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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 16 – 35 are currently pending and considered below.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 16 is directed to a method of receiving ID from the load bearing unit and setting minimum distance to avoid obstacles or setting maximum speed when moving floor based on the load bearing unit. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method in an autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit for configuring safety controls for operation of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit, when connected to a load bearing unit, wherein the method comprises:
receiving an identifier (ID) from the load bearing unit;
configuring safety controls of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit based on the received ID, wherein the step of configuring safety controls comprises at least one of:
setting a minimum acceptable distance to objects in surroundings when moving on a floor surface, based on a specific load bearing unit; or setting a maximum speed when moving on a floor surface, based on the specific load bearing unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “configuring, …” and “setting …,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A method in an autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit for configuring safety controls for operation of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit, when connected to a load bearing unit, wherein the method comprises:
receiving an identifier (ID) from the load bearing unit;
configuring safety controls of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit based on the received ID, wherein the step of configuring safety controls comprises at least one of:
setting a minimum acceptable distance to objects in surroundings when moving on a floor surface, based on a specific load bearing unit; or setting a maximum speed when moving on a floor surface, based on the specific load bearing unit.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving…,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use an autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering ID data for use in the configuring step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving … amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the communication devices are generic communication devices mounted on the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit and the load bearing nuit, and the specification does not provide any indication that the device made to control the units is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 17 – 22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 17 – 22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 16.
Therefore, claims 16 – 22 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 23 – 35 recite same or substantially similar limitations as claims 16 – 22. Therefore claims 23 – 35 are rejected under same rationales.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 16. 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustsson (US 2022/0371501 A1) in view of Schmiedel et al. (Hereinafter Schmiedel) (US 8139109 B2)
As per claim 16, Augustsson teaches the limitations of:
a method in an autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit for configuring safety controls for operation of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit (See at least abstract; A guiding vehicle (100) for an intralogistics system, wherein the guiding vehicle (100) is remote controlled or autonomous and configured to be connected to a self-propelled load bearing cart (200), and guide and control the propulsion of the self-propelled load bearing cart (200) such that the load bearing cart (200) can transport a load in the intralogistics system. The guiding vehicle (100) comprising a mechanical connector (170) for mechanically connecting the guiding vehicle (100) to the load bearing cart (200) and a connector for transferring data. The guiding vehicle (100) is configured to receive navigation data from the self-propelled load bearing cart (200), using the connector for transferring data, in the form of information concerning the movement of a drive wheel of the load bearing cart (200) obtained from at least one motor of the load bearing cart (200) or from at least one encoder connected to the drive wheel.), when connected to a load bearing unit, wherein the method comprises:
receiving an identifier (ID) from the load bearing unit (See at least paragraph 114; The self-propelled load bearing cart 200 may further comprise a wireless transceiver, which may be a wireless communication unit, configured to transmit and receive wireless communication to and/or from a guiding vehicle and/or a mobile unit operated by a driver and/or a stationary wireless unit being part of a logistic system. The wireless communication could be information or data e.g. relating to driving or navigation of the self-propelled load bearing cart 200, or identity information or information with regards to the load on the self-propelled load bearing cart 200 (weight, height etc.).);
configuring safety controls of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit based on the received ID (See at least abstract and paragraph 114),
but does not explicitly teach the limitation of: wherein the step of configuring safety controls comprises at least one of:
setting a minimum acceptable distance to objects in surroundings when moving on a floor surface, based on a specific load bearing unit; or setting a maximum speed when moving on a floor surface, based on the specific load bearing unit.
Schmiedel teaches the limitations of:
wherein the step of configuring safety controls comprises at least one of:
setting a minimum acceptable distance to objects in surroundings when moving on a floor surface, based on a specific load bearing unit; or setting a maximum speed when moving on a floor surface, based on the specific load bearing unit (See at least column 15 line 30 – 49; The vehicle control system 100 selects a path from the various candidate paths based on a scoring algorithm that considers distance from the route centerline, path curvature, obstacle avoidance, boundary area constraints, and so forth. The path planning module 200 may generate at least 100 candidate paths, at least 1000 candidate paths, or at least about 2000 candidate paths each planning cycle. Typically, the path planning module 200 performs a path analysis each time a waypoint is reached. The path planning module 200 may also be configured to adjust the maximum speed of the vehicle 102 to account for path geometry and current conditions. The initial desired speed may be set to the maximum determined during the pre-mission planning stage. The speed management component of the path planning module 200 may be configured to adjust the initial set speed depending on conditions. In one embodiment, the speed management component of the path planning module 200 may be configured to reduce the maximum speed of each section of the path depending on the current conditions.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the step of configuring safety controls comprises at least one of: setting a minimum acceptable distance to objects in surroundings when moving on a floor surface, based on a specific load bearing unit; or setting a maximum speed when moving on a floor surface, based on the specific load bearing unit as taught by Schmiedel in the system of Augustsson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 23 and 30:
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claim 16 above, respectively.
Claims 17 – 22, 24 – 29 and 31 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustsson and Schmiedel and in further view of Ni et al. (Hereinafter Ni) (US 20240319744 A1).
As per claim 17, the combination Augustsson and Schmiedel does not teach the limitations of:
the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit performing a look-up in a database based on the received ID and setting a safety zone based on data received from the database.
Ni teaches the limitation of:
the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit performing a look-up in a database based on the received ID and setting a safety zone based on data received from the database (See at least paragraph 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide unit performing a look-up in a database based on the received ID and setting a safety zone based on data received from the database as taught by Ni in the system of the combination Augustsson and Schmiedel, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18, the combination Augustsson, Schmiedel and Ni teaches the limitations of:
wherein the data received from the database comprises at least one parameter related to a size of the load bearing unit (Augustsson, see at least paragraph 118, and Ni, see at least paragraph 68).
As per claim 19, the combination Augustsson, Schmiedel and Ni teaches the limitations of:
wherein the data received from the database comprises at least one parameter related to a width, a length, or a height of the load bearing unit (Augustsson, see at least paragraph 114, and Ni, see at least paragraph 60).
As per claim 20, the combination Augustsson, Schmiedel and Ni teaches the limitations of:
wherein the data received from the database comprises at least one parameter related to an allowed speed (Schmiedel, see at least column 15 line 30 – 49).
As per claim 21, the combination Augustsson, Schmiedel and Ni teaches the limitations of:
wherein setting the minimum acceptable distance to objects in the surroundings when moving on the floor surface comprises setting the minimum acceptable distance based on the received ID and based on a current speed of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide or load bearing unit (Schmiedel, see at least column 14 line 63 – column 15 line 29).
As per claim 22, the combination Augustsson, Schmiedel and Ni teaches the limitations of:
wherein setting the minimum acceptable distance based on the received ID and based on the current speed of the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide or load bearing unit comprises receiving, at the autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled guide, the current speed of the load bearing unit (Schmiedel, see at least column 10 line 16 – 24 and column 14 line 2 – 12, and Ni, see at least paragraph 68).
Regarding claims 24 – 29 and 31 – 35:
Claims 24 – 29 and 31 – 35 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 17 – 22 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osawa et al. (US 2022/0073105 A1) discloses traveling parameter optimization system and traveling parameter optimization method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights