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 .
Priority
The present application, filed 15 December 2023, is a 371 National Stage Entry for PCT Application No. PCT/NL2022/050338, filed 16 June 2022, which claims priority to Dutch Patent App. No. NL2028482, filed 18 June 2021.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is unduly lengthy. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “wherein the central control server comprises a digital representation of the movement area, which representation comprises a plurality of contiguous tiles….” The examiner recommends amending this to recite, for example, “wherein the central control server comprises a digital representation of the movement area, which wherein the digital representation comprises a plurality of contiguous tiles…,” or the like.
Further regarding claim 1, the examiner notes that Applicant has repeatedly claimed “a vehicle.” The examiner notes that the repeated use of this phrase has created antecedent basis issues, but not to the extent that the claim has been rendered indefinite. For example, Applicant claims: “the central control server receiving an order to move a vehicle in the movement area from a starting position of the vehicle to an end position….” The examiner notes, however, that “a vehicle” has already been claimed, or at least, “a plurality of vehicles” have been claimed. The examiner notes that “a vehicle” should be amended to recite, for example, “one of the plurality of vehicles.”
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “in response to the order, the central control server associating a vehicle with a movement path, which movement path runs from the starting position to the end position and comprises a plurality of contiguous tiles which will be occupied by the associated vehicle as the vehicle moves along the movement path….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “in response to the order, the central control server associating one of the plurality of vehicles with a movement path, wherein the movement path runs from the starting position to the end position and comprises the plurality of contiguous tiles which will be occupied by the one of the plurality of vehicles as the one of the plurality of vehicles moves along the movement path...” or the like.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “the control server receiving a request from an active vehicle and/or generating for the purpose of an active vehicle a request to carry out a subsequent step of reserving at least one subsequent tile on the latter's movement path….” The examiner notes that no “active vehicle” has been claimed, and it is potentially unclear whether the “active vehicle” is the same vehicle as the “one of the plurality of vehicles” for which the movement path was generated. The examiner, however, is interpreting the “active vehicle” as being the “one of the plurality of vehicles” for which the movement path was generated. The examiner requests Applicant amend the claims to better describe how the “active vehicle” relates to the “one of the plurality of vehicles.” Absent that, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite: “the control server receiving a request from an active vehicle and/or generating for the purpose of the active vehicle a request to carry out a subsequent step of reserving at least one subsequent tile on the active vehicle’s movement path…” or the like.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “the one or more tiles which have been reserved by the control server when determining, with a view to carrying out, the movement path associated with at least one other vehicle and which are occupied by the at least one other vehicle if the at least one other vehicle has reached the frontmost tile of the tiles reserved for the respective at least one other vehicle….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “the one or more tiles which have been reserved by the control server when determining, with a view to carrying out, the movement path associated with at least one other vehicle of the plurality of vehicles and which are occupied by the at least one other vehicle if the at least one other vehicle has reached the frontmost tile of the tiles reserved for the respective at least one other vehicle…” or the like.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “at least one further tile for at least one vehicle of the at least one other vehicle which, on the movement path associated with the at least one vehicle of the at least one other vehicle, connects to the frontmost tile reserved for the at least one vehicle….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “at least one further tile for other vehicle…” or the like.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “the control server lifting the reservation once a vehicle has completely left a tile reserved for that vehicle.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “the control server lifting the reservation once the vehicle has completely left a tile reserved for that vehicle,” or the like.
Claim 10 contains limitations similar to that of claim 1, and should be similarly amended.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant claims: “the method according to claim 1, wherein the central control server determining that there is no deadlock situation in the system takes place is based on at least one of the following conditions….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “the method according to claim 1, wherein the central control server determining that there is no deadlock situation in the system
Further regarding claim 2, Applicant claims: “at least two further tiles for the active vehicle of which the rearmost, on the movement path associated with the active vehicle, connects to the frontmost tile of the at least one tile belonging to the subsequent step….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “at least two further tiles for the active vehicle of which the rearmost tile, on the movement path associated with the active vehicle, connects to the frontmost tile of the at least one tile belonging to the subsequent step…” or the like.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant claims: “the central control server receiving a request from an active vehicle and/or generating for the purpose of an active vehicle a request to reserve at least two subsequent tiles on the latter's movement path….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “the central control server receiving a request from the active vehicle and/or generating for the purpose of the active vehicle a request to reserve at least two subsequent tiles on the latter's movement path…” or the like.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant claims: “wherein respective sizes of the steps for which an active vehicle sequentially requests a reservation from the central control server with a view to moving the active vehicle from the starting position to the end position are determined by the central control server when the vehicle is at the starting position.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “wherein respective sizes of the steps for which the active vehicle sequentially requests [[a]] the reservation from the central control server with a view to moving the active vehicle from the starting position to the end position are determined by the central control server when the active vehicle is at the starting position,” or the like.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant claims: “loading a vehicle with a product to be transported on its movement path, preferably at its starting position; or unloading the vehicle on its movement path, preferably at its end position.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “loading [[a]] the active vehicle with a product to be transported on its movement path, preferably at its starting position; or unloading the active vehicle on its movement path, preferably at its end position,” or the like.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant claims: “loading a vehicle with a product to be transported on its movement path at its starting position; or unloading the vehicle on its movement path at its end position.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “loading [[a]] the active vehicle with a product to be transported on its movement path at its starting position; or unloading the active vehicle on its movement path at its end position.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “The one or more tiles which have been reserved by the control server when determining, with a view to carrying out, the movement path associated with at least one other vehicle and which are occupied by the at least one other vehicle if the at least one other vehicle has reached the frontmost tile of the tiles reserved for the respective at least one other vehicle….” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what Applicant means when they claim “with a view to carrying out.” The examiner further notes that Applicant’s specification does not sufficiently describe what “with a view to carrying out” means. The examiner believes that Applicant may have been intending for the limitation to mean “with the purposes of carrying out [the movement path]” and is interpreting the claim as such.
Claims 4 and 10 use language similar to that of claim 1, and are similarly rejected. Claims 2, 3, 5-9, and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on their respective indefinite base claims.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant claims “loading a vehicle with a product to be transported on its movement path, preferable at its starting position; or unloading the vehicle on its movement path, preferably at its end position.” The examiner believes that these limitations render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. This is further made unclear by the inclusion of new claim 11, which claims: “loading a vehicle with a product to be transported on its movement path at its starting position; or unloading the vehicle on its movement path at its end position.” As such, it is unclear whether the claimed narrower range of claim 6 is actually a limitation, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 is similarly indefinite by virtue of its dependence on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. ("Dynamic Resource Reservation Based Collision and Deadlock Prevention for Multi-AGVs"), hereafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a method for preventing a deadlock situation in a system for transporting products, the system comprising:
- A plurality of vehicles, wherein each vehicle is designed to move over a floor in a movement area and is designed to carry a product to be transported (Page 82122, Col. 1, Section II, "The Environment Description", Paragraph 1, an industrial application often involves a number of [autonomous guided vehicles], AGVs, delivering goods and materials among workstations and storage pipes, we consider R AGVs that are moving in the same environment, see also Fig. 3, AGV
r
1
and
r
2
);
- A central control server designed to control the vehicles, wherein the central control server comprises a digital representation of the movement area, which representation comprises a plurality of contiguous tiles (Page 82121, Col. 2, Paragraph 2 - Page 82122, Col. 1, Paragraph 2, the aim of this paper is to improve the efficiency of the collision and deadlock resolution in dynamic environments, in this work, a dynamic resource reservation based method to prevent collisions and deadlocks is proposed, the shared resource points of each AGV are calculated in real time… the control algorithm is implemented on both central and local controllers, Page 82122, Section II, "The Environment Description", Paragraph 2, for ease of modeling, the layout is divided into square blocks with the same size);
Wherein the method comprises:
- The central control server receiving an order to move a vehicle in the movement area from a starting position of the vehicle to an end position (Page 82125, Cols. 1-2, Section C, "Algorithm Implementation," the control policy of the central controller is described in detail in Algorithm 1, in this algorithm, the set M is a task list with a specified order… at the beginning of the simulation, the central controller generates path information and se4nds the information to an idle AGV, see also Algorithm 1, at least step 2, "read input data and create task list M"),
- In response to the order, the central control server associating a vehicle with a movement path, which movement path runs from the starting position to the end position and comprises a plurality of contiguous tiles which will be occupied by the associated vehicle as the vehicle moves along the movement path (Page 82125, Cols. 1-2, Section C, "Algorithm Implementation," at the beginning of the simulation, the central controller generates path information and sends the information to an idle AGV, see also Algorithm 1, at least steps 2-8, find the shortest route
p
i
, create the residual route set, create the shared resource points set, send
p
i
, the shortest route, to
r
i
, an AGV),
- The control server receiving a request from an active vehicle and/or generating for the purpose of an active vehicle a request to carry out a subsequent step of reserving at least one subsequent tile on the latter's movement path (Page 82125, Cols. 1-2, Section C, "Algorithm Implementation," the term
s
n
x
+
1
=
r
i
means that the next desired point
n
x
+
1
is reserved or occupied by
r
i
according to the conditions mentioned above, see also Algorithm 1, at least steps 10-12, if
s
n
x
+
1
=
r
i
, then send an order to start movement to
r
i
, and read feedback information, Page 82124, Col. 1, Paragraphs 5-11, condition 1 means that the next resource point of
r
a
does not belong to the sets of guide paths of any other AGVs, condition 2 means that the next resource point of ra belongs to the guide paths of other AGVs, but all the shared resource points are not reserved by the other AGVs, when the next desired point of AGV
r
a
satisfies condition 1 or condition 2, the next desired point
n
x
+
1
can be reserved by it);
- The central control server determining that no deadlock situation in the system arises as a result of the active vehicle carrying out the subsequent step based on:
• The one or more tiles which would be occupied by the active vehicle in carrying out the subsequent step if the active vehicle had reached the frontmost tile of the at least one tile belonging to the subsequent step (Page 82124, Col. 1, "Theorem 1" - Col. 2, "Example 3," there are three unfinished tasks that [are] performed by
r
1
,
r
2
, and
r
3
, the corresponding residual routes can be represented as
Γ
1
=
{
7,6
,
5,4
,
3,10,11
}
,
Γ
2
=
{
3,4
,
5,6
,
7,8
}
, [and]
Γ
3
=
{
13,7
,
14,15
}
. The sets of shared resource points are
Ω
1
=
{
8,7
,
6,5
,
4,3
}
,
Ω
2
=
{
3,4
,
5,6
,
7,8
}
, [and]
Ω
3
=
{
7
}
. The traveling information is
I
1
=
{
8,7
}
,
I
2
=
{
2,3
}
, [and]
I
3
=
{
12,13
}
. Because the next point 7 of
r
1
belongs to
Ω
1
, according to condition 2, there are no points in
Ω
1
occupied by other AGVs. The point 7 can be reserved by
r
1
.
