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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 11/14/2023 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s response date 04/20/2026, Amending claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12-15. Cancelling claim 3.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 103, will be maintained. The 103 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received on date 04/20/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argue: see remarks pages 6-7
Applicant respectfully submits that the question of whether the claims describe methods of organizing human activities should not be the first question asked. Rather, the first question is whether the elements of Applicant's Claim 1 constitute an improvement that sufficiently limits
Applicant's Claims preemptive effect. Applicant respectfully submits that they do. For example, Applicant's Specification describes that the systems and methods described therein include self-actuating methods for executing tasks within an installation with two or more execution devices (see, e.g., Abstract). The claims now recite specifically devices comprising automated guided vehicles (AGVs) used in factory automation (see, e.g., Paragraph 3 of the Specification as published. Further, Applicant has made clarifying amendments to emphasize these practical applications.
….
Applicant respectfully points out that "Example 38 - Simulating an Analog Audio Mixer" describes a claim of a simulation that is patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagree:
First, examiner point out as recited in claim 4, the automated guided vehicle is a transport vehicle. second, with regard to applicant remarks that the instant claims are similar to example 38 of the 2019 guidance, the examiner respectfully disagree, Example 38 is a method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer. The instance claims recite an abstract idea relates
to methods and systems for determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task" (Spec. page 1). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and because the independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 recites the abstract idea of determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An "additional element" is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase "integration into a practical application" is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation module, devices, interface, processor, automated guided vehicles and communication network are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 15 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 7, 10 and 15 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include module, devices, interface, processor, automated guided vehicles and communication network.
Examiner asserts that module, devices, interface, processor, automated guided vehicles and communication network are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions, (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces," but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components" and display devices.
In addition, figs. 20-21 of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicants argue: see remarks pages 8-9
The current rejection of Independent Claim 1 as previously presented argues that Vrba
teaches workstation agents 112 that bid on handling a requested operation equivalent to the previously recited "execution devices" and product agents 110 to make selections therebetween (Office Action, Page 25). As amended herein, Claim 1 now requires two or more automated guided vehicles that manage the requested and selection processes themselves, without a product agent or something like it. Further, the workstation agents 112 are not equivalent to the recited AGVs.
Examiner respectfully disagree:
Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Also, with regard to applicant argument toward “two or more automated guided vehicles that manage the requested".
First, Referring back to applicant specification for support and to clarify the record, in pages 10-11, “transport devices …. Using automated guided vehicles …. Mobile devices” . Also, claim 4 recite, “automated guided vehicle comprises a transport vehicle”. based on the specification, its clearly that the automated guided vehicle are a transport vehicle. Vrba disclose [0029], “a transportation robot 126 that controls the movement of materials, products or semi-products (partially-completed portions of products) from one physical equipment to another, and a machine (not shown) for performing the actual operation. Conveyor belts 128 for transporting the materials, products or semi-products from one piece of equipment to another within the respective workstations 118 (under control of the respective transportation robots 126), between multiple workstations and/or to respective storage units 130 of the respective workstations can additionally be present. Although each of the work stations”. Also, see [0090]
Claim Rejections 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-2, and 4-6 are directed toward a method (process). Thus, claims 1-2, and 4-6 fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1. However, Independent claims 7, 10 and 15 recites step limitations that are not integrated with the cooperation module and installation mentioned in the preamble. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent, or open-ended. Applicant’s specification discusses that a module may include a software carry out aspects of the present disclosure (pages 15-16). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term “cooperation module” would include signals per se. See MPEP 2111.01. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited modules and installation could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim is rejected as covering a signal per se, which is not directed towards statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory and/or system" in the claim to recite a “non-transitory and/or system.” Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. As such, claims 7-15 are rejected under 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method for communicating execution of a work task in an installation with two or more automated guided vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a message through a communication network connecting the two or more automated guided vehicle, the message requesting execution of the work task to a the two or more automated guided vehicles for execution;
replying to the message with a work effort required by each of the respective automated guided vehicles for execution of the work task by the respective automated guided vehicle;
selecting one of the two or more automated guided vehicles on the basis of the queried work effort, wherein the two or more automated guided vehicles make the selection based on the replies to the message; transferring execution of the work task to the selected automated guided vehicle automatically executes the work task based on received task data;
wherein the selected automated guided vehicle automatically executes the work task based on received task data; wherein the work effort includes at least one factor selected from the group consisting of: an execution time, an energy consumption and a resource expenditure.
Claim 7. A cooperation module for automated guided vehicle within an industrial installation, the cooperation module comprising:
a processor; and a request device interface to connect to the automated guided vehicle;
wherein the request device interface receives a signal from a second automated guided vehicle a need to execute a work task and delivers the signal to the processor.
Claim 10.
A cooperation module for an automated guided vehicle to enable the automated guided vehicle to participate in work task assignment, the cooperation module comprising:
a processor; an interface to connect to multiple automated guided vehicles, the interface designed to receive an ability of each automated guided vehicles to execute a work task; a receiving interface to receive requests to execute the work task;
wherein the processor is programmed to determine a work effort associated with the execution of the work task;
an interface to transmit an offer to execute the work task plus effort information indicating the work effort associated with the execution; wherein the cooperation module for an execution device simultaneously forms a cooperation module for a request device;
wherein the work effort includes an execution time and/or a resource expenditure.
Claim 15. An installation comprising:
two or more automated guided vehicles each with an associated cooperation module;
two or more request devices each with an associated cooperation module; and
a communication network connecting the cooperation modules associated with the two or more automated guided vehicles and the cooperation modules associated with the two or more request devices.
The Applicant's Specification titled "Methods for Transmitting the Execution of a Working Task, Cooperation Module and Plant
" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task" (Spec. page 1). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and because the independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 recites the abstract idea of determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 12-14 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 wherein selecting one of the plurality of automated guided vehicle includes identifying the automated guided vehicle which communicates a smallest work effort to execute the work task.
claim 3 Cancelled
claim 4 the work task comprises transport processes;
the automated guided vehicle comprise transport devices.
claim 5 wherein the work effort indicates a work price.
claim 6 wherein the request device comprises one of the plurality of automated guided vehicle.
claim 8 select an automated guided vehicle communicating a smallest relative work effort for execution; and/or
Execute an algorithm to select an automated guided vehicle among a plurality of automated guided vehicles based at least in part on the signal to execute the work task.
claim 9 Cancelled
claim 11 Cancelled
claim 12 wherein the receiving interface is configured to receive publish-subscribe messages, filtered according to hardware of the request device connected to the automated guided vehicle interface or of the request device connected to the request device interface and/or the automated guided vehicle.
claim 13 wherein the automated guided vehicle interface is designed to receive a queue for work processes of the execution device.
claim 14 an algorithm to select the automated guided vehicle on the basis of the associated work effort.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 (similarly claims 7, 10, and 15) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. Devices processor, automated guided vehicle
Claim 7. Module, devices, interface, processor, automated guided vehicle
Claim 10. Module, devices, interface, processor, automated guided vehicle
Claim 15. Module, devices, interface, and communication network, processor, automated guided vehicle
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 1 (similarly claims 7, 10, and 15) pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of Module, devices, interface, processor, automated guided vehicle and communication network. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. See Figures 20-21 of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 12-14 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: claims 8, and 14, algorithm. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 7, 10, and 15. Module, devices, interface, processor, automated guided vehicle and communication network. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining a work task, work effort, and select a resource to complete the task.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vrba et al. US 2010/0138017 (hereinafter Vrba).
Regarding Claim 1:
(Currently Amended) A method for communicating execution of a work task in an installation with two or more automated guided vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a message through a communication network connecting the two or more automated guided vehicle, the message requesting execution of the work task to a the two or more automated guided vehicles for execution; (Vrba [0025], “generate multiple product specifications in response to a given order requesting multiple products ( or at least requesting products of multiple types). Upon being generated, the logical representations of the product specifications are sent via communication links 109 to the product agents 110, which serve the purpose of developing and executing production plans according to which the products of the product specifications can be manufactured by the assembly line 119. As with the order agents 108, the product agents 110 can be created (instantiated) and destroyed by the order system 102 or the order agents 108”. Also, see [0029] “a transportation robot 126”. Also, see [0033-0034], [0087])
replying to the message with a work effort required by each of the respective automated guided vehicles for execution of the work task by the respective automated guided vehicle; (Vrba [0035], “depending upon the embodiment. In at least some embodiments, cost estimates for performing a requested operation are generated by the respective workstation agents 112 that are bidding on handling that operation, and those cost estimates are provided to the product agent 110. Further, assuming that the product agents 110 make selections purely based upon cost, the product agent receiving the bids then selects the appropriate workstation agent (and associated workstation, equipment agent( s) and resources/ equipment) for performing the operation as that one of the workstation agents which provided the lowest cost estimate”. Also, see [0088])
selecting one of the two or more automated guided vehicles on the basis of the queried work effort, wherein the two or more automated guided vehicles make the selection based on the replies to the message; transferring execution of the work task to the selected automated guided vehicle automatically executes the work task based on received task data; (Vrba [0035-0036], “appropriate one(s) of the workstations 118 have been selected by a given one of the product agents 110 to perform one or more particular operations in accordance with a production plan of that product agent, the product agent then further ensures transportation of material, products or semiproducts to and from the selected workstation( s) by establishing appropriate relationship(s) with one or more of the transportation agents 114 via the communication link 113. As shown, the transportation agents 114 generally also are in communication with ( or at least capable of entering into communications with) the workstation agents 112 via communication links 117 and/or, via communication links 123, with the equipment agents 132 that control particular resources/pieces of equipment (e.g., the conveyor belts 128 and the docking stations 124) forming portions of the workstations 118”. Also, see [0100])
wherein the selected automated guided vehicle automatically executes the work task based on received task data; wherein the work effort includes at least one factor selected from the group consisting of: an execution time, an energy consumption and a resource expenditure. (Vrba [0029], “transporting the materials, products or semi-products from one piece of equipment to another within the respective workstations 118 (under control of the respective transportation robots 126)”. [0035], “cost estimates for performing a requested operation are generated by the respective workstation agents 112 that are bidding on handling that operation, and those cost estimates are provided to the product agent 110. Further, assuming that the product agents 110 make selections purely based upon cost, the product agent receiving the bids then selects the appropriate workstation agent (and associated workstation, equipment agent( s) and resources/ equipment) for performing the operation as that one of the workstation agents which provided the lowest cost estimate”. Also, see [0100])
Regarding Claim 2:
(Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein selecting one of the plurality of automated guided vehicle includes identifying the automated guided vehicle which communicates a smallest work effort to execute the work task. (Vrba [0035], “cost estimates for performing a requested operation are generated by the respective workstation agents 112 that are bidding on handling that operation, and those cost estimates are provided to the product agent 110. Further, assuming that the product agents 110 make selections purely based upon cost, the product agent receiving the bids then selects the appropriate workstation agent (and associated workstation, equipment agent( s) and resources/ equipment) for performing the operation as that one of the workstation agents which provided the lowest cost estimate”. Also, see [0100])
Regarding Claim 3: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 4:
(Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1,
the work task comprises transport processes; and the automated guided vehicle comprise transport devices. (Vrba [0029], “a transportation robot 126 that controls the movement of materials, products or semi-products (partially-completed portions of products) from one physical equipment to another, and a machine (not shown) for performing the actual operation. Conveyor belts 128 for transporting the materials, products or semi-products from one piece of equipment to another within the respective workstations 118 (under control of the respective transportation robots 126), between multiple workstations and/or to respective storage units 130 of the respective workstations can additionally be present. Although each of the work stations”. Also, see [0090])
Regarding Claim 5:
(Currently Amended) The method as claim in claim 1, wherein the work effort indicates a work price. (Vrba [0035], “cost estimates for performing a requested operation are generated by the respective workstation agents 112 that are bidding on handling that operation, and those cost estimates are provided to the product agent 110. Further, assuming that the product agents 110 make selections purely based upon cost, the product agent receiving the bids then selects the appropriate workstation agent (and associated workstation, equipment agent( s) and resources/ equipment) for performing the operation as that one of the workstation agents which provided the lowest cost estimate”. Also, see 88], [0100])
Regarding Claim 6:
(Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, initiated or carried out by a request device of the installation;
wherein the request device comprises one of the plurality of automated guided vehicle. (Vrba [0024-0025], “industrial control system 100 (again, for example, from
machines). Also, see [0029], [0031], [0093])
Regarding Claim 7:
(Currently Amended) A cooperation module for automated guided vehicle within an industrial installation, the cooperation module comprising:
a processor; and a request device interface to connect to the automated guided vehicle; (Vrba [0025], “generate multiple product specifications in response to a given order requesting multiple products ( or at least requesting products of multiple types). Upon being generated, the logical representations of the product specifications are sent via communication links 109 to the product agents 110, which serve the purpose of developing and executing production plans according to which the products of the product specifications can be manufactured by the assembly line 119. As with the order agents 108, the product agents 110 can be created (instantiated) and destroyed by the order system 102 or the order agents 108”. Also, see [0029] “a transportation robot 126”. Also, see [0033-0034], [0087])
wherein the request device interface receives a signal from a second automated guided vehicle a need to execute a work task and delivers the signal to the processor. (Vrba [0035-0036], “appropriate one(s) of the workstations 118 have been selected by a given one of the product agents 110 to perform one or more particular operations in accordance with a production plan of that product agent, the product agent then further ensures transportation of material, products or semi products to and from the selected workstation( s) by establishing appropriate relationship(s) with one or more of the transportation agents 114 via the communication link 113. As shown, the transportation agents 114 generally also are in communication with ( or at least capable of entering into communications with) the workstation agents 112 via communication links 117 and/or, via communication links 123, with the equipment agents 132 that control particular resources/pieces of equipment (e.g., the conveyor belts 128 and the docking stations 124) forming portions of the workstations 118”. Also, see [0100])
Regarding Claim 8:
(Currently Amended) The cooperation module for a request device as claim in claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to;
select an automated guided vehicle among a plurality of automated guided vehicles communicating a smallest relative work effort for execution; and/or execute an algorithm to select an automated guided vehicle among a plurality of automated guided vehicles based at least in part on the signal to execute the work task. (Vrba [0035], “cost estimates for performing a requested operation are generated by the respective workstation agents 112 that are bidding on handling that operation, and those cost estimates are provided to the product agent 110. Further, assuming that the product agents 110 make selections purely based upon cost, the product agent receiving the bids then selects the appropriate workstation agent (and associated workstation, equipment agent( s) and resources/ equipment) for performing the operation as that one of the workstation agents which provided the lowest cost estimate”. Also, see [0100])
Regarding Claim 9: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 10:
A cooperation module for an automated guided vehicle to enable the automated guided vehicle to participate in work task assignment, the cooperation module comprising:
a processor; an interface to connect to multiple automated guided vehicles, the interface designed to receive an ability of each automated guided vehicles to execute a work task; a receiving interface to receive requests to execute the work task; (Vrba [0025], “generate multiple product specifications in response to a given order requesting multiple products ( or at least requesting products of multiple types). Upon being generated, the logical representations of the product specifications are sent via communication links 109 to the product agents 110, which serve the purpose of developing and executing production plans according to which the products of the product specifications can be manufactured by the assembly line 119. As with the order agents 108, the product agents 110 can be created (instantiated) and destroyed by the order system 102 or the order agents 108”. Also, see [0029] “a transportation robot 126 … same or different capabilities”. Also, see [0033-0034], [0087])
wherein the processor is programmed to determine a work effort associated with the execution of the work task; (Vrba [0035], “depending upon the embodiment. In at least some embodiments, cost estimates for performing a requested operation are generated by the respective workstation agents 112 that are bidding on handling that operation, and those cost estimates are provided to the product agent 110. Further, assuming that the product agents 110 make selections purely based upon cost, the product agent receiving the bids then selects the appropriate workstation agent (and associated workstation, equipment agent( s) and resources/ equipment) for performing the operation as that one of the workstation agents which provided the lowest cost estimate”. Also, see [0088])
an interface to transmit an offer to execute the work task plus effort information indicating the work effort associated with the execution; wherein the cooperation module for an execution device simultaneously forms a cooperation module for a request device; (Vrba [0035-0036], “appropriate one(s) of the workstations 118 have been selected by a given one of the product agents 110 to perform one or more particular operations in accordance with a production plan of that product agent, the product agent then further ensures transportation of material, products or semi products to and from the selected workstation( s) by establishing appropriate relationship(s) with one or more of the transportation agents 114 via the communication link 113. As shown, the transportation agents 114 generally also are in communication with ( or at least capable of entering into communications with) the workstation agents 112 via communication links 117 and/or, via communication links 123, with the equipment agents 132 that control particular resources/pieces of equipment (e.g., the conveyor belts 128 and the docking stations 124) forming portions of the workstations 118”. Also, see [0100])
wherein the work effort includes an execution time and/or a resource expenditure. (Vrba [0035], “cost estimates for performing a requested operation are generated by the respective workstation agents 112 that are bidding on handling that operation, and those cost estimates are provided to the product agent 110. Further, assuming that the product agents 110 make selections purely based upon cost, the product agent receiving the bids then selects the appropriate workstation agent (and associated workstation, equipment agent( s) and resources/ equipment) for performing the operation as that one of the workstation agents which provided the lowest cost estimate”. Also, see [0100])
Regarding Claim 11: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 12:
The cooperation module for an automated guided vehicl as claimed in claim 10, wherein the receiving interface is configured to receive publish-subscribe messages, filtered according to hardware of the request device connected to the automated guided vehicle interface or of the request device connected to the request device interface and/or the automated guided vehicle. (Vrba [0087], “the product agent 226 then sends and receives messages to the workstation agents that have been identified by the services directory 286 as potentially meeting the needs specified in the production plan instance as reflected in the inquiries 288. In the present example shown in FIG. 2B, the product agent 226 in particular is shown to send and receive messages from the first workstation agent 250 as represented by arrows 254 and 290, respectively, as well as to send and receive”.)
