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 06/28/2023 and 08/19/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 3 and 5-8 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.
INDEFINITENESS ISSUE 1 — SUBJECTIVE BOUNDARIES FOR “IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR PROCESSES”
Claim 3 recites “processing devices configured to perform identical or similar processes.” The term “similar” is a term of degree/subjective comparison that introduces uncertainty as to the metes and bounds of the claim because the claim does not specify any objective standard for determining when two “processes” are “similar” versus not similar.
The specification describes “processing devices 50 that perform identical or similar processes” (e.g., semiconductor processing plant context) but, as presented, does not set forth a clear, objective criterion for “similar,” such as a defined process class, a process recipe identifier, a process family definition, a shared tool type, a shared unit operation, or another measurable basis that would permit a skilled artisan to determine claim scope with reasonable certainty.
INDEFINITENESS ISSUE 2 — AMBIGUITY OF “OBTAINABLE ON A ROUTE” AND ROUTE DEFINITION
Claim 5 recites that the control device “determines, to be the additional conveyance target, a conveyance target obtainable on a route along which the conveyance target being conveyed by the carriage is conveyed.”
The phrase “obtainable on a route” is unclear because it does not reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art what condition must be satisfied for a conveyance target to be “obtainable.” For example, it is unclear whether “obtainable” requires that the target be physically located at a departure place exactly on the planned travel path, merely within a threshold distance of the path, reachable by taking a branch track without exceeding a deviation constraint, reachable without delaying delivery beyond a threshold, or simply reachable at all.
Additionally, the claim does not clarify what “route” is being referenced (e.g., a planned route computed by the control device, a shortest path route, an actual real-time route after traffic/avoidance control, or a fixed one-way loop route). This ambiguity impacts the boundary of when a target qualifies as “obtainable on a route,” and thus impacts the scope of the limitation.
INDEFINITENESS ISSUE 3 — AMBIGUITY AND INCONSISTENCY OF “UNAVAILABLE” (CLAIM 6)
Claim 6 recites “in a case where the device port on which the conveyance target is to be placed is unavailable…”.
The term “unavailable” is broad and unclear because it can reasonably encompass different states, such as occupied by another conveyance target, reserved/allocated to another target, offline/faulted, blocked by operational constraints, temporarily inaccessible due to carriage traffic, or otherwise not usable. The specification, as presented, describes the condition in terms of whether the processing device “has any empty device port” and, if not, the carriage travels around the intra-bay circular track until a device port becomes empty. The claim’s use of “unavailable” does not clearly align with “no empty device port,” and therefore the trigger condition for the circulating behavior is uncertain.
INDEFINITENESS ISSUE 4 — ANTECEDENT BASIS FOR “THE SECOND CIRCULAR TRACK” (CLAIM 6)
Claim 2 introduces “second circular tracks each of which branches from the first circular track, the second circular tracks running around in the respective plurality of areas.”
Claim 6 recites “the second circular track that runs around in the area” (singular). It is unclear whether “the second circular track” refers to a particular one of the plural “second circular tracks,” and if so, by what selection rule it is identified (e.g., the second circular track corresponding to the destination area, the second circular track the carriage is currently on, or another track).
This lack of clear antecedent basis and identification renders the scope of claim 6 uncertain.
INDEFINITENESS ISSUE 5 — ANTECEDENT BASIS FOR “THE CARRIAGE” IN THE ALLOCATING STEP
Claim 7 introduces “a conveyance system including a plurality of carriages,” but then recites “allocating, to the carriage, the conveyance target…” without first introducing a singular “a carriage” or otherwise clarifying which carriage of the plurality is being referenced.
While it may be intended that the allocating step selects one carriage from the plurality, the present claim language does not particularly point out which “carriage” is meant, and therefore lacks clear antecedent basis and fails to distinctly define claim scope with reasonable certainty.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1
JP 2004-227060 A (Unmanned transport vehicle system).
REFERENCE 2
JP 2007-137642 A (Ceiling traveling vehicle system).