r
1
removes the occupation of point 8 and moves on. As for
r
2
, the next point 3 belongs to
Ω
2
, but the shared resource points have been occupied by
r
1
, so
r
2
will change its state from moving to waiting and cannot remove the occupation of point 2, see also Fig. 6, Examiner's note: the examiner is interpreting AGV
r
1
as being the "active vehicle," and point 7 as "the one or more tiles which would be occupied by the vehicle in carrying out the subsequent step"),
• The one or more tiles which have been reserved by the control server when determining, with a view to carrying out, the movement path associated with at least one other vehicle and which are occupied by the at least one other vehicle if the at least one other vehicle has reached the frontmost tile of the tiles reserved for the respective at least one other vehicle (Page 82124, Col. 1, "Theorem 1" - Col. 2, "Example 3," there are three unfinished tasks that [are] performed by
r
1
,
r
2
, and
r
3
, the corresponding residual routes can be represented as
Γ
1
=
{
7,6
,
5,4
,
3,10,11
}
,
Γ
2
=
{
3,4
,
5,6
,
7,8
}
, [and]
Γ
3
=
{
13,7
,
14,15
}
. The sets of shared resource points are
Ω
1
=
{
8,7
,
6,5
,
4,3
}
,
Ω
2
=
{
3,4
,
5,6
,
7,8
}
, [and]
Ω
3
=
{
7
}
. The traveling information is
I
1
=
{
8,7
}
,
I
2
=
{
2,3
}
, [and]
I
3
=
{
12,13
}
. Because the next point 7 of
r
1
belongs to
Ω
1
, according to condition 2, there are no points in
Ω
1
occupied by other AGVs. The point 7 can be reserved by
r
1
.
r
1
removes the occupation of point 8 and moves on. As for
r
2
, the next point 3 belongs to
Ω
2
, but the shared resource points have been occupied by
r
1
, so
r
2
will change its state from moving to waiting and cannot remove the occupation of point 2, see also Fig. 6, Examiner's note: the examiner is interpreting AGV
r
2
as being the "other vehicle," and point 2 as "the one or more tiles which have been reserved by the control server when determining the movement path of the at least one other vehicle and which is occupied by the at least one other vehicle if the other vehicle has reached the frontmost tile of the tiles reserved for the at least one other vehicle),
• At least one further tile for the active vehicle which, on the movement path associated with the active vehicle, connects to the frontmost tile to be reserved of the at least one tile belonging to the subsequent step (Page 82124, Col. 1, "Theorem 1" - Col. 2, "Example 3," there are three unfinished tasks that [are] performed by
r
1
,
r
2
, and
r
3
, the corresponding residual routes can be represented as
Γ
1
=
{
7,6
,
5,4
,
3,10,11
}
,
Γ
2
=
{
3,4
,
5,6
,
7,8
}
, [and]
Γ
3
=
{
13,7
,
14,15
}
. The sets of shared resource points are
Ω
1
=
{
8,7
,
6,5
,
4,3
}
,
Ω
2
=
{
3,4
,
5,6
,
7,8
}
, [and]
Ω
3
=
{
7
}
. The traveling information is
I
1
=
{
8,7
}
,
I
2
=
{
2,3
}
, [and]
I
3
=
{
12,13
}
. Because the next point 7 of
r
1
belongs to
Ω
1
, according to condition 2, there are no points in
Ω
1
occupied by other AGVs. The point 7 can be reserved by