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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections to the claims are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1, 8, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further limiting amendments made to the claims, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
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 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180224824 A1, with an earliest priority date of 02/08/2017, hereinafter “Murai”, in view of US 20180039282 A1, with an earliest priority date of 02/03/2016, hereinafter “Gupta”, further in view of “Motion Planning of Multiple Mobile Robots for Cooperative Manipulation and Transportation”, published 04/30/2003, hereinafter “Yamashita”.
Regarding Claim 1, Murai teaches a transport control method. See at least [0047] and figure 4.
comprising: controlling one or more transport apparatuses according to first control information, the first control information includes information related to an instructed transport velocity and is transmitted as an instruction to the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0048] and figure 4, step S101, wherein normative data, command data, initial control parameters, and an allowable value are set. See at least [0038] and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0067] and figure 11, wherein the control parameters are transmitted to the apparatus through network NW1.
obtaining operation information related to operation of the object based on the instructed transport velocity in response to the first control information. See at least [0040], [0048], and figure 4, steps S101-S103, wherein operation data is obtained, representing operation of a motor, in response to initial control parameters set.
identifying a parameter for velocity, based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information. See least [0049]-[0040] and figure 4, steps S105-106, wherein the initial control parameter information is updated to second control parameter information based on the obtained operation data. See at least [0038], [0041], and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0054]-[0056] and figure 7.
and controlling the one or more transport apparatuses according to the parameter for the velocity. See at least [0067] and figure 11, wherein the control parameters are transmitted to the apparatus through network NW1.
Murai remains silent on one or more transport apparatuses transporting an object, and the second control information being a velocity parameter for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow. Murai does disclose setting an allowable parameter (see at least [0034]), however, Murai’s disclosure does not teach updating the allowable parameter in response to the received operation information. Murai additionally remains silent on the identified velocity parameter being based on a friction coefficient of a floor surface.
Gupta teaches one or more transport apparatuses transporting an object. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of vehicles. Additionally, see at least [0088], wherein each vehicle is a transport apparatus which transports objects within a facility.
a parameter for velocity for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow. See at least [0177]-[0180], wherein one of the control parameters is a maximum speed MS. The maximum speed MS is calculated based on operation parameter NoM, which represents the number of steps remaining in the vehicle’s path.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Yamashita teaches a friction coefficient of a floor surface. See at least pg. 4, section E, wherein the coefficient of friction between the transported object and the floor surface is known. Additionally, see at least pg. 10, Section V.B, figure 16, and equations (20)-(22), wherein the motion constraints for controlling the object are based on µe, representing the coefficient of friction at point O where the object contacts the ground.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s motion constraints based on the friction coefficient between a floor surface and the transported object. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Regarding Claim 3, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein identifying of the parameter for velocity comprises identifying second control information including a parameter for control to be used for generating second instruction information. See at least [0050] and figure 4, step S106, wherein the second control information is a control parameter. See at least [0038] and figure 2, wherein the control parameters relate to operation of a motor.
Murai remains silent on instruction information to the one or more transport apparatuses.
Gupta additionally teaches instruction information to the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of transport vehicles. The control information is used to communicate navigation instructions to the transport vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 4, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Murai remains silent on wherein the one or more transport apparatuses include two transport apparatuses transporting the object in cooperation with each other.
Yamashita teaches wherein the one or more transport apparatuses include two transport apparatuses transporting the object in cooperation with each other. See at least pgs. 1-2, Section 1 and figure 1, and pg. 4, figure 4, wherein the transport robots include two robots transporting the object in cooperation with each other.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s technique of using two transport robots to transport an object in cooperation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Regarding Claim 6, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above, and Murai remains silent on further comprising holding association information in which path information and the second control information are associated with each other, the path information being information of a path to which a position where the operation of the object in response to the first control information is performed belongs.
Gupta teaches further comprising holding association information in which path information and the second control information are associated with each other. See at least [0103]-[0104] and figure 7, wherein association information is held in table 70. The table contains information on paths between a source 72 and destination 74, and associated control information comprising direction, elevation, and distance navigation values.
the path information being information of a path to which a position where the operation of the object in response to the first control information is performed belongs. See at least [0104], wherein the path information 72-74 indicates information of a path which contains a destination marker, or target, which a vehicle would travel to upon performing a first control operation at the position of the source marker.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s association information between path information and second control information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 7, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above, and Murai remains silent on further comprising using the association information in which the path information and the second control information are associated with each other, to determine a transport instruction to a transport apparatus transporting the object moving the position identified by the path information.