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 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
A conveyance system comprising: a carriage configured to be capable of conveying a plurality of conveyance targets; and a control device configured to perform an allocation process of allocating, to the carriage, a conveyance target to be conveyed, the control device performing the allocation process such that, in a case where a region in which the carriage is movable is divided into a plurality of areas, areas of destinations of the plurality of conveyance targets that are to be simultaneously conveyed by the carriage are the same.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 1
A conveyance system comprising:
Reference 1 discloses an unmanned transport vehicle system 1 in which transport vehicles 10 travel along a running road 2 arranged across multiple bays 3 to transport articles among stations such as stations 41 and 51 associated with processing devices 4 (and related factory equipment). The system 1 includes controller(s) such as integrated controller 7 and area controller 8 that manage vehicles 10 and issue instructions/commands for transport operations. Accordingly, Reference 1 teaches a “conveyance system.”
a carriage configured to be capable of conveying a plurality of conveyance targets;
Reference 1 discloses transport vehicles 10 (including first transport vehicles 10A and second transport vehicles 10B) as the mobile conveyance “carriages” that carry articles (i.e., conveyance targets) along the running road 2 between stations 41/51 in bays 3. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a “carriage” in the form of transport vehicle 10/10A/10B.
With respect to “configured to be capable of conveying a plurality of conveyance targets,” Reference 1 expressly contemplates that while an embodiment may use a first transport vehicle 10A that loads one article, a transport vehicle capable of loading multiple articles is also contemplated, and in such a multi-load vehicle the “empty” state corresponds to the presence of space on the loading platform for transferring an article at the station 41/51. Thus, Reference 1 teaches (or at minimum explicitly suggests and renders obvious) configuring the carriage/vehicle 10/10A to be capable of carrying multiple conveyance targets simultaneously by providing multiple-load capacity on the vehicle’s loading platform/space and a control device configured to perform an allocation process of allocating, to the carriage, a conveyance target to be conveyed, Reference 1 discloses a control architecture including integrated controller 7 and area controller 8 that manage the transport vehicles 10 and provide transport instructions/commands. In particular, Reference 1 discloses the generation and communication of special transport instructions (created by integrated controller 7 and delivered to an area controller 8) and the assignment of a transport command to a selected first transport vehicle 10A via communications and polling between the area controller 8 and the vehicle 10A. This is an “allocation process” because the controller(s) select/identify a particular carriage/vehicle (e.g., a particular first transport vehicle 10A) and allocate to that vehicle the task (the conveyance target) of conveying an article from a departure station (e.g., station 41/51) to a destination station (e.g., station 41/51), including conveying across bays 3 as needed using the running road 2.
the control device performing the allocation process such that, in a case where a region in which the carriage is movable is divided into a plurality of areas, areas of destinations of the plurality of conveyance targets that are to be simultaneously conveyed by the carriage are the same.
Reference 1 discloses that the vehicle movement region is divided into a plurality of areas, including bays 3, each bay 3 constituting an “area,” and further discloses an intra-area route in each bay 3 (first closed-loop road 21) as contrasted with an across-area route (second closed-loop road 22) and connecting road(s) 23. Thus, Reference 1 teaches dividing a vehicle-movable region into multiple “areas” (bays 3), within which a vehicle 10A circulates on a closed-loop route 21.
Reference 1 further discloses dispatch/control based on whether a candidate transport vehicle is inside the area (bay 3) or outside the area (other bay 3, second closed-loop road 22, and/or connecting road 23), including comparing predicted arrival times for vehicles in-area and out-of-area to allocate a transport request to the vehicle expected to arrive first. This teaches that allocation decisions in Reference 1 are made with explicit recognition of “areas” and area boundaries (e.g., in-area versus out-of-area).
Reference 2 discloses a ceiling traveling vehicle system 2 with transport command management unit 10 and related control components (e.g., logistics control system 4, ceiling traveling vehicle controller 16, inventory management unit 12) that manage congestion and traffic patterns as vehicles 20 travel along inter-bay route 28 and intra-bay route 30 to interact with buffers 22 and load ports 24 for processing devices 34. Reference 2 teaches control strategies keyed to destination-area/local-route congestion management, such as controlling assignment and/or routing decisions with reference to the area/local route to which the next processing device 34 belongs (i.e., recognizing that actions should be coordinated to reduce interference in a destination area/local route where processing-device interactions occur).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to modify the allocation process of Reference 1 (integrated controller 7 / area controller 8 allocating transport tasks to vehicles 10/10A) to include an additional allocation rule for multi-load operation (explicitly contemplated by Reference 1), namely: when allocating a plurality of conveyance targets to be simultaneously conveyed by a multi-load vehicle (i.e., when the vehicle has available loading space), the controller selects targets whose destination stations are in the same “area” (same bay 3) so that the set of concurrently carried targets share a common destination area. This modification is consistent with (and motivated by) Reference 2’s teaching that congestion and throughput problems are strongly affected by destination-area/local-route traffic, and that control decisions should manage where vehicles stop and operate so as not to interfere with other vehicles in the destination area/local route.
