092393 discloses a communication unit and wireless communication in both directions between the vehicles and the control means (At least Par. [0015-0016]).
Moriya discloses the use of a neural network (At least Par. [0069]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have utilized a neural network to provide for communication and control of the plurality of vehicles, cameras, and control units to effectively and efficiently manage the autonomous operations of JP 2018092393 and provide learning capabilities.
Regarding claim 15, JP 2018092393 discloses imaging and detecting the plurality of automatic carriers, the identification marks, any position on the floor surface, (At least Par. [0023]); however, JP 2018092393 does not appear to explicitly disclose "the detecting portion of the operation control means is configured to further detect the weight object being transported by the unmanned transport vehicle."
Moriya discloses that it was known to detect the weight object, (At least Par. [0101]). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have imaged and detected the weight object on the vehicle at least because the system of JP 2018092393 is capable of doing so and knowing whether the weight object is on the vehicle helps the system confirm deliveries and pick-ups or loaded and unloaded states for the purpose of route planning and completion of article handling operations.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018092393 in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0187699 to Salour et al.
Regarding claim 7, JP 2018092393 discloses recognizing another automatic carrier as an obstacle and searching for a detour route, but does not appear to explicitly disclose "the detecting portion of the operation control means is configured to further detect an obstruction from the still image or video, and the control portion of the operation control means is configured to further generate the control signal based also on a result of a detection of the obstruction by the detecting portion."
Nevertheless, Salour, directed toward the guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots, teaches what JP 2018092393 lacks regarding obstruction detection and subsequent control signal generation (At least Par. [0008, 0057]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified JP 2018092393 by incorporating the teachings of Salour to include "detecting an obstruction from the still image or video, and the control portion of the operation control means is configured to further generate the control signal based also on a result of a detection of the obstruction" at least because doing so would prevent damage to the autonomous vehicles, articles being carried, personnel, and structures along the path of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, JP 2018092393 discloses the claimed invention, but does not appear to explicitly disclose "the unmanned transport vehicle includes: an in-vehicle detecting portion for detecting a surrounding obstruction; and an emergency stop processing portion configured to perform an emergency stop processing of the unmanned transport vehicle based on a detection of the obstruction by the in-vehicle detecting portion."
However, Salour, which is directed toward the guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots, teaches "an in-vehicle detecting portion for detecting a surrounding obstruction" (At least at the Abstract; Par. [0004, 0008, 0046, 0047, 0057]) and "an emergency stop processing portion configured to perform an emergency stop processing of the unmanned transport vehicle based on a detection of the obstruction by the in-vehicle detecting portion" (At least at Par. [0003, 0005, 0009, 0013, 0056, 0059]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified JP 2018092393 by incorporating the teachings of Salour at least to promote safety and prevent damage to the vehicles, articles being moved, structure, and personnel.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018092393 in view of JP 2002108446.
Regarding claim 17, JP 2018092393 discloses the claimed invention, but does not appear to explicitly disclose "the unmanned transport system further comprises a derailment judging means configured to judge whether or not the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line, and the operation control means is configured to generate the control signal so as to stop the unmanned transport vehicle or return the unmanned transport vehicle to the flow line when it is judged in the derailment judging means that the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line."
However, JP 2002108446, directed towards guidance of autonomous vehicles and robots, discloses the features JP 2018092393 lacks in claim 17 regarding flow line deviation (At least at Par. [0010, 0013, 0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have incorporated the teachings of judging deviation from the flow line and correcting the path of the vehicle from JP 2002108446 into the system of JP 2018092393 at least so that the vehicle is capable of arriving at its designated location(s) and avoiding collision events with other objects, structures, and vehicles for improved safety and article handling.
Regarding claim 18, JP 2018092393 discloses the claimed invention, but does not appear to explicitly disclose "wherein the derailment judging means includes: an in-vehicle camera equipped with the unmanned transport vehicle and configured to image surroundings around the unmanned transport vehicle to generate the still image or video; and a judging portion configured to judge whether or not the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line based on the still image or video generated by the vehicle camera."
However, JP 2002108446 teaches the features that JP 2018092393 lacks from claim 18 for at least the reasons set forth above for claim 17 (At least Par. [0010, 0013, 0048]).
Regarding claim 19, JP 2018092393 discloses the claimed invention, but does not appear to explicitly disclose "wherein the derailment judging means includes: a receiving instrument configured to receive a positioning signal; and a judging portion configured to judge whether or not the unmanned transport vehicle deviates from the flow line based on the positioning signal received by the receiving instrument."
However, JP 2002108446 teaches the features that JP 2018092393 lacks from claim 19 for at least the reasons set forth above for claim 17 (At least at Par. [0010, 0013, 0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