Gupta teaches further comprising using the association information in which the path information and the second control information are associated with each other, to determine a transport instruction to a transport apparatus transporting the object moving the position identified by the path information. See at least [0103]-[0104], [0161]-[0165], and figure 13A, step 236, wherein the navigation instructions for the vehicle transporting the goods is determined using the marker information 70. The path is associated with a sequence of markers, and the transport apparatus uses the marker information to determine navigation instructions for traveling from marker to marker.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s technique of using association information between path and control information to determine transport instructions. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 8, Murai teaches a transport control apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions. See at least [0027]-[0028] and figure 1, transport control device 10 comprising a CPU, MPU, and programs.
to: control one or more transport apparatuses according to first control information, the first control information includes information related to an instructed transport velocity and is transmitted as an instruction to the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0048] and figure 4, step S101, wherein normative data, command data, initial control parameters, and an allowable value are set. See at least [0038] and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0067] and figure 11, wherein the control parameters are transmitted to the apparatus through network NW1.
obtain operation information related to operation of the object based on the instructed transport velocity in response to the first control information. See at least [0040], [0048], and figure 4, steps S101-S103, wherein operation data is obtained, representing operation of a motor, in response to initial control parameters set.
and identify a parameter for velocity based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information. See least [0049]-[0040] and figure 4, steps S105-106, wherein the initial control parameter information is updated to second control parameter information based on the obtained operation data. See at least [0038], [0041], and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0054]-[0056] and figure 7.
and control the one or more transport apparatuses according to the parameter for the velocity. See at least [0067] and figure 11, wherein the control parameters are transmitted to the apparatus through network NW1.
Murai remains silent on one or more transport apparatuses transporting an object, and the second control information being a velocity parameter for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow. Murai does disclose setting an allowable parameter (see at least [0034]), however, Murai’s disclosure does not teach updating the allowable parameter in response to the received operation information. Murai additionally remains silent on the identified velocity parameter being based on a friction coefficient of a floor surface.
Gupta teaches one or more transport apparatuses transporting an object. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of vehicles. Additionally, see at least [0088], wherein each vehicle is a transport apparatus which transports objects within a facility.
a parameter for velocity for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow. See at least [0177]-[0180], wherein one of the control parameters is a maximum speed MS. The maximum speed MS is calculated based on operation parameter NoM, which represents the number of steps remaining in the vehicle’s path.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Yamashita teaches a friction coefficient of a floor surface. See at least pg. 4, section E, wherein the coefficient of friction between the transported object and the floor surface is known. Additionally, see at least pg. 10, Section V.B, figure 16, and equations (20)-(22), wherein the motion constraints for controlling the object are based on µe, representing the coefficient of friction at point O where the object contacts the ground.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s motion constraints based on the friction coefficient between a floor surface and the transported object. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Regarding Claim 9, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to transmit instruction information for controlling the one or more transport apparatuses to the one or more transport apparatuses, based on the parameter for velocity. See at least [0050] and figure 4, step S107, wherein the updated second control information is transmitted to the driver. Additionally, see at least [0029], wherein the driver is a device which applies a received control parameter to a motor.
Regarding Claim 11, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify second control information including a parameter for control to be used for generating second instruction information. See at least [0050] and figure 4, step S106, wherein the second control information is a control parameter. See at least [0038] and figure 2, wherein the control parameters relate to operation of a motor.
Murai remains silent on instruction information to the one or more transport apparatuses.
Gupta additionally teaches instruction information to the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of transport vehicles. The control information is used to communicate navigation instructions to the transport vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 12, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above, and Murai remains silent on wherein the one or more transport apparatuses include two transport apparatuses transporting the object in cooperation with each other.
Yamashita teaches wherein the one or more transport apparatuses include two transport apparatuses transporting the object in cooperation with each other. See at least pgs. 1-2, Section 1 and figure 1, and pg. 4, figure 4, wherein the transport robots include two robots transporting the object in cooperation with each other.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s technique of using two transport robots to transport an object in cooperation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Regarding Claim 14, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed above, and Murai remains silent on wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to hold association information in which path information and the second control information are associated with each other, the path information being information of a path to which a position where the operation of the object in response to the first control information is performed belongs.
Gupta teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to hold association information in which path information and the second control information are associated with each other. See at least [0103]-[0104] and figure 7, wherein association information is held in table 70. The table contains information on paths between a source 72 and destination 74, and associated control information comprising direction, elevation, and distance navigation values.
the path information being information of a path to which a position where the operation of the object in response to the first control information is performed belongs. See at least [0104], wherein the path information 72-74 indicates information of a path which contains a destination marker, or target, which a vehicle would travel to upon performing a first control operation at the position of the source marker.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s association information between path information and second control information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 15, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above, and Murai remains silent on wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to use the association information in which the path information and the second control information are associated with each other, to determine a transport instruction to a transport apparatus transporting the object moving the position identified by the path information.
Gupta teaches further comprising using the association information in which the path information and the second control information are associated with each other, to determine a transport instruction to a transport apparatus transporting the object moving the position identified by the path information. See at least [0103]-[0104], [0161]-[0165], and figure 13A, step 236, wherein the navigation instructions for the vehicle transporting the goods is determined using the marker information 70. The path is associated with a sequence of markers, and the transport apparatus uses the marker information to determine navigation instructions for traveling from marker to marker.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s technique of using association information between path and control information to determine transport instructions. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 16, Murai teaches a transport control system comprising: one or more apparatuses each including a memory storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions. See at least [0027]-[0028] and figure 1, transport control device 10 comprising a CPU, MPU, and programs.
wherein the one or more apparatuses are configured to: obtain operation information related to operation of the object based on an instructed transport velocity in response to first control information. See at least [0040], [0048], and figure 4, steps S101-S103, wherein operation data is obtained, representing operation of a motor, in response to initial control parameters set. See at least [0038], [0041], and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter.
the first control information includes information related to the instructed transport velocity given as an instruction to the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0048] and figure 4, step S101, wherein normative data, command data, initial control parameters, and an allowable value are set. See at least [0038] and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0067] and figure 11, wherein the control parameters are transmitted to the apparatus through network NW1.
and identify a parameter for velocity, based on the operation information based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information. See least [0049]-[0040] and figure 4, steps S105-106, wherein the initial control parameter information is updated to second control parameter information based on the obtained operation data. See at least [0038], [0041], and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0054]-[0056] and figure 7.
Murai remains silent on one or more transport apparatuses transporting an object, and the second control information being a velocity parameter for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow. Murai does disclose setting an allowable parameter (see at least [0034]), however, Murai’s disclosure does not teach updating the allowable parameter in response to the received operation information. . Murai additionally remains silent on the identified velocity parameter being based on a friction coefficient of a floor surface.
Gupta teaches one or more transport apparatuses transporting an object. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of vehicles. Additionally, see at least [0088], wherein each vehicle is a transport apparatus which transports objects within a facility.
a parameter for velocity for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow. See at least [0177]-[0180], wherein one of the control parameters is a maximum speed MS. The maximum speed MS is calculated based on operation parameter NoM, which represents the number of steps remaining in the vehicle’s path.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Yamashita teaches a friction coefficient of a floor surface. See at least pg. 4, section E, wherein the coefficient of friction between the transported object and the floor surface is known. Additionally, see at least pg. 10, Section V.B, figure 16, and equations (20)-(22), wherein the motion constraints for controlling the object are based on µe, representing the coefficient of friction at point O where the object contacts the ground.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s motion constraints based on the friction coefficient between a floor surface and the transported object. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Regarding Claim 17, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein the one or more apparatuses are further configured to transmit instruction information for controlling the one or more transport apparatuses to the one or more transport apparatuses, based on the parameter for velocity. See at least [0050] and figure 4, step S107, wherein the updated second control information is transmitted to the driver. Additionally, see at least [0029], wherein the driver is a device which applies a received control parameter to a motor.
Regarding Claim 18, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein the first control information is first instruction information. See at least [0035], [0048] and figure 4, step S101, wherein an initial control parameter is set. Additionally, see at least [0038] and figure 2, wherein the control parameters relate to operation of a motor.
Murai remains silent on giving, to the one or more transport apparatuses, an instruction of operation for transport.
Gupta additionally teaches giving, to the one or more transport apparatuses, an instruction of operation for transport. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of transport vehicles. The control information is used to communicate navigation instructions to the transport vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 19, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein the one or more apparatuses are further configured to identify second control information including a parameter for control to be used for generating second instruction information. See at least [0050] and figure 4, step S106, wherein the second control information is a control parameter. See at least [0038] and figure 2, wherein the control parameters relate to operation of a motor.
Murai remains silent on instruction information to one of the one or more transport apparatuses.
Gupta additionally teaches instruction information to one of the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of transport vehicles. The control information is used to communicate navigation instructions to each of the transport vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 20, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above, and Murai remains silent on wherein the one or more transport apparatuses include two transport apparatuses transporting the object in cooperation with each other.
Yamashita teaches wherein the one or more transport apparatuses include two transport apparatuses transporting the object in cooperation with each other. See at least pgs. 1-2, Section 1 and figure 1, and pg. 4, figure 4, wherein the transport robots include two robots transporting the object in cooperation with each other.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s technique of using two transport robots to transport an object in cooperation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Regarding Claim 21, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein identifying the parameter for the velocity for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow, based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information and the friction coefficient of the floor surface comprises identifying the parameter for the velocity for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow, based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information. See least [0049]-[0040] and figure 4, steps S105-106, wherein the initial control parameter information is updated to second control parameter information based on the obtained operation data. See at least [0038], [0041], and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0054]-[0056] and figure 7.
Murai remains silent on making a comparison between the friction coefficient of the floor surface and a predetermined threshold, and identifying the parameter based on the comparison.
Yamashita teaches making a comparison between the friction coefficient of the floor surface and a predetermined threshold, and identifying the parameter based on the comparison. See at least pg. 11, Section V.C, wherein the friction coefficients µs,e are compared to a range ±∆µs,e. If the friction coefficients are within this range, then the object is determined to be stable. If the change in coefficient of friction exceeds this range, then the object is determined to be unstable. See at least pgs. 11-12, Section V.D, wherein the operation parameters of the robots are controlled based on whether or not they are stable.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s technique of comparing the coefficient of friction between the object and the floor to a range, and determining control parameters based on the comparison. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Regarding Claim 22, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein identifying the parameter for the velocity for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow, based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information and the friction coefficient of the floor surface comprises identifying the parameter for the velocity for the one or more transport apparatuses to allow, based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information. See least [0049]-[0040] and figure 4, steps S105-106, wherein the initial control parameter information is updated to second control parameter information based on the obtained operation data. See at least [0038], [0041], and figure 2, wherein the initial control parameters include a speed control parameter. Additionally, see at least [0054]-[0056] and figure 7.
Murai remains silent on herein the one or more processors are further configured to make a comparison between the friction coefficient of the floor surface and a predetermined threshold, and identifying the parameter based on the comparison.
Yamashita teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to make a comparison between the friction coefficient of the floor surface and a predetermined threshold, and identifying the parameter based on the comparison. See at least pg. 11, Section V.C, wherein the friction coefficients µs,e are compared to a range ±∆µs,e. If the friction coefficients are within this range, then the object is determined to be stable. If the change in coefficient of friction exceeds this range, then the object is determined to be unstable. See at least pgs. 11-12, Section V.D, wherein the operation parameters of the robots are controlled based on whether or not they are stable.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai to incorporate Yamashita’s technique of comparing the coefficient of friction between the object and the floor to a range, and determining control parameters based on the comparison. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to autonomously transport objects stably and safely, while maintaining low computational costs, as recognized by Yamashita (see at least pgs. 1-2, Section I).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20090076657 A1, with an earliest priority date of 09/13/2007, hereinafter “Tsuboi”.
Regarding Claim 5, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein the identifying of the second control information includes identifying the second control information from among two or more control parameters, based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information. See at least [0044]-[0046] and [0049]-[0050], wherein a control parameter is selected from a set of three initially set control parameters and does not include all of the initially set control parameters. The identified control parameter is used to generate second updated control parameter information, based on the results of comparing operation information to an evaluation value obtained from the initial control parameters.
Murai remains silent on used for determining a transport instruction to the one or more transport apparatuses, a control parameter among the two or more control parameters includes an amount of pressure to the object.
Gupta additionally teaches used for determining a transport instruction to the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of transport vehicles. The control information is used to communicate navigation instructions to the transport vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Tsuboi teaches a control parameter among the two or more control parameters includes an amount of pressure to the object. See at least [0178]-[0181], wherein one of the control parameters for the robot is gripping force Fy. Additionally, see at least [0013]-[0014], wherein the gripping force is related to the amount of pressure experienced by the object.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai with Tsuboi’s technique of a control parameter including an amount of pressure to the object. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to transport objects without the object slipping out of the robot’s grip, as recognized by Tsuboi (see at least [0003]).
Regarding Claim 13, Murai, Gupta, and Yamashita in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed above, and Murai additionally teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to the second control information from among two or more control parameters, based on the operation information related to the operation of the object in response to the first control information. See at least [0044]-[0046] and [0049]-[0050], wherein a control parameter is selected from a set of three initially set control parameters and does not include all of the initially set control parameters. The identified control parameter is used to generate second updated control parameter information, based on the results of comparing operation information to an evaluation value obtained from the initial control parameters.
Murai remains silent on used for determining a transport instruction to the one or more transport apparatuses, one of the two or more control parameters includes an amount of pressure to the object.
Gupta additionally teaches used for determining a transport instruction to the one or more transport apparatuses. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figure 13A, steps 232-234, wherein control information is determined for a plurality of transport vehicles. The control information is used to communicate navigation instructions to the transport vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Murai with Gupta’s control of transport apparatuses transporting objects. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transportation control systems to control and monitor the positions of a plurality of transport vehicles seamlessly and efficiently, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Tsuboi teaches a control parameter among the two or more control parameters includes an amount of pressure to the object. See at least [0178]-[0181], wherein one of the control parameters for the robot is gripping force Fy. Additionally, see at least [0013]-[0014], wherein the gripping force is related to the amount of pressure experienced by the object.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Murai with Tsuboi’s technique of a control parameter including an amount of pressure to the object. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robots to transport objects without the object slipping out of the robot’s grip, as recognized by Tsuboi (see at least [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667