Stated differently in the terms of claim 1: since Reference 1 already divides the movement region into areas (bays 3) and already contemplates multi-load vehicles (plurality of articles loadable on a vehicle), and since Reference 2 teaches congestion-aware control using destination-area/local-route concepts (inter-bay route 28 and intra-bay route 30, and assignment/management by transport command management unit 10 relative to the area/local route of the next processing device 34), it would have been obvious to allocate multi-load deliveries so that concurrently carried conveyance targets share the same destination area (same bay 3), yielding the claimed allocation constraint for simultaneously conveyed targets.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 1
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the destination-area/local-route congestion-management teachings of Reference 2 into the area-based dispatch system of Reference 1 (controllers 7/8 dispatching vehicles 10 across bays 3 and loop roads 21/22/23), because both references address improving transport efficiency and reducing congestion in automated factory conveyance routes. Reference 1 already recognizes dispatch distinctions based on whether vehicles are in-area or out-of-area (bays 3) and explicitly contemplates multi-load transport vehicles (vehicles capable of loading multiple articles). Reference 2 further teaches that congestion in a destination local route/area associated with processing-device interactions (processing devices 34 on intra-bay route 30 and their load ports 24) is a key constraint and that control logic should be designed around minimizing disruptive vehicle traffic patterns. Applying these teachings together yields the predictable result that, for a multi-load vehicle, grouping concurrently carried targets by the same destination area reduces cross-area travel while loaded, reduces the number of area transitions under load, and reduces interference in local routes/areas, thereby improving throughput and reducing congestion. This is a predictable optimization within the routine skill of a system designer of automated conveyance systems.
The conveyance system according to claim 1, wherein: the carriage is configured to travel along a track; and the track includes: a first circular track that runs around across the plurality of areas; and second circular tracks each of which branches from the first circular track, the second circular tracks running around in the respective plurality of areas.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 2
The conveyance system according to claim 1, wherein: the carriage is configured to travel along a track;
Reference 1 discloses that the transport vehicle 10 travels along a defined running road 2 (a guided track/route) disposed throughout the facility, including within bays 3 and across bays 3. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a carriage/vehicle 10 configured to travel along a “track” (running road 2).
and the track includes:
a first circular track that runs around across the plurality of areas;
Reference 1 discloses a second closed-loop road 22 that is a long-distance loop route used for between-process/between-bay transport across multiple bays 3. This second closed-loop road 22 runs around across a plurality of areas/bays 3 and therefore corresponds to the claimed first circular track running around across the plurality of areas.
and second circular tracks each of which branches from the first circular track, the second circular tracks running around in the respective plurality of areas.
Reference 1 discloses that each bay 3 includes a first closed-loop road 21 used for intra-area (intra-bay) transport within that bay 3, and that the first closed-loop roads 21 are connected to the second closed-loop road 22 by connecting roads 23. The first closed-loop road 21 in each bay 3 is a circular track that runs around in the respective area (bay 3). The connecting road(s) 23 provide the “branching” connection by which each intra-bay loop 21 branches from and reconnects to the inter-bay loop 22. Thus, Reference 1 teaches the claimed track architecture of a first loop around multiple areas and second loops within each area branching from the first loop.
Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 for at least the reasons stated in claim 1, and because Reference 1 further teaches the specific track topology recited in claim 2 via running road 2 including closed-loop roads 22 and 21 with connecting roads 23 across bays 3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 2
Because claim 2 depends from claim 1, the motivation set forth for claim 1 applies here as well. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ (and/or retain) the closed-loop inter-area and intra-area track topology of Reference 1 (second closed-loop road 22 and first closed-loop roads 21 with connecting roads 23) when applying the congestion-management teachings of Reference 2, because Reference 2 likewise addresses traffic and congestion management across an inter-bay route 28 and intra-bay routes 30, and closed-loop topologies are well-suited for one-direction continuous movement, reduced deadlocks, and predictable dispatch timing. Using loop-based inter-area and intra-area routes provides predictable improvements in throughput and congestion control in precisely the types of systems addressed by both references.
The conveyance system according to claim 2, wherein: each of the plurality of areas includes a plurality of processing devices configured to perform identical or similar processes; and each of the plurality of processing devices includes at least one device port on which the conveyance target to be processed by the processing device is to be placed.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 3
The conveyance system according to claim 2, wherein: each of the plurality of areas includes a plurality of processing devices configured to perform identical or similar processes;
Reference 1 discloses that within each bay 3 there are multiple processing devices 4. Reference 1 is directed to semiconductor-factory transport in which bays are established as work areas containing multiple processing tools; thus the processing devices 4 within a given bay 3 are arranged as a group of tools in that bay, which at minimum are “similar” in the sense of being processing devices within the same bay-based process area served by the intra-bay loop 21. The claim requires only “identical or similar,” which is met by the disclosed arrangement of plural processing devices 4 in each bay 3 configured as a bay-based processing area.
Reference 2 further supports this concept by disclosing processing devices 34 arranged into device groupings (e.g., groups A–D) served by intra-bay route 30 and managed using table 40, indicating that processing devices within a local route/area are treated as a group with shared characteristics for control purposes. This supports that devices within a given area/local route are “identical or similar” in the sense required by the claim.
and each of the plurality of processing devices includes at least one device port on which the conveyance target to be processed by the processing device is to be placed.
Reference 1 discloses stations 41 and 51 associated with processing devices 4, at which articles are transferred to/from the transport vehicles 10/10A (e.g., by hoist transfer operations). These stations 41/51 function as “device ports” because they are designated locations on or adjacent to a processing device 4 where the conveyance target is placed for processing or retrieved after processing.
Reference 2 likewise discloses load ports 24 as ports on which a cassette (conveyance target) is placed for interaction with processing devices 34. Thus, Reference 2 corroborates that processing-related equipment includes ports (load ports 24) that serve as placement locations for conveyance targets to be processed.
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 for at least the reasons stated above, because Reference 1 teaches plural processing devices 4 per area/bay 3 and corresponding transfer stations 41/51 functioning as device ports, and Reference 2 further teaches load ports 24 for processing devices 34 as placement ports.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 3
Because claim 3 depends from claim 2 (and thus from claim 1), the motivations stated for claims 1 and 2 apply here as well. In addition, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to treat the transfer stations/ports of Reference 1 (stations 41/51) as device ports analogous to the load ports 24 of Reference 2, because both represent standard interfaces where conveyance targets are placed for processing-tool interaction in automated factory material handling. Aligning the terminology and port-handling logic across these analogous systems yields predictable results: consistent placement and retrieval operations and improved coordination between transport vehicles and processing tools.
The conveyance system according to claim 3, wherein, in a case where the carriage has entered a range having a predetermined distance from the area to which the conveyance target being conveyed by the carriage is to be conveyed, the control device designates the device port on which the conveyance target is to be placed.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 4
The conveyance system according to claim 3, wherein, in a case where the carriage has entered a range having a predetermined distance from the area to which the conveyance target being conveyed by the carriage is to be conveyed,
Reference 1 teaches area-based movement across bays 3 and within a bay 3 along loop roads 22/23/21. In such a loop-based system, a vehicle 10A necessarily “enters” a bay/area 3 by traversing the connecting road 23 from the inter-bay loop 22 to the intra-bay loop 21. That structural transition provides a clear practical “range” condition: when the vehicle is at/near the area entry (connecting road 23 leading into loop 21), the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the destination area (bay 3).
the control device designates the device port on which the conveyance target is to be placed.
Reference 1 discloses that the area controller 8 assigns a transport command to the vehicle 10A via polling communications when the vehicle 10A reports position information indicating it is traveling within a predetermined section (a “predetermined distance” region) relative to a station (and the transport command includes ID information for a destination station). This teaches the general control technique of designating/delivering a specific station ID (i.e., a device port identifier) in a deferred manner triggered by detection that the vehicle has entered a predetermined range/section.
