DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 3-8 were amended by preliminary amendment.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
5. Regarding claim 6, We take note that the recited term “communication cycle” refers (according to [0049]-[0052] of the instant specification) to a timeout duration or interval in which a vehicle will wait before attempting to retry communication if it has received no response from a controller, for example when requesting permission to traverse a section of track.
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.
6. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda Hiroyuki, JP 2006313462 (hereinafter Matsuda) in view of Tillman, et al., US 2019/0108010 (hereinafter Tillman).
7. Regarding claim 1,
Matsuda discloses:
An article transport facility comprising: at least one transport vehicle (cart 1: fig. 1) configured to transport an article (processing objects, unnumbered, [0014]);
a travel route (transport path 2: fig. 1) along which the at least one transport vehicle travels and provided with a plurality of specific sections (interbays 21-27: fig. 1) each including at least one of a branch point and a merge point;Matsuda discloses the claimed sections and points in fig. 1. Each interbay 21-26 comprises a circuit path that links to a connecting interbay 27 by means of branching and merging points.
a section control device (zone controllers 3: fig. 1) provided in correspondence with each of the specific sections and configured to control the at least one transport vehicle traveling through the specific section for which the section control device is responsible ([0012],[0020]);
and a higher-level control device (integrated controller 7: fig. 1) configured to control the at least one transport vehicle ([0034]) and the section control devices ([0015]),
wherein: the at least one transport vehicle, the section control devices and the higher-level control device are configured to communicate with each other,Matsuda discloses communication between controllers in [0015] and communication with the vehicle in [0034].
However, Matsuda does not disclose all aspects of:
the article transport facility has a normal control mode and a substitute control mode, as control modes that are executed by a control system including the higher-level control device and the section control devices, While Matsuda discloses control of vehicles by a section controller in [0012] and direct control of vehicles by a superior controller in [0034], it does not explicitly disclose normal vs. substitute modes. Such modes could perhaps be argued to be implicit in Matsuda’s method, but we cite another reference for the teaching.
the normal control mode is a mode in which control of the at least one transport vehicle in each of the specific sections is performed by the section control device responsible for the specific section,While Matsuda discloses this control in [0012] for its zone controllers, it doesn’t disclose the explicit normal mode.
the substitute control mode is a mode in which control of the at least one transport vehicle in each of the specific sections is performed by the higher-level control device instead of the section control device responsible for the specific section,While Matsuda discloses this form of control in [0034], it doesn’t disclose the explicit substitute mode.
the normal control mode is executed while communication between the higher-level control device and the section control devices and communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle are normal,While Matsuda discloses in [0034] in that its integrated controller may direct vehicles instead of its zone controllers during a software update (a period in which communication is not normal) the normal mode is not made explicit.
and the substitute control mode is executed in response to at least one of an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the higher-level control device and an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle.Matsuda does not disclose communication anomaly or error condition detection.
Tillman, an invention in the field of vehicle software updates, teaches the missing aspects of the limitations:
the article transport facility has a normal control mode and a substitute control mode, as control modes that are executed by a control system including the higher-level control device and the section control devices, Tillman teaches in [0075] that its vehicle and associated controller have different modes of operation, including an active in-use state which corresponds to applicant’s normal control mode, and a safe mode corresponding to applicant’s substitute control mode which is engaged when a software update is being performed. Note that we are not citing Tillman’s structural arrangement of vehicle and controller in combination with Matsuda, merely Tillman’s explicit teaching of normal and safe modes.
the normal control mode is a mode in which control of the at least one transport vehicle in each of the specific sections is performed by the section control device responsible for the specific section,In combination with Matsuda’s disclosure of ordinary zone controller (“section control device”) operation controlling vehicles in its [0012], Tillman’s normal mode teaching in its [0075] completes the missing aspect of the limitation.
the substitute control mode is a mode in which control of the at least one transport vehicle in each of the specific sections is performed by the higher-level control device instead of the section control device responsible for the specific section,In combination with Matsuda’s disclosure of integrated controller (“higher-level control device”) operation controlling vehicles in its [0034], Tillman’s safe mode teaching in its [0075] completes the missing aspect of the limitation.
the normal control mode is executed while communication between the higher-level control device and the section control devices and communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle are normal,In combination with Matsuda’s disclosure in [0012] regarding routine operation of its section control device controlling vehicles, Tillman’s normal mode teaching in its [0075] completes the missing aspect of the limitation.
and the substitute control mode is executed in response to at least one of an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the higher-level control device and an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle.Tillman teaches in [0007] that mode selection may be performed on the basis of error detection, with an error determining safe or “substitute control” mode. Tillman’s error, a problem detected during a vehicle software update that comprises communication between a control device and a vehicle, constitutes a communication anomaly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Matsuda, such that (i) the article transport facility has a normal control mode and a substitute control mode, as control modes that are executed by a control system including the higher-level control device and the section control devices, (ii) the normal control mode is a mode in which control of the at least one transport vehicle in each of the specific sections is performed by the section control device responsible for the specific section, (iii) the normal control mode is executed while communication between the higher-level control device and the section control devices and communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle are normal, and (iv) and the substitute control mode is executed in response to at least one of an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the higher-level control device and an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle, as taught by Tillman, because an explicit representation of controller and/or vehicle state – e.g., normal mode vs. safe mode – simplifies logic and methodology for suspending and resuming routine controller operations. Moreover, since a controller that is experiencing an anomaly or abnormality may direct vehicles improperly, providing a controller safe mode as taught by Tillman prevents misdirection and possible damage to the vehicles and the transport system.
8. Regarding claim 3,
Matsuda in view of Tillman teaches the limitations of claim 1, and also:
wherein transition from the substitute control mode to the normal control mode is performed on condition that the higher-level control device outputs a control instruction to the section control device, and the higher-level control device receives a response to the control instruction from the section control device, and wherein in the substitute control mode, the higher-level control device continues to control the at least one transport vehicle in the specific section until the response is received from the section control device.Matsuda discloses in [0029] that its integrated controller (higher-level control device) issues software updates to selected zone controllers (section control devices) to pass on to vehicles in their sections. In [0041], the zone controller sends a completion report to the integrated controller when the software update is complete. This constitutes the claimed response to the control instruction sent to the section controller. With Tillman’s explicit teaching of normal vs. safe (substitute control) modes and Matsuda’s disclosure in [0034] that its higher level controller may control vehicles directly instead of the usual control (per [0012]) exerted by section controllers, the claimed transition from substitute control mode to normal control mode after a response from the section controller is taught by the combination.
9. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Tillman and further in view of Tanabe, et al., JP 2002316705 (hereinafter Tanabe).
10. Regarding claim 2,
Matsuda in view of Tillman teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not all aspects of:
wherein the substitute control mode is executed in response to an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the higher-level control device and an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle.While Tillman teaches a substitute control mode in [0075] that is executed in response to a controller-to-vehicle anomaly, it does not teach switching to this mode in response to a communication anomaly between controllers.
Tanabe, an invention in the field of storage and retrieval system automation, teaches the missing aspects of the limitation:
wherein the substitute control mode is executed in response to an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices (transport controller 78: fig. 10) and the higher-level control device (operation computer 77: fig. 10 ) and an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle (crane 3: fig. 1).Tanabe teaches the detection and signaling of an abnormality when its computers and controllers lose communicative connection with one another in [0067]. Rather than invoking the structures and systems of Tanabe in combination with Matsuda and Tillman, we incorporate merely the teaching detection of an abnormality via communications failure between superior and inferior controllers, and use this detection to trigger the mode change taught by Tillman in the context of Matsuda’s controller hierarchy and transport layout.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Matsuda and Tillman, wherein the substitute control mode is executed in response to an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the higher-level control device and an anomaly occurring in communication between the section control devices and the at least one transport vehicle, as taught by Tanabe, because a communications abnormality between a superior controller and an inferior controller is an obvious indicator of a serious fault in the overall transport system, which can then be addressed by removing control responsibility from a possibly faulty controller as taught by Tanabe, i.e. switching control modes as taught by Tillman.
11. Regarding claim 4,
Matsuda in view of Tillman teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the substitute control mode is executed in any of the specific sections in which an anomaly in communication with at least one of the higher-level control device and the at least one transport vehicle occurs in the section control device responsible for the specific section, and wherein the normal control mode is executed in any of the specific sections in which the section control device responsible for the specific section is communicating normally with both the higher-level control device and the at least one transport vehicle.These limitations can be paraphrased as, “The substitute control mode is only executed in sections in which a communications anomaly is reported.” However, while Matsuda in view of Tillman teaches a change of control modes in response to a communications anomaly between controller and vehicle, it does not teach doing so in a section in response to a communications anomaly between controller and controller.
Tanabe, an invention in the field of storage and retrieval system automation, teaches the missing aspects of the limitation:
wherein the substitute control mode is executed in any of the specific sections in which an anomaly in communication with at least one of the higher-level control device and the at least one transport vehicle occurs in the section control device responsible for the specific section, and wherein the normal control mode is executed in any of the specific sections in which the section control device responsible for the specific section is communicating normally with both the higher-level control device and the at least one transport vehicle.First, it can simply be assumed that in the absence of anomalies in a section that a “normal control mode” considered as a default control mode is executed. Tanabe teaches throughout its disclosure, but particularly with respect to communication anomalies in [0067], that when an anomaly is detected, a notification related to the particular abnormal or anomalous unit is sent. In combination with Tillman, which teaches an executable controller safe or “substitute control” mode, this means that the substitute control mode is only executed for the particular section or zone controller indicating a communications anomaly. Since the section controllers disclosed by Matsuda in [0012] are dedicated to control of vehicles and devices in their specific sections, this mean that the substitute control mode taught by Tillman is executed with respect to the particular problematic section as taught by Tanabe. Tanabe also teaches the detection and notification of communications anomalies between controllers, extending the types of anomalies taught by Tillman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Matsuda and Tillman, wherein the substitute control mode is executed in any of the specific sections in which an anomaly in communication with at least one of the higher-level control device and the at least one transport vehicle occurs in the section control device responsible for the specific section, and wherein the normal control mode is executed in any of the specific sections in which the section control device responsible for the specific section is communicating normally with both the higher-level control device and the at least one transport vehicle, as taught by Tanabe, because a “normal control mode” should naturally be executed when no abnormal conditions are detected, and because a “substitute control mode” intended to account for anomalies or abnormalities should only be executed with respect to the limited zone in which the anomaly is detected. It can be presumed that a normal control mode is more efficient than a substitute control mode, and so a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to incur the inefficiency of a substitute control mode only in limited areas where it is necessary to avoid more serious problems.
12. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Tillman and Tanabe and further in view of Shimamura Kazunori, JP 2006221309 (hereinafter Shimamura).
Matsuda in view of Tillman and Tanabe teaches the limitations of claim 1, and also:
wherein the at least one transport vehicle comprises a plurality of transport vehicles,Matsuda discloses a plurality of transport vehicles in [0012].
However, Matsuda in view of Tillman and Tanabe does not teach all aspects of:
the section control devices are each configured to control travel of any of the transport vehicles from which is received a passage request signal for passing through the specific section for which the section control device is responsible,Matsuda in view of Tillman and Tanabe does not teach passage request signals. However, Matsuda discloses that section control devices routinely control their vehicles in [0012] without describing how messages are passed between vehicle and controller, so Matsuda in view of Tillman and Tanabe is at least capable of performing the method.
the higher-level control device notifies the transport vehicles that a transmission destination of the passage request signal in a case of passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is being executed is the higher-level control device,While Matsuda discloses the higher-level control device directing vehicles in [0034], and while Tillman teaches the substitute control mode, they do not disclose the claimed message-passing details. Again, Matsuda in view of Tillman and Tanabe is at least capable of performing the method.
and the transport vehicles, in response to passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is being executed, each transmit the passage request signal to the higher-level control device, and, in response to passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is not being executed, each transmit the passage request signal to the section control device responsible for the specific section.While Tillman teaches normal and substitute control modes, neither Matsuda, Tillman, nor Tanabe teaches the interaction between the control modes and message passing between controllers and vehicles. Again, they are at least capable of the method. We note that while the claimed message passing must be explicitly taught by a reference in order to demonstrate its obviousness, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely be familiar with the concept of message passing requests for transit between control zones.
