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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/19/22 and 05/24/24 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
FORMALITY — INCONSISTENT HYPHENATION
There is inconsistent usage of “branch junction section” and “branch-junction section” between and within the claims and specification. For clarity and consistency, amend the claims and specification to use a single form. Either form is acceptable if used consistently.
CLARITY — OPTIONAL AXIS NOMENCLATURE IN CLAIMS
The specification defines axes X (travel) and Y (width). To improve clarity and align with the disclosure, applicant is encouraged to recite “travel direction X” and “width direction Y” in the claims, replacing the longer parenthetical “as viewed in an up-down direction” phrasing. This is an objection and suggestion to clarify, not a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 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.
The claims are drawn to an “article transport facility” (an apparatus). However, each of claims 1–8 recites actions that occur as steps of operation rather than structural capabilities. For example, claim 1 positively recites that, “in a case where the transport vehicle travels through the branch junction section: the control system executes preliminary biasing processing… and the control system allows the guide wheel to pass through the switching area while executing the preliminary biasing processing.” Similar present-tense operational recitations appear in claims 2–8, including that the control system “controls,” “executes,” “determines,” “allows,” and “places” components at particular times and positions.
Because these recitations require the apparatus to actually perform steps of a method (rather than merely being configured to do so), a reader cannot ascertain whether infringement occurs upon making/selling the apparatus, or only upon use when the recited steps are executed. This ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear under § 112(b).
Suggested amendment (for clarity and to maintain apparatus form): Replace action verbs with capability language. For example, in claim 1, amend to “the control system is configured to execute preliminary biasing processing including controlling the guide wheel drive unit to bias the guide wheel … prior to entering the switching area, and the control system is further configured to cause the guide wheel to pass through the switching area while the preliminary biasing processing is being executed.” In claims 2–8, similarly amend “controls/executes/determines/allows/places” to “is configured to control/execute/determine/allow/place,” and frame all timing relationships as conditions the control system is configured to satisfy during operation.
No new matter is required because the specification repeatedly discloses the control logic as a capability of a “control system H” and “control device Hv.” The proposed amendments thus resolve the issue while maintaining the original scope as supported by the written description.
AMBIGUOUS MODIFIER — “IN THE TRAVEL DIRECTION” IN CLAIM 1
Claim(s) 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for employing an ambiguous modifier. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 1 recites “a switching area configured to allow the guide wheel to move in the width direction between the branch guide portion and the junction guide portion in the travel direction.” Grammatically, the terminal phrase “in the travel direction” can be read to modify either the “move” (which would conflict with “in the width direction”) or the “switching area” (which would indicate location along X). This syntactic ambiguity leaves the scope uncertain.
Suggested amendment: Clarify what the phrase modifies. For example, “a switching area, located along the travel direction, configured to allow the guide wheel to transition, in the width direction, from the branch guide portion to the junction guide portion,” or “a switching area configured to allow, in the width direction, the guide wheel to transition between the branch guide portion and the junction guide portion, the switching area being disposed along the travel direction.”
RELATIVE ORIENTATION TERMINOLOGY — “AS VIEWED IN AN UP-DOWN DIRECTION”
Claim(s) 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for use of unclear reference-frame language. See MPEP § 2173.02 (clarity of terminology).
Claim 1 defines the “first-side surface” and “second-side surface” of the guide rail with reference to “a width direction orthogonal to a travel direction … as viewed in an up-down direction.” Although the specification defines X (travel) and Y (width) axes, the phrase “as viewed in an up-down direction” is unusual and introduces uncertainty as to the observer’s frame and whether gravity or mounting orientation is limiting. The claim later relies on “first” and “second” sides to define contact states and control logic. As presently phrased, a reader cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether reorientation of the system (e.g., floor-mounted versus ceiling-mounted) would change the meaning of “first side … as viewed in an up-down direction.”
Suggested amendment: Replace the phrase with an explicit coordinate definition. For example, “a width direction Y orthogonal to the travel direction X,” and state that “the first-side surface faces a first side Y1 and the second-side surface faces an opposite second side Y2,” deleting “as viewed in an up-down direction.” Alternatively, incorporate an express statement that the first/second side designations are independent of gravitational orientation, as supported by the specification at paragraphs [0032]–[0033].
No rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (written description/enablement) at this time. The specification appears to provide sufficient structure and algorithmic detail for the recited control logic, measurement/detection functions, guide wheel actuation, and switching-area geometry across the scope of claims 1–8.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1 — JP 2019-31137 A (published Feb. 28, 2019) to an article transport facility having laterally positionable guide wheels and branching/merging rails. Relevant features and numerals include travel rails 2; rail portions 2A; vehicle 3; first travel portion 11A; second travel portion 11B; travel wheels 17; guide wheels 18; auxiliary guide wheels 19; second motor 20 driving lateral movement of auxiliary guide wheels; central guide rail 21; first branching section 51; first merging section 52; second branching section 53; second merging section 54; first/second branching rails 34/36; first/second merging rails 35/37; switching section 59; controller H.
REFERENCE 2 — JP 2012-240463 A (published Dec. 10, 2012) to a track-mounted car system with a branching roller mechanism that shifts laterally between branch guides across a separation region, addressing timing/impact concerns. Relevant features and numerals include the connecting track; branch guides; separation region; branching roller mechanism; forced guide; teachings on shortening the connection length and the risk of impact/vibration when shift timing is late.
REFERENCE 3 — US 2018/0297620 A1 to an article transport facility with rails 2/7; linear and curved path portions 1A/1B and rail portions 2A/2B; front and rear travel portions 9F/9R; guide wheels 16 forming guided portion 17; travel wheels 15; controller H with a travel distance sensor 22; deceleration/acceleration control locations 1C/1D; position terminology X/Y/Z; setting portion H1.
======
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 1-8: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND REFERENCE 3
Claim 1:
────────── An article transport facility comprising: [0127] a pair of travel rails extending along a travel route; [0128] a transport vehicle configured to travel along the travel route and transport an article; [0129] a guide rail configured to guide a direction of travel of the transport vehicle in a branch-junction section in which the travel route branches and joins another route; and [0130] a control system configured to control the transport vehicle, [0131] wherein the transport vehicle comprises: [0132] travel wheels configured to roll on upper surfaces of the pair of travel rails; [0133] a guide wheel configured to roll on a first-side surface or a second-side surface of the guide rail, the first-side surface facing a first side in a width direction orthogonal to a travel direction extending along the travel route as viewed in an up-down direction, and the second-side surface facing a second side in the width direction, which is opposite to the first side; and [0134] a guide wheel drive unit configured to move the guide wheel in the width direction between a first position at which the guide wheel rolls on the first-side surface and a second position at which the guide wheel rolls on the second-side surface, [0135] wherein the branch junction section comprises: [0136] a first section; [0137] a second section extending side by side with the first section; and [0138] a connecting section connecting the first section and the second section, [0139] wherein the connecting section branches off from the first section toward the first side in the width direction and joins the second section from the second side in the width direction, [0140] wherein the guide rail comprises: [0141] a branch guide portion spanning from the first section to an intermediate position in the connecting section; [0142] a junction guide portion spanning from an intermediate position in the connecting section to the second section; and [0143] a switching area configured to allow the guide wheel to move in the width direction between the branch guide portion and the junction guide portion in the travel direction, [0144] wherein in a case where the transport vehicle travels through the branch junction section: [0145] the control system executes preliminary biasing processing including controlling the guide wheel drive unit to bias the guide wheel in a direction from the first position toward the second position while the guide wheel is at the first position and is in contact with the first-side surface of the branch guide portion from the first side in the width direction before entering the switching area, and [0146] the control system allows the guide wheel to pass through the switching area while executing the preliminary biasing processing. ──────────
ANALYSIS
With respect to limitations [0127]–[0131], Reference 1 discloses an article transport facility with a pair of travel rails 2 (including rail portions 2A) forming travel routes 1, and a transport vehicle 3 configured to travel along the route and transport an article under control of controller H. The facility includes branch and merge sections 51–54 where the route branches and joins. These features satisfy the recited facility, travel rails, transport vehicle, branch-junction section, and control system. Reference numerals include 2, 2A, 3, H, 51, 52, 53, and 54. Reference 1 also shows connecting paths between parallel main rails (31, 32) using branching rails 34, 36 and merging rails 35, 37.
With respect to limitation [0132], Reference 1 shows travel wheels 17 arranged to roll on the upper surfaces of the rail portions 2A. The figures and description state that each travel wheel 17 runs on the top surfaces of the rails, matching the “upper surfaces” requirement.
With respect to limitations [0133]–[0134], Reference 1 discloses guide/auxiliary guide wheels 19 that roll on opposite side surfaces of a central guide rail 21 and that are laterally repositioned by a drive (second motor 20) between a right guide position (first position) and a left guide position (second position). The auxiliary guide wheels 19 contact the guide rail 21 from the right or left side and are actively moved in the width direction by motor 20, satisfying the claimed guide wheel and guide wheel drive unit.
With respect to limitations [0135]–[0139], Reference 1 discloses branch/merge geometry having first and second longitudinally extending sections (main rails 31, 32) arranged side-by-side and a connecting section (bypass/connecting rails 33, 34, 35, 36, 37) that branches from one main rail toward one lateral side and joins the other main rail from the opposite side. This corresponds to the recited first section, second section, and connecting section branching toward a first side and joining from the second side.
With respect to limitations [0140]–[0143], Reference 1 provides a guide rail 21 that includes distinct guide portions placed along the branching and merging paths, and explicitly discloses a switching section 59 formed along the guide rail where the position of the guide wheel 19 transitions between the two lateral sides as the vehicle advances along the path. The portion of guide rail 21 along the branch path functions as a “branch guide portion,” the portion along the merging path as a “junction guide portion,” and the switching section 59 “configured to allow the guide wheel to move in the width direction between” those portions as the vehicle travels.
With respect to limitations [0144]–[0146], Reference 1 teaches that the controller causes the guide wheels 19 to be in a particular lateral position before entering the branching section, e.g., “before entering the second branching section 53,” the controller H3 operates the second motor 20 to place the auxiliary guide wheels 19 at the left guide position so the vehicle is guided onto the desired branch. Reference 1 further shows that the switching section 59 along the guide rail 21 transitions the guide wheel to the opposite side while the vehicle passes through that area. These teachings meet the concept of commanding the lateral bias and allowing passage through a switching region during the commanded operation.
The remaining specific aspect of [0145]—that the control system “bias[es] the guide wheel in a direction from the first position toward the second position while the guide wheel is at the first position and is in contact with the first-side surface of the branch guide portion before entering the switching area”—is suggested by the combination. Reference 1 sets the lateral position in advance of the branch and uses a switching section 59 to transition between sides; Reference 2 explains that if the lateral shift occurs late, large impact forces and vibration occur and motivates shifting earlier to avoid impact and to shorten the connection region. Specifically, Reference 2 discusses that the separation region requires sufficient length to accommodate the shift and that shortening the region without adjusting timing leads to abrupt shifts that damage rollers, thereby teaching the desirability of biasing before the separation/switching region to avoid delayed contact and impact.
Reference 3 contributes the well-established practice of pre-emptive control based on vehicle position along the path (use of travel distance sensor 22, and controller H setting deceleration upstream of a connection location 1C and acceleration at 1D). This confirms to a skilled control engineer that control actions (including lateral bias commands) are desirably issued before the geometric transition so that at the switching location the commanded state is already established.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to implement Reference 1’s pre-positioning of guide wheels 19 as an active “bias” command that starts while the guide wheel is still contacting the branch-side surface of the guide rail before the switching section, consistent with Reference 2’s teaching to avoid delayed switching impact and with Reference 3’s pre-emptive control (issuing control actions upstream of geometric transitions). The combination therefore renders limitations [0144]–[0146] obvious.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 1
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Reference 1 with Reference 2 and Reference 3 to improve transition smoothness and permit higher vehicle speed through branch-junctions. Reference 2 explicitly teaches that late shifting causes impact and vibration, motivating earlier biasing before the separation/switching region to reduce shock and shorten connection length. Reference 3 teaches standard pre-emptive, position-based control actions upstream of a connection (deceleration at 1C, acceleration at 1D) using distance sensing 22, which would naturally be applied to issuing a lateral bias command for the guide wheel prior to the switching area in Reference 1. Implementing this yields predictable results—reduced impact and more reliable switching—without changing the principle of operation of any reference.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Claim 2:
────────── The article transport facility according to claim 1, wherein, in the case where the transport vehicle travels through the branch junction section: the control system controls the guide wheel drive unit to place the guide wheel at the first position at a time that is (i) before executing the preliminary biasing processing and (ii) before the guide wheel enters the first section so that the guide wheel comes into contact with the first-side surface of the branch guide portion from the first side in the width direction after entering the first section, and the control system allows the guide wheel to pass through the switching area while executing the preliminary biasing processing to move the guide wheel from the first position to the second position in the switching area and bring the guide wheel into contact with the second-side surface of the junction guide portion from the second side in the width direction. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches setting the lateral position of auxiliary guide wheels 19 to a defined side before entering a branching section and further teaches a switching section 59 where, during travel, the wheels transition from one side to the other, arriving in contact with the opposite side along the merging guide portion. This meets placing the wheel in a first position prior to entry, ensuring contact with the branch guide, and transitioning in the switching area to contact the junction guide on the opposite side. Reference 2 and Reference 3 supply the timing rationale to maintain bias during passage through the switching section for a smooth transition at speed.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 2
The same reasons as for claim 1 apply with added specificity: to ensure deterministic entry into the branch guide and timely transition to the junction guide at the switching area, the controller pre-sets the first position before entry (Reference 1) and maintains a bias during switching (motivated by Reference 2’s warning against late shifting impacts) using standard position-based control timing (Reference 3). The modification is an implementation detail providing predictable benefits without undue experimentation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Claim 3:
────────── The article transport facility according to claim 1, wherein: the travel wheels comprise a plurality of travel wheels spaced apart from each other in at least either the travel direction or the width direction, the control system comprises a determination unit configured to determine that the guide wheel has come into contact with the branch guide portion after entering the first section, the determination unit determines that the guide wheel has started to come into contact with the branch guide portion in response to a rotation speed difference between rotation speeds of two or more target travel wheels spaced apart from each other in the travel direction or the width direction changing by an amount greater than or equal to a prescribed threshold value, and the control system executes the preliminary biasing processing based on a result of determination performed by the determination unit. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 discloses multiple travel wheels 17 spaced apart in both the travel (front/rear via 11A/11B) and width directions (left/right rails 2A) supporting the vehicle. Reference 1 also discloses a controller H that pre-sets lateral wheel position before entry into a branching section. Reference 3 provides a controller H with travel distance sensor 22 and speed control across linear and curved segments (1A/1B), demonstrating onboard sensing of motion parameters and control based on path geometry. It would have been obvious to a skilled person to use wheel-mounted encoders (a conventional form of travel distance sensor 22) on different wheels and to derive rotation speed differences between spaced travel wheels to detect entry into a curved or guided portion in order to trigger the same pre-bias action earlier and more robustly. The algorithm—comparing a difference to a threshold—is a routine signal-processing step once per-wheel speeds are measured.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 3
Reference 3 already uses travel sensing (22) and position-based control. Adapting the sensing to compare per-wheel rotation speeds is a routine, predictable optimization to detect entry into curved/guided portions without additional infrastructure, particularly in systems like Reference 1 that desire timely pre-bias at branches. Doing so enables robust detection using existing encoders, thereby improving responsiveness; such substitution of one known sensor/algorithmic input for another is well within ordinary skill and yields no change to the basic operation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Claim 4:
────────── The article transport facility according to claim 3, wherein: the pair of travel rails comprise a first travel rail on the first side in the width direction and a second travel rail on the second side in the width direction, the plurality of travel wheels comprise: a first front wheel configured to roll on an upper surface of the first travel rail; a first rear wheel configured to roll on the first travel rail behind the first front wheel in a direction of travel; a second front wheel configured to roll on an upper surface of the second travel rail; and a second rear wheel configured to roll on the second travel rail behind the second front wheel in the direction of travel, and the rotation speed difference is a difference between (i) a rotation speed of at least one of the first rear wheel and the second rear wheel and (ii) a rotation speed of at least one of the first front wheel and the second front wheel. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 shows rails 2 composed of left and right rail members 2A with front and rear travel portions 11A/11B carrying wheels 17; thus first/second rails and front/rear wheels are present. Reference 3 shows the same two-rail arrangement 7/2A with front and rear travel portions 9F/9R, confirming the standard four-wheel (front/rear on each rail) configuration. From claim 3’s combination, the choice of comparing rear-wheel speed to front-wheel speed is a straightforward sensor pairing that accentuates curvature/transient effects, and is an obvious selection once per-wheel encoders are available.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 4
A skilled person would choose front-versus-rear wheel speed differences because when entering a curve or guided portion, the front wheel encounters the geometric change first, naturally producing a speed delta relative to the rear wheel. This is a predictable variation of the detection algorithm of claim 3 and would be adopted to improve sensitivity without adding hardware.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Claim 5:
────────── The article transport facility according to claim 3, wherein the control system executes the preliminary biasing processing in a period from when the determination unit determines that the guide wheel has started to come into contact with the branch guide portion until when the transport vehicle has traveled a predetermined distance. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 provides the pre-bias command prior to the branch and through the switching section, while Reference 3 teaches controlling actions with respect to measured travel distance (sensor 22) and connection locations 1C/1D along the path. Using the determination event as the start, and continuing the pre-bias for a “predetermined distance” (e.g., to the switching area), is a routine application of Reference 3’s distance-based timing to Reference 1’s pre-bias action.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 5
A skilled person would implement the duration of pre-bias using a stored distance calibrated to the known geometry from the detection point to the switching section, because Reference 3 already controls vehicle behavior using path positions and distances. This is a predictable use of known distance-based gating to ensure the bias persists to and through the switching area without adding complexity.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Claim 6:
────────── The article transport facility according to claim 3, wherein the control system executes the preliminary biasing processing immediately after the determination unit determines that the guide wheel has started to come into contact with the branch guide portion. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Reference 1’s goal is to ensure the guide wheel is properly positioned before and during the switching. Reference 3 emphasizes issuing control changes at or before specified locations (e.g., decelerate upstream of 1C). It would have been obvious to trigger the pre-bias “immediately after” the detection event (which itself can be based on wheel speed differences per claim 3) to ensure there is no delay, aligning with Reference 2’s admonition on late shifts (impact/vibration). The “immediately after” choice is a routine control tuning decision.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 6
Prompt initiation of pre-bias upon detection reduces latency and prevents the late-shift problem that Reference 2 identifies; Reference 3’s approach to pre-emptive timing supports immediate action upon detection. This control-timing optimization is within ordinary skill and produces predictable improvements.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Claim 7:
────────── The article transport facility according to claim 1, wherein the transport vehicle comprises: a front travel portion comprising a front wheel as one of the travel wheels; a rear travel portion comprising a rear wheel as one of the travel wheels; a front guide wheel serving as the guide wheel in the front travel portion; and a rear guide wheel serving as the guide wheel in the rear travel portion, and wherein the control system executes the preliminary biasing processing simultaneously on both the front guide wheel and the rear guide wheel at a time that is (i) after the rear guide wheel starts to come into contact with the branch guide portion and (ii) before the front guide wheel enters the switching area. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 discloses front and rear travel portions 11A and 11B each with guide/auxiliary guide wheels 19 associated with the central guide rail 21, and states that the front and rear pairs of auxiliary guide wheels are moved together (synchronously) to the same lateral position. This meets the structure (front/rear travel portions, front/rear guide wheels) and suggests simultaneous actuation. Reference 3 provides the control framework and path position awareness to time the simultaneous pre-bias between when the rear unit has entered guided contact and before the front unit reaches the switching area (using the known spacing between front and rear).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 7
Synchronizing the front and rear guide wheels to the same bias between two known positional events (rear contact established; front about to enter switching) avoids a contradictory state across the vehicle and reduces transient yaw. This is a predictable control refinement once both references’ teachings are adopted and the front-rear spacing is known.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Claim 8:
────────── The article transport facility according to claim 1, wherein the transport vehicle comprises: a front travel portion comprising a front wheel as one of the travel wheels; a rear travel portion comprising a rear wheel as one of the travel wheels; a front guide wheel serving as the guide wheel in the front travel portion; and a rear guide wheel serving as the guide wheel in the rear travel portion, and the control system executes the preliminary biasing processing on the front guide wheel after the front guide wheel starts to come into contact with the branch guide portion, and executes the preliminary biasing processing on the rear guide wheel at a time that is (i) after the rear guide wheel starts to come into contact with the branch guide portion and (ii) after executing the preliminary biasing processing on the front guide wheel. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches independent guide wheel actuation for front and rear travel portions (each portion has its own second motor 20 for its auxiliary guide wheels 19) and provides switching section 59 along the guide rail. The front guide wheel encountering the branch guide ahead of the rear is inherent in the geometry. Reference 3’s position-based control supports sequentially issuing commands as each set of guide wheels reaches the branch guide contact. Thus, executing preliminary bias first on the front guide wheel after its contact begins and then on the rear guide wheel after its contact begins is an obvious sequencing alternative to the simultaneous case of claim 7.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 8
Staggered initiation reduces instantaneous load and current draw while maintaining desired bias. Ordinary control practice offers either simultaneous or sequential command issuance, and choosing sequential control once both front and rear have made contact is an obvious, predictable variation of Reference 1 with the position/timing framework of Reference 3.
======
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613