Regarding Claim 13:
The cooperation module for an automated guided vehicle as claimed in claim 10, wherein the execution device interface is designed to receive a queue for work processes of the execution device. (Vrba [0087], “workstation agents that have been identified by the services directory 286 as potentially meeting the needs specified in the production plan instance as reflected in the inquiries 288. In the present example shown in FIG. 2B, the product agent 226 in particular is shown to send and receive messages from the first workstation agent 250 as represented by arrows 254 and 290, respectively, as well as to send and receive messages from the second workstation agent 252 as represented by arrows 256 and 257, respectively. By virtue of these communications, the product agent 226 is able to negotiate with the workstation agents 250, 252 that have been identified as being appropriate via the services directory 286, to determine the workstation(s) that are most appropriate for performing one or more various portions of the process specified in the production plan instance, as well as to plan/schedule the operations of those workstation(s) in this regard”.)
Regarding Claim 14:
The cooperation module for a request device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the processor is further programmed to execute an algorithm to select the automated guided vehicle on the basis of the associated work effort. (Vrba [0035], [0045], “new orders and to dynamically create and reconfigure production processes and transportation and material handling plans/routines so as to be suitable for producing a variety of products. The ontology based scheme readily allows for many different instances of particular knowledge bases/scenes to be created and acted upon, without changing the overall ontology and also without making changes to the software or hardware defining operation of the agents 104”. Also, see claim 24, [0021])
Regarding Claim 15:
An installation comprising:
two or more automated guided vehicles each with an associated cooperation module; (Vrba [0028], “the production plans from the production
plan database 116, the product agents 110 further interact with the workstation agents 112 via communication links 111 and the transportation agent 114 via communication links 113 to determine which resources/physical equipment of the assembly line 119 will perform/process particular operational steps specified in the production plans and, ultimately, to cause execution of those operational steps of the production plans”.)
two or more request devices each with an associated cooperation module; and (Vrba [0025-0027], “generate multiple product specifications in response to a given order requesting multiple products ( or at least requesting products of multiple types). Upon being generated, the logical representations of the product specifications are sent via communication links 109 to the product agents 110, which serve the purpose of developing and executing production plans according to which the products of the product specifications can be manufactured by the assembly line 119. As with the order agents 108, the product agents 110 can be created (instantiated) and destroyed by the order system 102 or the order agents 108”. Also, see [0029] “a transportation robot 126”. Also, see [0033-0034], [0087])
a communication network connecting the cooperation modules associated with the two or more automated guided vehicles and the cooperation modules associated with the two or more request devices. (Vrba [0030], “types of the agents 112, 132, again it will be understood that typically multiple workstation agents are present in any given industrial control system and often, if not typically, multiple equipment agents are governed by any particular workstation agent. As shown, the workstation agents 112 are in communication with the equipment agents 132 by way of communication links 134 while the respective equipment agents 132 are in communication with the resources/equipment of the workstations 118”. Also, see [0034], [0039])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fu et al. US 2024/0255921: Policy-based engineering for industrial automation.
[0021] The automation system 200 can include various subsystems and devices that define decision points. For example, the automation system can include a first subsystem 206, a second subsystem 208, and one or more automated guided vehicle (AGVs) 210. Decision points, for instance the first subsystem 206, the second subsystem 208, and the AGV 210, can make various determinations, such as which function to use, which set of parameters to use, or the like. In some cases, the control module 106 can define a domain model translator layer configured to translate different domain models. For example, the control module 106 can translate a domain model of a given decision point to a different domain model of the policy handler rule engine.
Kong, Xiang TR, et al. "Robot-enabled execution system for perishables auction logistics." Industrial Management & Data Systems 117.9 (2017): 1954-1971.
Komuta et al. US 2022/0270033: Work planning system and work planning method.
Zhou et al. US 2019/0333009: Material organization task generation method and device, and material organization method and device.
Napoli US 2018/0225609: Systems and methods for warehouse management.
Hance et al. US 2018/0060764: Autonomous shuffling of pallets of items in a warehouse.
Wong et al. US 2014/0074342: Method and apparatus for using pre-positioned objects to localize an industrial vehicle.
Chen CN107977763: A kind of resource allocation methods and relevant apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights