DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/23 and 9/6/23 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. A system claim is depended on a method claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-3, 8, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (Gupta), US publication no. 2018/0329426.
As per claim 1, Gupta teaches a method for controlling conveyor vehicles of a conveying system [figures 13A-13B], the method comprising:
providing a plurality of conveyor vehicles [16, figure 1] of the conveying system [para 62];
specifying a conveying job for conveying one or more conveyed objects [para 150; figure 13A];
determining a conveying job data set for controlling a conveyor vehicle when performing the conveying job [para 151-152; figure 13A];
and carrying out the conveying job [figures 13A-13B; para 151-155].
Gupta teaches:
[0150] Orders are received at the management system 18 using an order generator 88, for example through an electronic commerce website in step 222. The received orders
are recorded in the orders database 92 by the order manager 90 and placed in an order queue in step 224. In step 226, it is determined whether an order has been triggered. When an order is triggered for fulfillment, the task manager 96 determines the preferred rack combination for fulfillment of the order based on the heuristic calculation described above in step 228. The task manager 96 determines the best set of vehicles 16 to carry out retrieval of each of the determined racks 12 based on the locations of the vehicles 16 relative to the racks 12 in step 230.
[0151] For each rack 12 in the rack combination, the path calculator 102 at the management system 18 calculates the transportation path to be followed by each vehicle 16 during retrieval of the racks 12 in step 232. The transportation path of the vehicle 16 in going back to the goods storage area 23 is also determined. In an embodiment, the transportation paths are calculated using an A* algorithm. The transportation path defines the sequence of markers 20a-20d through which a vehicle 16 will pass in order to travel from its current location to the relevant rack 12 in the goods storage area 23, or the sequence of markers 20a-20d through which a vehicle 16 will pass in order to travel from the goods storage area 23 to the operator station 14.
[0152] For each vehicle 16 assigned to retrieve a rack 12 from the goods storage area 23, the vehicle navigator 104 communicates navigation instructions to the vehicle 16,
which indicates a segmented navigation path to travel from the current marker 20a-20d to a subsequent marker 20a-20d in the defined transportation path in step 234. Such navigational information includes direction information, for example in the form of a bearing, and distance information indicative of the distance between the current marker 20a-20d and the subsequent marker 20a-20d. When the vehicle 16 arrives at the subsequent marker 20a-20d, the vehicle 16 reads the unique identification information associated with the subsequent marker 20a-20d using the sensors 134, and
communicates the information indicative of the subsequent marker 20a-20d to the vehicle navigator 104 in step 236.
As per claim 2, Gupta teaches the conveying job data set includes one or more conveying job-specific data and/or conveyed object-specific data, and/or one or more of these data are taken into account when determining the conveying job data set, in particular one or more of the following data: type of conveyed object to be conveyed;
spatial position and/or sequence of one or more stations in particular workstations, when conveying the conveyed object; or expected and/or required time of stay of the conveyed object and/or the conveyor vehicle at a particular station [figures 7; 13A-13B; para 69-71, 160-161].
As per claim 3, Gupta teaches one or more or all of the conveying job-specific and/or conveyed object specific data are determined and/or generated from empirical
values and/or measured values of completed conveying jobs and/or calibration runs [figure 7; para 93-95].
As per claim 8, Gupta teaches the conveying job data set is incomplete at the beginning of the execution of the conveying job, and/or initially at least one conveying path and/or a speed profile for complete execution of the conveying job are incomplete, wherein, when a specified intermediate position of the conveyor vehicle is reached, the conveying path and/or the speed profile are determined to completing them [figure 13A; para 152-153].
As per claim 12, Gupta teaches the conveying job data set contains information about conveying area sections of a conveying area of the conveying system to be kept free, or is determined taking into account such information wherein this information describes in particular a spatially and/or temporally limited conveying corridor for
exclusive use by one or more other conveyor vehicles [para 72].
As per claim 14, Gupta discloses conveying system for conveying conveyed objects, in particular vehicle bodies, the conveying system comprising: a plurality of self-propelled and/or driverless conveyor vehicles for receiving one or more conveyed objects; a conveying area within which the conveyor vehicles are movable along conveying routes; a control system for selecting and/or influencing the conveying routes and/or speeds of the conveyor vehicles [figure 1; para 62], wherein the control system is designed and configured to perform a method according to claim 1 [figures 13A, 13B; para 151-155]
As to claim 15, Gupta discloses a production system for producing vehicles, in particular passenger cars, wherein the production system includes a conveying system according to claim 14 for conveyor vehicle bodies, wherein the vehicle bodies can be
supplied by the conveying system in particular in succession to a plurality of stations designed as processing stations and/or assembly stations [figure 1; para 62-64].
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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 4-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (Gupta), US publication no. 2018/0329426 in view of Saboo et al. (Saboo), US publication no. 2016/01295921.
As per claim 4, Gupta fails to disclose the conveying job data set includes one or more state data of the current and/or expected state of the conveying system and/or one or more stations, and/or one or more of these state data are taken into account when determining the conveying job data set, in particular one or more of the following data: current and/or expected utilization of the conveyor vehicles; current and/or expected utilization of one or more conveying route sections; current and/or expected utilization of one or more stations; or current disruption-related or maintenance-related route closures or station failures.
Saboo discloses the conveying job data set includes one or more state data of the current and/or expected state of the conveying system and/or one or more stations, and/or one or more of these state data are taken into account when determining the conveying job data set, in particular one or more of the following data:
current and/or expected utilization of the conveyor vehicles; current and/or expected utilization of one or more conveying route sections; current and/or expected utilization of one or more stations; or current disruption-related or maintenance-related route
closures or station failures [para 45, 84, 87].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Gupta and Saboo because they both disclose a conveying system, the specify teachings of Saboo stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Gupta system to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 5, Saboo teaches one or more or all of the state data are determined on the basis of data which are provided by sensors and/or by transmitting current and/or expected operating parameters of one or more additional
conveyor vehicles and/or one or more stations [para 45, 84, 87].
As per claim 6, Saboo teaches a basic conveying path and/or a basic speed profile for carrying out the conveying job is first determined on the basis of one or
more conveying job-specific and/or conveyed object-specific data, and at the beginning of the execution of the conveying job and/or during the execution of the conveying
job, in particular before, during and/or after a stay at a station, an update and/or if necessary a correction of the basic conveying path and/or of the basis speed profile is
carried out, in particular depending on state data of the current and/or expected state of the conveying system and/or one or more stations yet to be approached [para 45, 84, 87].
As per claim 7, Saboo teaches of updating and/or by correcting the basic conveying route and/or the basic speed profile, a modified conveying route and/or a
modified speed profile are obtained [para 45, 84, 87].
As per claim 13, Saboo teaches after determining a conveying job data set, in particular after determining and/or updating and/or correcting a conveying path and/or a speed profile, one or more spatially and/or temporally limited conveying corridors are identified for exclusive use by the conveyor vehicle, wherein information relating to this is used or taken into account in the determination of future conveying job data sets for additional conveyor vehicles [para 84, 87].
10. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (Gupta), US publication no. 2018/0329426 in view of Tengvert (Tengvert), EP 3561628 A12.
As per claim 9, Gupta fails to teach at least one local conveying specification and/or at least one global conveying specification is taken into account when determining the conveying job data set, wherein a local conveying specification for a partial region of a conveying area of the conveying system and/or for a subset of the conveyor vehicles applies, and wherein a global conveying specification applies for the entire conveying area and for all conveyor vehicles.
Tengvert teaches at least one local conveying specification and/or at least one global conveying specification is taken into account when determining the conveying job data set, wherein a local conveying specification for a partial region of a conveying area of the conveying system and/or for a subset of the conveyor vehicles applies, and wherein a global conveying specification applies for the entire conveying area and for all conveyor vehicles [para 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Gupta and Tengvert because they both disclose a conveying system, the specify teachings of Tengvert stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Gupta system to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 10, Tengvert teaches one or more the following are provided as a local or global conveying specification: a) minimizing the energy requirement of the conveying system; b) minimizing wear of the conveying system; c) maximizing the conveying speed; d) optimizing production utilization; e) homogenizing the conveying route utilization; and/or f) evening out the spatial distribution of the conveyor
vehicles within a global conveying area of the conveying system [para 19].
As per claim 11, Tengvert teaches a local conveying specification and/or a global conveying specification can be varied able during a conveying job, wherein this triggers an update and/or correction of a conveying path and/or speed profile, in particular of the basic conveying path and/or the basic speed profile, or the modified conveying
path and/or the modified speed profile [para 19, 97, 99, 101].
11. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ko, US publication no. 2010/0296908, discloses an industrial automatic object transportation system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 am-3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-9. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Saboo is cited by applicant.
2 Tengvert is cited by applicant.