Reference 2 teaches congestion-aware control logic and assignment management in which the transport command management unit 10 (and related controllers 16, inventory management unit 12) allocate and manage transport instructions relative to inter-bay route 28, intra-bay route 30, and destination-area considerations. Because Reference 2 emphasizes that availability and congestion within a destination local route/area affects transport timing and assignments, it would have been obvious to apply the deferred-designation concept taught by Reference 1 (controller 8 using predetermined section/position to trigger sending destination station ID) specifically to destination-device-port designation when approaching/entering the destination area. This yields the predictable benefit of selecting a currently available device port (station 41/51 or load port 24) and avoiding premature reservation or stale designation while the vehicle is still far away.
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 because Reference 1 teaches designating a station/device-port identifier via polling when the vehicle is within a predetermined section, and it would have been obvious (in view of Reference 2’s destination-area congestion/availability teachings) to perform such designation upon entry into a predetermined-distance range of the destination area to improve port-availability accuracy and reduce congestion.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 4
Because claim 4 depends from claim 3 (and thus from claim 1), the motivations stated for claims 1–3 apply here as well. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to trigger destination device-port designation when the vehicle is near or entering the destination area because port availability is dynamic and can change while the vehicle is en route. Reference 1 already teaches using a “predetermined section” trigger and polling communications to assign command details (including destination station ID) in a timely, position-based manner. Reference 2 teaches that congestion and operational smoothness in destination local routes/areas (intra-bay route 30) is a key design constraint. Combining these teachings yields the predictable result of minimizing wasted travel and avoiding deadlocks or contention caused by selecting a destination port too early, thereby improving throughput and reducing congestion.
The conveyance system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the control device causes the carriage to convey an additional conveyance target, which is the conveyance target to be additionally conveyed, while the carriage is conveying the conveyance target, the control device determines, to be the additional conveyance target, a conveyance target obtainable on a route along which the conveyance target being conveyed by the carriage is conveyed.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 5
The conveyance system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the control device causes the carriage to convey an additional conveyance target while the carriage is conveying the conveyance target, Reference 1 teaches allocating transport tasks to vehicles 10/10A under controller 7/8 supervision, including tracking whether a vehicle is “empty” or carrying an article and whether a transport command is already assigned or assignable. Reference 1 also expressly contemplates multi-load vehicles (vehicles capable of loading multiple articles), in which case a vehicle may be carrying at least one article while still having space to accept another article. Thus, Reference 1 teaches (or at minimum renders obvious) the situation in which a carriage/vehicle is conveying one conveyance target while additionally being able to convey an additional conveyance target.
The control device determines, to be the additional conveyance target, a conveyance target obtainable on a route along which the conveyance target being conveyed by the carriage is conveyed.
Reference 1 teaches controller-side computation of predicted arrival times and selection among vehicles based on where they are located (in-area bay 3 loop 21 or out-of-area on loops 22/23 and other bays), which necessarily involves reasoning about the route the vehicle will traverse to reach the relevant station(s). This establishes that the control device (controller 7/8) in Reference 1 makes allocation decisions in view of routes and vehicle positions on those routes.
Given (i) Reference 1’s explicit contemplation of multi-load vehicles and (ii) Reference 1’s route-aware dispatching (arrival time prediction and selection of vehicles based on their position on loop roads 21/22/23), it would have been obvious to implement a known efficiency optimization: when a vehicle already traveling on a planned route toward a destination is capable of carrying an additional article, the controller selects as an additional conveyance target an article located at a departure station that lies on (or is reachable with minimal deviation from) that planned route. This is a predictable, routine dispatch optimization because it minimizes detours, minimizes additional travel time, and increases throughput without materially affecting delivery time for the first target.
Reference 2 further motivates this by teaching congestion-aware management on inter-bay route 28 and intra-bay route 30, making it desirable to reduce unnecessary route deviations and additional route entries that can increase congestion. Selecting an additional target “obtainable on the route” (i.e., located at a station encountered along the route) reduces additional route load and thereby aligns with Reference 2’s congestion-management goals.
Accordingly, claim 5 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 because Reference 1 teaches multi-load capability as contemplated and route-based dispatch logic (arrival prediction across loop roads 21/22/23), and it would have been obvious in view of Reference 2’s congestion-aware control teachings to select additional pickups that are obtainable along the already-planned route to improve efficiency and reduce congestion.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 5
Because claim 5 depends from claim 1, the motivation stated for claim 1 applies here as well. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select an additional conveyance target that is obtainable along the route of the already-dispatched vehicle because this is a predictable way to improve throughput in route-based conveyance systems. Reference 1 already relies on vehicle-position and arrival-time prediction across loop roads 21/22/23 and already contemplates multi-load vehicles. Reference 2 teaches that congestion in inter-bay and intra-bay routes (inter-bay route 28 and intra-bay route 30) is a central design concern. Combining these teachings leads to the predictable result that opportunistic pickup along the existing route reduces total travel distance, reduces unnecessary area transitions, and reduces congestion relative to dispatching a separate vehicle or forcing a detour, thereby improving overall system efficiency.
The conveyance system according to claim 3, wherein, in a case where the device port on which the conveyance target is to be placed is unavailable in the area which is the destination of the conveyance target, the control device causes the carriage which is conveying the conveyance target to travel around on the second circular track that runs around in the area.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 6
The conveyance system according to claim 3, wherein, in a case where the device port on which the conveyance target is to be placed is unavailable in the area which is the destination of the conveyance target, Reference 1 discloses destination stations (stations 41/51) within a bay 3 for transfer to/from processing devices 4, and the transport operation necessarily depends on station availability (e.g., whether the station can accept a transfer at that time). Thus, unavailability of a device port/station in the destination area is an operational condition that would be encountered in the system of Reference 1. The control device causes the carriage which is conveying the conveyance target to travel around on the second circular track that runs around in the area.
Reference 1 discloses an intra-area closed-loop track in each bay 3 (first closed-loop road 21) on which first transport vehicles 10A circulate within that bay 3. When the destination station (device port) is unavailable, it would have been obvious to have the controller (area controller 8 and/or integrated controller 7) direct the conveying vehicle 10A to continue circulating on the intra-bay loop road 21 (i.e., “travel around” the circular track in that area) rather than exiting the bay to the inter-bay loop 22, because continuing to circulate on the intra-bay loop 21 keeps the vehicle within the destination area and ready to complete delivery when the station becomes available, while reducing interference with inter-bay traffic on the second closed-loop road 22.
Reference 2 further supports and motivates this behavior by teaching congestion control in local routes/areas (intra-bay route 30) and highlighting that controlling where vehicles stop and operate reduces interference with other vehicles needing access to processing-device interfaces (e.g., load ports 24). Applying this teaching to Reference 1’s loop topology makes it predictable and obvious that, if a destination port is unavailable, the vehicle should remain circulating in the destination area loop (analogous to intra-bay route 30 behavior) until the port is available.
Thus, claim 6 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 because Reference 1 teaches intra-area circular tracks (closed-loop road 21) in each area/bay 3 and controller-directed vehicle movement, and it would have been obvious in view of Reference 2’s congestion and local-route management teachings to keep the vehicle circulating within the destination area when the destination port is unavailable to avoid blocking and improve efficiency.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 6
Because claim 6 depends from claim 3 (and thus from claim 1), the motivations stated for claims 1–3 apply here as well. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to keep a conveying vehicle circulating within the destination area’s intra-area loop when the destination port is unavailable because this is a predictable and routinely used technique to avoid blocking and to maintain readiness for delivery. Reference 1 provides the necessary intra-area loop structure (closed-loop road 21 in bay 3) and controller control (area controller 8) for directing vehicle movement, and Reference 2 teaches that minimizing interference and congestion in destination local routes/areas is important. The predictable result is reduced deadlock risk, reduced congestion on shared inter-area routes, and reduced delivery latency once the port becomes available.
A method for controlling a conveyance system including a plurality of carriages each configured to be capable of conveying a plurality of conveyance targets, the method comprising the steps of: acquiring conveyance information including a departure place of a conveyance target to be conveyed and a destination of the conveyance target; and allocating, to the carriage, the conveyance target to be conveyed with use of the conveyance information such that, in a case where a region in which the carriage is movable is divided into a plurality of areas, areas of destinations of the plurality of conveyance targets that are to be simultaneously conveyed by the carriage are the same.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 7
A method for controlling a conveyance system including a plurality of carriages each configured to be capable of conveying a plurality of conveyance targets,
Reference 1 discloses an unmanned transport vehicle system 1 that includes multiple transport vehicles 10/10A/10B traveling on the running road 2 across multiple bays 3. As discussed for claim 1, Reference 1 explicitly contemplates multi-load vehicles capable of loading multiple articles, thereby teaching (or rendering obvious) that the system includes plural carriages (vehicles 10) each capable of conveying a plurality of conveyance targets (articles) when configured as a multi-load vehicle.
the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring conveyance information including a departure place of a conveyance target to be conveyed and a destination of the conveyance target;
Reference 1 discloses that transport tasks are defined by a request from a requesting station and a destination station, and that controllers exchange information including station identifiers (stations 41/51) and related command information. For example, the integrated controller 7 creates a special transport instruction specifying a requested transport from a requesting station (departure place) to a requested station (destination), and transmits that information to an area controller 8, which therefore “acquires conveyance information” including departure and destination.
Reference 2 further discloses inventory management unit 12, transport master file 14, and transport command management unit 10 controlling transport instructions for moving articles between load ports 24, buffers 22, and processing devices 34 along routes 28/30, which inherently relies on acquiring information identifying the departure and destination points (e.g., a source load port 24 or buffer 22 and a destination load port 24 or buffer 22). Thus, Reference 2 supports the “acquiring conveyance information” step.
and allocating, to the carriage, the conveyance target to be conveyed with use of the conveyance information such that, in a case where a region in which the carriage is movable is divided into a plurality of areas, areas of destinations of the plurality of conveyance targets that are to be simultaneously conveyed by the carriage are the same.
Reference 1 discloses allocating a transport task to a specific transport vehicle 10A by selecting the vehicle based on predicted arrival time and assigning a transport command to that vehicle via controller 8 polling communication, using the conveyance information (departure station and destination station). Reference 1 also discloses that the region is divided into areas/bays 3 (each bay having an intra-area loop 21 and being connected via inter-area loops 22/23). Thus, Reference 1 teaches allocation using conveyance information in a system divided into areas.
As explained for claim 1, Reference 2 teaches congestion-aware control keyed to destination local routes/areas (inter-bay route 28 and intra-bay route 30 and management by transport command management unit 10). In view of Reference 1’s explicit contemplation of multi-load vehicles and Reference 2’s destination-area/local-route congestion management, it would have been obvious to implement the allocation rule that, when allocating multiple targets to be simultaneously conveyed by a multi-load carriage, the controller selects targets sharing the same destination area (e.g., same bay 3) in order to reduce cross-area traffic under load and reduce congestion in local routes/areas. This is the same predictable optimization discussed for claim 1, expressed here as a control method.
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 for at least the reasons stated above.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 7
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the method-level teachings of Reference 1 (controller-side acquisition of departure/destination station information and assignment of transport commands to specific vehicles) with Reference 2’s congestion-aware area/local-route control teachings because both concern improving dispatch efficiency and congestion management in automated conveyance systems. Applying destination-area-based grouping for multi-load allocations is a predictable algorithmic optimization that improves throughput and reduces unnecessary area transitions and congestion, yielding predictable results without requiring undue experimentation.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a control program causing a computer to perform the control method according to claim 7.
DETAILED CLAIM ANALYSIS — CLAIM 8
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a control program causing a computer to perform the control method according to claim 7.
Reference 1 discloses controller hardware and software execution in which the area controller 8 stores and executes programs (e.g., a comparison program stored in ROM 81 and executed by CPU 80 with RAM 82, and communications via modem 83). ROM 81 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The program stored therein causes the controller computer to execute the dispatching/comparison and command-assignment operations described in Reference 1 (allocating transport tasks to vehicles based on conveyance request information).
It would have been obvious to store and execute (in ROM 81 and associated controller computing resources) the control logic of claim 7, including the allocation rule discussed above, because Reference 1 already stores dispatch programs for allocating transport tasks and expressly contemplates multi-load vehicles and corresponding assignment states, and thus implementing the claimed method in software stored on a non-transitory medium is a routine and predictable implementation choice.
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 because Reference 1 teaches non-transitory storage (ROM 81) storing a control program executed by the controller (CPU 80) to allocate transport tasks, and it would have been obvious to store a program implementing the method of claim 7 in the same manner.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 8
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the control method of claim 7 as a program stored on a non-transitory medium because Reference 1 already teaches controller programs stored in ROM 81 and executed by CPU 80 to perform dispatch and allocation functions. Implementing the additional allocation rule and related steps in software is a predictable and conventional approach in automated conveyance systems, and yields predictable results (repeatable execution, easier updates, centralized management) without changing the underlying mechanical transport architecture.
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