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 .
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.
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: vehicle information reception unit, vehicle speed adjustment unit in claims 1-10.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARIEPY (US 20230393587 A1) in view of SUGIMOTO (JP2023154648A).
Regarding claim 1, GARIEPY discloses a smart transport vehicle speed control device (¶0054, “a fleet-management system 226”) comprising:
a control server (FIG. 2, item ‘226’) comprising a processor and a memory (¶0055, “The fleet-management system 226 has a processor, memory”), the processor configured to execute instructions (¶0091, “computer instructions on non-transitory computer-readable media”)to:
receive, in a vehicle information reception unit of the control server, information about a current location (¶0042, “update the control system 104… tracking the vehicle's progress along the planned path and updating the vehicle's location.”, ) and a vehicle speed of a smart transport vehicle (¶0018, “ a vehicle work speed is determined for at least one operation.”)
receive, in a line information reception unit of the control server, process status information including a process speed for each line zone from a process line in which the smart transport vehicle operates (¶0068, “for any given waypoint or workstation, the mission may include a vehicle-work speed associated with the waypoint or workstation”, FIG. 2 shows different work stations 210, 212, 216.., and line or paths 2280b, 228a, 230a, 230b…, construed as line zones); and
when the current location is a first line zone designated in advance among all process line zones of the process line, adjust, by a vehicle speed adjustment unit of the control server, the vehicle speed based on a first process speed for the first line zone (¶0081, “the buffer station 320 may merely represent a delay that can be achieved by reducing the speed of the vehicle 324b from the workstation 310 to the workstation 316…the fleet-management system 226 can generate a mission for the vehicle 324b that specifies a speed between the workstation 310 and the workstation 316 that will maintain the proper sequence”).
However, should it be found that GARIEPY does not explicitly disclose a
With multiple units as recited above, Examiner, introduces a secondary reference to teach this
limitation.
SUGIMOTO teaches a server (page 25-33, “The route planning server (route planning device) 200 includes a vehicle model information storage section 201, an on-vehicle sensor information storage section 202, a route path boundary storage section 203, a safety margin/target position/time storage section 204, and a driving route information storage section 205. We are prepared. The route planning server 200 also includes a reference route/boundary creation unit 211 , a travel route/detection range planning unit (route generation unit) 212”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fleet management system disclosed in GARIEPY with the server taught in SUGIMOTO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an optimization of the travel route and transport efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, GARIEPY discloses wherein the vehicle information reception unit receives whether the current location corresponds to one of a plurality of first line zones designated in advance (¶0042, “ tracking the vehicle's progress along the planned path and updating the vehicle's location”).
Regarding claim 4, GARIEPY discloses wherein the vehicle speed adjustment unit synchronizes the vehicle speed with the first process speed, and controls the vehicle speed in real time in response to a change in first process speed so that the vehicle speed is kept equal to the first process speed (¶0081).
Regarding claim 10, GARIEPY discloses wherein the vehicle speed adjustment unit requests first smart transport vehicles in the first line zone to stop in a lump when the process line including the first line zone is stopped urgently (¶0010).
Claims 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARIEPY (US 20230393587 A1) in view of SUGIMOTO (JP2023154648A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Otsuka (US 20230192150 A1).
Regarding claim 3, GARIEPY does not explicitly disclose but, Otsuka teaches wherein the vehicle information reception unit receives information about an average vehicle speed of a plurality of smart transport vehicles for each line zone (¶0034).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fleet management system disclosed in GARIEPY with the average speed taught in Otsuka with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a prevention of the rearward transport vehicle from colliding with the forward transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Otsuka teaches wherein the vehicle speed adjustment unit adjusts the vehicle speed to a preset designated speed when the current location is outside the first line zone (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fleet management system disclosed in GARIEPY with the average speed taught in Otsuka with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a prevention of the rearward transport vehicle from colliding with the forward transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Otsuka teaches wherein the vehicle speed adjustment unit sets a first average vehicle speed of a plurality of first smart transport vehicles located in the first line zone to be equal to the first process speed, and adjusts a vehicle speed of each of the first smart transport vehicles to be equal to the first average vehicle speed (¶0034).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fleet management system disclosed in GARIEPY with the average speed taught in Otsuka with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a prevention of the rearward transport vehicle from colliding with the forward transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Otsuka teaches wherein the vehicle speed adjustment unit maintains a certain distance between adjacent vehicles among the plurality of first smart transport vehicles (¶0050).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fleet management system disclosed in GARIEPY with the average speed taught in Otsuka with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a prevention of the rearward transport vehicle from colliding with the forward transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Otsuka teaches wherein: the certain distance is greater than a minimum distance between sensors of the smart transport vehicles, and the vehicle speed adjustment unit adjusts the vehicle speed based on the sensors when the adjacent first smart transport vehicles are close to each other by less than the minimum distance between the sensors, and adjusts the vehicle speed based on the first average vehicle speed when the adjacent first smart transport vehicles are far away from each other by more than the certain distance (¶0034).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fleet management system disclosed in GARIEPY with the average speed taught in Otsuka with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a prevention of the rearward transport vehicle from colliding with the forward transport vehicle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARIEPY (US 20230393587 A1) in view of SUGIMOTO (JP2023154648A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yang (US 20250242808 A1).
Regarding claim 9, GARIEPY does not explicitly disclose but, Yang teaches wherein: a second smart transport vehicle driving in a second line zone, excluding the first line zone, among all the process line zones, is individually controlled, and the vehicle speed adjustment unit integrally controls first smart transport vehicles driving in the first line zone (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fleet management system disclosed in GARIEPY with the vehicle speed adjustment taught in Yang with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a reduction in labor intensity, high error rate and improving efficiency.
Regarding claims 11-20, claims 11-20 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US 20190329978 A1) discloses Disclosed is a robot including a travelling apparatus, a body, a containing apparatus and an item grabbing apparatus. The travelling apparatus is disposed at a bottom of the robot and configured to automatically travel to a preset position based on a travelling path received by the robot. The body is disposed above the travelling apparatus. The containing apparatus is connected to the body and includes multiple containing positions that are interlayers stacked in a vertical direction. One of the interlayers may contain at least one target item. The item grabbing apparatus is disposed on the body and configured to, based on a task received by the robot, grab, at the preset position, a first target item from an item storage apparatus and automatically place the first target item at a containing position of the containing apparatus, or grab, at the preset position, a second target item from the containing position of the containing apparatus and automatically place the second target item in the item storage apparatus. A carrying system and a carrying method are further disclosed (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights