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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on July 02, 2025. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on July 03, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2024-107690 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine and a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of create an operation plan, and select an autonomous mobile machine capable of securing an operation schedule during a first predetermined period from among the plurality of autonomous mobile machines, and create the operation plan such that the first autonomous mobile machine is moved to a predetermined geographical position and stands still for at least a part of the first predetermined period as recited in independent claims 1, 13 and 14.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “receive a signal from a satellite in a satellite positioning system” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: management system, information processing device, autonomous movement control unit, reception unit, operation plan creation unit and computer do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-12, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
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: “autonomous movement control unit configured to control an autonomous movement”, “a reception unit configured to receive a signal” and “an operation plan creation unit configured to create an operation plan” in claim 1.
A review of the specification yields the following:
The specification ¶ [0105] (1) A management system (management system 100) including: a plurality of autonomous mobile machines (autonomous mobile machine 21); and an information processing device (management device 1), in which each of the plurality of autonomous mobile machines includes an autonomous movement control unit (movement control unit 251) configured to control an autonomous movement, and a reception unit (antenna 216) configured to receive a signal from a satellite (GNSS satellite 200) in a satellite positioning system, in which the information processing device includes an operation plan creation unit (operation plan creation unit 150) configured to create an operation plan for the plurality of autonomous mobile machines, and in which the operation plan creation unit is configured to select, as a first autonomous mobile machine (selected mobile machine 23), an autonomous mobile machine capable of securing an operation schedule during a first predetermined period from among the plurality of autonomous mobile machines, and create the operation plan such that the first autonomous mobile machine is moved to a predetermined geographical position and stands still for at least a part of the first predetermined period.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not reasonably describe or show the claim elements “autonomous movement control unit” and “an operation plan creation unit” in such a manner to show that the inventor had possession of the claim as the specification does not recite structure for the listed claim elements.
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 1-14 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.
Claim limitations “autonomous movement control unit” and “an operation plan creation unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the phrase “the first autonomous mobile machine is moved to a predetermined geographical position and stands still for at least a part of the first predetermined period.” The examiner believes that the claim does no distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor regards as their invention as required by the statute since ¶ [0023] of the specification states “The autonomous mobile machine 21 in the base station mode stands still (stops moving) when moving to a position designated by the management device 1, and operate as a base station of RTK-GNSS at the position.” The examiner believes that the inventor is attempting to control the first autonomous mobile machine to be moved to a predetermined geographical position and stand still for at least a part of the first predetermined period and operate in base station mode during the stand still to increase the accuracy of the relative positioning method as a distance between a base station whose position is known and a mobile station increases. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the phrase “information processing device”. The specification does not clearly define such phrase. However the specification recites a “management device 1”. The examiner believes that the two are the same and will proceed as such. However, the examiner suggests amending the claim to avoid any ambiguity. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the phrase “the first autonomous mobile machine is moved to a predetermined geographical position and stands still for at least a part of the first predetermined period.” The examiner believes that the claim does no distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor regards as their invention as required by the statute since ¶ [0023] of the specification states “The autonomous mobile machine 21 in the base station mode stands still (stops moving) when moving to a position designated by the management device 1, and operate as a base station of RTK-GNSS at the position.” The examiner believes that the inventor is attempting to control the first autonomous mobile machine to be moved to a predetermined geographical position and stand still for at least a part of the first predetermined period and operate in base station mode during the stand still to increase the accuracy of the relative positioning method as a distance between a base station whose position is known and a mobile station increases. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the phrase “the first autonomous mobile machine is moved to a predetermined geographical position and stands still for at least a part of the first predetermined period.” The examiner believes that the claim does no distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor regards as their invention as required by the statute since ¶ [0023] of the specification states “The autonomous mobile machine 21 in the base station mode stands still (stops moving) when moving to a position designated by the management device 1, and operate as a base station of RTK-GNSS at the position.” The examiner believes that the inventor is attempting to control the first autonomous mobile machine to be moved to a predetermined geographical position and stand still for at least a part of the first predetermined period and operate in base station mode during the stand still to increase the accuracy of the relative positioning method as a distance between a base station whose position is known and a mobile station increases. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharp Corp, JP 2017-033121 A.