Shimamura, an invention in the field of transport systems, teaches the missing aspects of the limitations:
the section control devices are each configured to control travel of any of the transport vehicles from which is received a passage request signal for passing through the specific section for which the section control device is responsible,Shimamura teaches passage request signals sent by vehicles to controllers as prior art in [0002].
the higher-level control device notifies the transport vehicles that a transmission destination of the passage request signal in a case of passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is being executed is the higher-level control device,In combination with Shimamura’s teaching of passage request signals in [0002], in the case where the higher-level controller is directing a vehicle as disclosed by Matsuda in its [0034], executing a substitute control mode taught by Tillman in its [0075], Shimamura’s passage request signal would be sent to the higher-level controller instead of the section controller for the specific section in which a substitute control mode has been executed.
and the transport vehicles, in response to passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is being executed, each transmit the passage request signal to the higher-level control device, and, in response to passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is not being executed, each transmit the passage request signal to the section control device responsible for the specific section.This limitation is a logical consequence of the above limitations, considering the normal control mode to be a default control mode. In the normal control mode, passage requests as taught by Shimamura are sent to the section controller for the section being traversed, and in substitute control mode they are sent to the higher-level controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Matsuda, Tillman, and Tanabe, wherein the section control devices are each configured to control travel of any of the transport vehicles from which is received a passage request signal for passing through the specific section for which the section control device is responsible, the higher-level control device notifies the transport vehicles that a transmission destination of the passage request signal in a case of passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is being executed is the higher-level control device, and the transport vehicles, in response to passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is being executed, each transmit the passage request signal to the higher-level control device, and, in response to passing through any of the specific sections in which the substitute control mode is not being executed, each transmit the passage request signal to the section control device responsible for the specific section, as taught by Shimamura, because message passing between zone controllers is commonplace and necessary when vehicles are passing from one zone to another and leaving the control sphere of one controller while entering another’s control. In combination with the normal and substitute control modes taught by the other references, the controller message-passing taught by Shimamura is a natural extension of the underlying method. When a superior controller assumes the responsibilities of a sector controller, it must naturally assume the inter-zone message-passing and communications responsibilities of the section controller taught by Shimamura in addition to its vehicle-control responsibilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as a preamble to the specific reasons, while there is a great deal of prior art that teaches arrangements of higher-level transport controllers with lower-level area, zone, or section controllers, the subcategory of art teaching conditions in which a higher-level controller assumes control from a lower-level controller for the purpose of managing vehicles in a transport system in response to an abnormality or “anomaly” is relatively circumscribed.
Regarding claim 6, given a situation in which a higher-level controller can cause a “substitute control mode” to be executed when a problem arises with a lower-level section controller, the further limitation that vehicles in a transport system transmit signals to both controllers according to communication timeout or retry cycles in which the interval of the cycle for the higher-level controller is longer than the interval of the cycle for the lower-level controller, was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 7, given a situation in which a higher-level controller has an assist control mode for cooperating with a lower-level section controller for the purpose of controlling vehicles and in which the lower-level controller loses contact with the vehicle, the further limitation that the higher-level controller notifies the lower-level controller whether the vehicle is present in the section that the lower-level controller controls, was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Claim 8 inherits the allowability of claim 7.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0082989 teaches a situation in which controllers manage transports that may have to halt or suffer other transport anomalies when being updated. CN 109850515 is one of many examples of prior art teaching controller hierarchies in which superior controllers transmit instructions to subordinate controllers to relay to vehicles under their direct control. US 2018/0122671 is an example of applicant’s prior art teaching multiple control modes in a similar transport system context to that of the instant application. Applicant’s co-pending application 18/210,258 (published as US 2023/0406644) shares similar structural elements to the instant application, but as its controller hierarchy’s control modes are employed in service to software updates rather than anomaly detection and mitigation, the co-pending application’s claims are entirely distinct from those of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655