Regarding claim 1, Sharp Corp teaches a management system comprising:
a plurality of autonomous mobile machines; (Sharp Corp, see at least page 3 last ¶ “The server device 3 is a device capable of communicating with a plurality of autonomous mobile devices 1 including the wireless communication unit 15 via the wireless base station 2, and is located within the wireless communication area of the wireless base station 2.”) and
an information processing device, wherein each of the plurality of autonomous mobile machines includes an autonomous movement control unit configured to control an autonomous movement, (Sharp Corp, see at least page 3 last ¶ “The server device 3 is generally composed of a computer (that is, a server computer) incorporating a server program. The server device 3 is provided as a control center that centrally controls a plurality of autonomous traveling devices 1.”) and
a reception unit configured to receive a signal from a satellite in a satellite positioning system, (Sharp Corp, see at least page 3 ¶ 5 “Furthermore, the autonomous mobile device 1 includes a camera 13, a position information acquisition unit 14, a wireless communication unit 15, and a destination management unit 16, and also includes a main control unit 10 that controls the autonomous mobile device 1 in this example” and page 7 ¶ 6 “In the above example, the GPS is used when acquiring the position information, but other satellite positioning systems currently used may be used. For example, Japan's Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), Russian GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System) EU (European Union) Galileo, China Hokuto, India IRNSS (Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System) May be used.”)
wherein the information processing device includes an operation plan creation unit configured to create an operation plan for the plurality of autonomous mobile machines, (Sharp Corp, see at least page 4 ¶ 7 “The position information management unit 32 stores position information of each of the autonomous traveling devices 1, and stores current position information of each of the autonomous traveling devices 1, a history of position information during autonomous traveling, and the like. As will be described later, the history of position information during autonomous traveling is used for setting a return traveling route for traveling back from the opposite traveling route. The destination management unit 33 stores the destination of each autonomous traveling device 1 during autonomous traveling. The travel route management unit 34 stores a travel route set based on a user operation.”) and
wherein the operation plan creation unit is configured to
select, as a first autonomous mobile machine, an autonomous mobile machine capable of securing an operation schedule during a first predetermined period from among the plurality of autonomous mobile machines, (Sharp Corp, see at least page 4 second to last ¶ “Before receiving the arrival notification, the server device 3 stops traveling and stops from the normal client mode to the access point mode (AP mode) when the reception intensity of the robot 1a becomes a predetermined value or less as shown in FIG. The instruction information is transmitted to the robot 1a so as to shift to (1). The AP mode is a mode in which the relay function of the wireless communication unit 15 that relays wireless communication between the other robot and the server device 3, that is, the wireless base station 2 is made effective.”) and
create the operation plan such that the first autonomous mobile machine is moved to a predetermined geographical position and stands still for at least a part of the first predetermined period. (Sharp Corp, see at least see at least page 4 second to last ¶ “Before receiving the arrival notification, the server device 3 stops traveling and stops from the normal client mode to the access point mode (AP mode) when the reception intensity of the robot 1a becomes a predetermined value or less as shown in FIG. The instruction information is transmitted to the robot 1a so as to shift to (1). The AP mode is a mode in which the relay function of the wireless communication unit 15 that relays wireless communication between the other robot and the server device 3, that is, the wireless base station 2 is made effective.”)
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp Corp, JP 2017-033121 A.
Regarding claim 2, Sharp Corp teaches a management system according to claim 1 above. Sharp Corp does not specifically teach wherein the operation plan creation unit is configured to select, as a second autonomous mobile machine, an autonomous mobile machine capable of securing an operation schedule during a second predetermined period after start of the first predetermined period from among the plurality of autonomous mobile machines, and create the operation plan such that the second autonomous mobile machine is moved to the predetermined geographical position. However, Sharp Corp does teach controlling a plurality of autonomous travelling devices. (Sharp Corp, see at least page 3 last ¶ “The server device 3 is generally composed of a computer (that is, a server computer) incorporating a server program. The server device 3 is provided as a control center that centrally controls a plurality of autonomous traveling devices 1.”) Because the claim limitations of claim 2 are a mere duplication of claim limitations from claim 1 but on a second autonomous mobile machine, the claim limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Sharp Corp teaches a management system according to claim 1 above. Sharp Corp does not specifically teach wherein the operation plan creation unit is configured to create the operation plan such that the second autonomous mobile machine is moved to the predetermined geographical position and stands still for at least a part of the second predetermined period. However, Sharp Corp does teach controlling a plurality of autonomous travelling devices. (Sharp Corp, see at least page 3 last ¶ “The server device 3 is generally composed of a computer (that is, a server computer) incorporating a server program. The server device 3 is provided as a control center that centrally controls a plurality of autonomous traveling devices 1.”) Because the claim limitations of claim 3 are a mere duplication of claim limitations from claim 1 but on a second autonomous mobile machine, the claim limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights