DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 03/14/2024 and 11/25/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment have overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 101 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
6. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 07/19/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that limitations in Claim 1, 8 and 15 regarding the “so that the actual distance matches the target distance, wherein when the target distance is longer than the actual distance, the signal generation unit performs at least one of:(i) generating the rear first control signal to cause the rear moving object to perform at least one of a deceleration process to decrease acceleration in a forward direction and a backing process to move backward in an opposite direction of the forward direction; and(ii) generating the front first control signal to cause the front moving object to perform an acceleration process to increase acceleration in a forward direction.” are not taught. Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0097-0102] in Mithal wherein a movable-bot can be controlled to adapt a speed to maintain a predefined safe-distance of a third movable-bot with respect to a first and second moveable-bot. The moveable-bots speed could essentially be altered depending on the predefined distance to make sure distance is being maintained, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably come to the conclusion that the front bot would accelerate to create a larger distance between the front bot and the rear bot, or the rear bot would decelerate to create this larger distance. Gariepy nor Mithal disclose adjusting the actual distance to match the target distance, so Examiner also brings forth Hanslik in which explicitly states increasing the acceleration of the first subject vehicle to adjust the actual distance to the first desired distance. This indicates that Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik does teach the capability of the amended claim.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “communication unit” should read “remote communication unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“remote communication unit” in claims 1 and 8
“step acquisition unit” in claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20
“target setting unit” in claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20
“signal generating unit” in claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-20
“transmission unit” in claim 1, 5-6 (Examiner believes this is a typo, wherein shown in objection above, this should read “remote transmission unit” instead of “transmission unit”, therefore, “remote transmission unit” is being used for the interpreted structure.)
“determination unit” in claim 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20
“operation control unit” in claim 8, 12-13, 15, and 19-20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“remote communication unit” – wireless communication device [0031]
“step information acquisition unit” – paragraph [0033], part of the remote CPU
“target setting unit” – paragraph [0033], part of the remote CPU
“signal generating unit” – paragraph [0033], part of the remote CPU
“transmission unit” – paragraph [0129], part of the remote CPU (Examiner believes this is a typo, wherein shown in objection above, this should read “remote transmission unit” instead of “transmission unit”, therefore, “remote transmission unit” is being used for the interpreted structure.)
“determination unit” – paragraph [0072], part of the remote CPU
“operation control unit” paragraph [0142], part of the vehicle CPU
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 5-9, and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 8 recites “a control target moving object.” is not found within the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gariepy (US 20210141392) in view of Mithal (US 20200159249) in further view of Hanslik (US 20200130689).
Regarding Claim 1, Gariepy discloses A remote control device that performs remote control of operation of a plurality of moving objects capable of moving by unmanned driving, (Gariepy, see at least [0054] which discloses a fleet management system and [0065] which discloses that the fleet management system generates a mission for the corresponding vehicle in order to covey through workstations in order to satisfy a sequence of operations)
wherein a plurality of production steps are performed on the plurality of moving objects in a production process in a factory, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0066] wherein the workstation sequence 210, 212, 214 and 220. ** workstation sequence is interpreted to be a plurality of production steps in which are missions for the plurality of vehicles to perform)
the plurality of moving objects include a front moving object and a rear moving object that runs behind the front moving object, and each of the plurality of moving objects is a vehicle, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0066-0068] wherein the workstation sequence 210, 212, 214 and 220 ** vehicle 224a and 224b are both given the same sequence of workstation sequences 210, 212, and 220. Therefore, there would be one vehicle in front and one vehicle behind (ex, vehicle 224a located at 212 and 224b at 210), as the workstation may be continuously moving.)
and the remote-control device comprises: a remote communication unit; (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 3, in which displays information being transmitted via a fleet management system and the system is communicating via telecommunication protocols.) a step information acquisition unit that acquires, for at least one of the front moving object and the rear moving object, production step information via the remote communication unit, which is information regarding one production step that is being performed on the moving object; (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0066-0068] wherein the workstation sequence 210, 212, 214 and 220 ** vehicle 224a and 224b are both given sequences for the workstation sequences. Also see at least [0067] wherein the vehicle may remain stopped until a trigger or signal is provided to indicate that the operation is complete.)
a target setting unit that sets a target distance between the front moving object and the rear moving object according to the production step information; (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0050] wherein based on the work period associated, vehicles b can be spaced appropriately behind the vehicle a so that it arrives at the work station 210 according to the time at which vehicle a is expected to depart work station 210.)
a signal generation unit that generates a first control signal, which is at least one of a front first control signal as a control signal to define the operation of the front moving object and a rear first control signal as a control signal to define the operation of the rear moving object so as to set an actual distance between the front moving object and the rear moving object to the target distance; (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0050] wherein a work period associated with the operation being performed at the workstation is used to space the vehicles appropriately. Also see at least [0054-0055] The sequence of operations used to generate a particular finished workpiece may be received by a fleet management system in which the fleet management system can communicate information with the vehicles.)
and a remote transmission unit that transmits the first control signal to a control target moving object, as the moving object subjected to control of the operation so that the actual distance matches the target distance, wherein (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0044] wherein a mission can be received from a fleet-management system in which the vehicle can be controlled to navigate. Fig. 2 showcases that the fleet management system is transmitting instructions to vehicles 224b and 224a and each vehicle is receiving separate communications. ** Gariepy does not explicitly disclose controlling a target moving object so that the actual distance matches the target distance.)
Gariepy while does disclose that vehicles a and vehicle b can be spaced appropriately, it does not explicitly a target distance specifically, therefore, Examiner brings forth reference Mithal in which discloses a target setting unit that sets a target distance between the front moving object and the rear moving object according to the production step information; (Mithal, see at least [0029] “The movable-bots may be programmed to operate such that each of the individual movable-bots moves in sync with the other movable-bots in the same path. The movement of the movable-bots may depend upon various parameters. For example the movement may be associated with the distance between the individual movable-bots along the same path, an operating speed of each of the movable-bots, and the like.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Gariepy with the teachings of Mithal to include the capability of a utilizing target distances as a safety guideline for time-based intervals between vehicles as this would allow for variables such as speeds and other environment/vehicle conditions to be taken into account to increase/decrease following distances. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a plurality of movable objects.
Mithal while does disclose wherein a movable-bot can be controlled to adapt a speed to maintain a predefined safe-distance of a third movable-bot with respect to a first and second moveable-bot (speed could essentially be altered depending on the predefined distance to make sure distance is being maintained, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably come to the conclusion that the front bot would accelerate to create a larger distance between the front bot and the rear bot, or the rear bot would decelerate to create this larger distance), Mithal does not explicitly disclose adjust the distance between vehicles so that the actual distance matches the target distance, however, Examiner brings forth reference in which Hanslik in which discloses when the target distance is longer than the actual distance, the signal generation unit performs at least one of:
generating the rear first control signal to cause the rear moving object to perform at least one of a deceleration process to decrease acceleration in a forward direction and a backing process to move backward in an opposite direction of the forward direction; and
generating the front first control signal to cause the front moving object to perform an acceleration process to increase acceleration in a forward direction. (Hanslik, see at least [0016] wherein the firtst subject vehicle will accelerate to a desired acceleration in order to adjust a currently existing actual distance to the first desired distance.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Gariepy with the teachings of Hanslik to include the capability of a utilizing target distances as a safety guideline for time-based intervals between vehicles as this would allow for variables such as decreasing the vehicle speed of the rear vehicle to increase inter-vehicle distances. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a plurality of movable objects.
Regarding Claim 2, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The remote control device according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the production step information includes inter-moving-object work information, which indicates whether or not an inter-moving-object work, in which workers enter a region between the front moving object and the rear moving object to work, is performed, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 7, element 716 and [0120-0123] wherein if an obstruction is detected (human operator) is in the vehicle’s path, the motion of the vehicle is paused.)
and the target setting unit sets the target distance in the production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed to be longer than the target distance in the production step in which the inter-moving-object work is not performed, using the production step information. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 7, element 716 and [0120-0123] wherein if an obstruction is detected (human operator) is in the vehicle’s path, the motion of the vehicle is paused. ** if the human operator is in between vehicle a and b, and vehicle b is paused, the distance between vehicle a (not paused and still would be moving in this case) and vehicle b would be longer.)
Regarding Claim 5, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The remote control device according to claim 2, (see rejection above)
wherein the production process has a movement process in which the moving object moves between a first work site where the one production step is performed and a second work site where a next production step, which is performed after the one production step, is performed, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 4 in which showcases elements 410, 412, 414, 416, 418 and 420 in which shows a movement process for a moving object as it moves between a first work site (410) and a second work site (412) in which site 412 is performed after 410.)
the remote control device further comprises a determination unit that determines whether or not the one production step has been completed, and when it is determined by the determination unit that the one production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed has been completed, the target setting unit sets the target distance to a standard distance, which is a distance between the front moving object and the rear moving object and is shorter than the target distance when the inter-moving-object work is performed, the signal generation unit generates a second control signal, which is at least one of a front second control signal as the control signal to define the operation of the front moving object and a rear second control signal as the control signal to define the operation of the rear moving object so as to set the actual distance to the standard distance as the target distance in the movement process, (Gariepy, see at least [0090-0096] wherein an assembly input sequence of finished assemblies, number of operations for a particular assembly, predetermined work periods associated with a work station, the measured or calculated work period associated with each station, the distance between workstations and the vehicle work speed associated with each workstation is determined by the fleet management system. Also see at least Fig. 5-7 in which showcases the steps of receiving sequences of assembles, assigning missions to vehicles, receiving and storing status updates to generate paths and missions for vehicles. ** the fleet management system encompasses a variety of determinations (finished assemblies, number of operations, an amount of time spent on an operation) to set distances between vehicles and associated work speeds for each vehicle to ensure that vehicles are able to operate without colliding during their movement paths.)
and the remote transmission unit transmits the second control signal to the moving object subjected to control of the operation. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0044] wherein a mission can be received from a fleet-management system in which the vehicle can be controlled to navigate.)
Regarding Claim 6, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The remote control device according to claim 2, (see rejection above)
wherein the production process has a movement process in which the moving object moves between a first work site where the one production step is performed and a second work site where a next production step, which is performed after the one production step, is performed, the step information acquisition unit further acquires next production step information, which is information regarding the next production step, the remote control device further comprises a determination unit that determines whether or not the one production step has been completed, and when it is determined by the determination unit that the one production step has been completed, the target setting unit sets the target distance to a next target distance, which is a distance between the front moving object and the rear moving object according to the next production step information, the signal generation unit generates a third control signal, which is at least one of a front third control signal to define the operation of the front moving object and a rear third control signal to define the operation of the rear moving object so as to set the actual distance to the next target distance as the target distance in the movement process, (Gariepy, see at least [0090-0096] wherein an assembly input sequence of finished assemblies, number of operations for a particular assembly, predetermined work periods associated with a work station, the measured or calculated work period associated with each station, the distance between workstations and the vehicle work speed associated with each workstation is determined by the fleet management system. Also see at least Fig. 5-7 in which showcases the steps of receiving sequences of assembles, assigning missions to vehicles, receiving and storing status updates to generate paths and missions for vehicles. ** the fleet management system encompasses a variety of determinations (finished assemblies, number of operations, an amount of time spent on an operation) to set distances between vehicles and associated work speeds for each vehicle to ensure that vehicles are able to operate without colliding during their movement paths.)
and the remote transmission unit transmits the third control signal to the moving object subjected to control of the operation. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0044] wherein a mission can be received from a fleet-management system in which the vehicle can be controlled to navigate.)
Regarding Claim 7, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The remote control device according to claim 5, (see rejection above)
wherein the inter-moving-object work is an assembly work to assemble a communicable device capable of communication with the remote control device to the moving object, and the determination unit determines that the one production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed has been completed when the remote control device is capable of communication with the communicable device, and determines that the one production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed has not been completed when the remote control device is incapable of communication with the communicable device. (Gariepy, see at least [0054-0058] *** a communication method/protocol is a well-known function of a management system communicating with vehicles about operations and if the communication method fails, its well known that the vehicle is unable to communicate with the fleet management system.)
As per claim 8, the claim is directed towards a control system that controls operation of a plurality of moving objects capable of moving by unmanned driving that recites similar limitations performed by the a remote control device that performs remote control of operation of a plurality of moving objects capable of moving by unmanned driving of claim 1. The cited portions of Gariepy and Mithal and Hanslik used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 9, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The control system according to claim 8, (see rejection above)
wherein the production step information includes inter-moving-object work information, which indicates whether or not an inter-moving-object work, in which workers enter a region between the front moving object and the rear moving object to work, is performed, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 7, element 716 and [0120-0123] wherein if an obstruction is detected (human operator) is in the vehicle’s path, the motion of the vehicle is paused.)
and the target setting unit sets the target distance in the production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed to be longer than the target distance in the production step in which the inter-moving-object work is not performed, using the production step information. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 7, element 716 and [0120-0123] wherein if an obstruction is detected (human operator) is in the vehicle’s path, the motion of the vehicle is paused. ** if the human operator is in between vehicle a and b, and vehicle b is paused, the distance between vehicle a (not paused and still would be moving in this case) and vehicle b would be longer.)
Regarding Claim 12, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The control system according to claim 9, (see rejection above)
wherein the production process has a movement process in which the moving object moves between a first work site where the one production step is performed and a second work site where a next production step, which is performed after the one production step, is performed, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 4 in which showcases elements 410, 412, 414, 416, 418 and 420 in which shows a movement process for a moving object as it moves between a first work site (410) and a second work site (412) in which site 412 is performed after 410.) the control system further comprises a determination unit that determines whether or not the one production step has been completed, and when it is determined by the determination unit that the one production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed has been completed, the target setting unit sets the target distance to a standard distance, which is a distance between the front moving object and the rear moving object and is shorter than the target distance when the inter-moving-object work is performed, the signal generation unit generates a second control signal, which is at least one of a front second control signal as the control signal to define the operation of the front moving object and a rear second control signal as the control signal to define the operation of the rear moving object so as to set the actual distance to the standard distance as the target distance in the movement process, (Gariepy, see at least [0090-0096] wherein an assembly input sequence of finished assemblies, number of operations for a particular assembly, predetermined work periods associated with a work station, the measured or calculated work period associated with each station, the distance between workstations and the vehicle work speed associated with each workstation is determined by the fleet management system. Also see at least Fig. 5-7 in which showcases the steps of receiving sequences of assembles, assigning missions to vehicles, receiving and storing status updates to generate paths and missions for vehicles.)
and the operation control unit controls the operation of the moving object using the second control signal without using the first control signal in the movement process. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0044] wherein a mission can be received from a fleet-management system in which the vehicle can be controlled to navigate.)
Regarding Claim 13, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The control system according to claim 9, (see rejection above)
wherein the production process has a movement process in which the moving object moves between a first work site where the one production step is performed and a second work site where a next production step, which is performed after the one production step, is performed, the step information acquisition unit further acquires next production step information, which is information regarding the next production step, the control system further comprises a determination unit that determines whether or not the one production step has been completed, and when it is determined by the determination unit that the one production step has been completed, the target setting unit sets the target distance to a next target distance, which is a distance between the front moving object and the rear moving object according to the next production step information, the signal generation unit generates a third control signal, which is at least one of a front third control signal to define the operation of the front moving object and a rear third control signal to define the operation of the rear moving object so as to set the actual distance to the next target distance as the target distance in the movement process, (Gariepy, see at least [0090-0096] wherein an assembly input sequence of finished assemblies, number of operations for a particular assembly, predetermined work periods associated with a work station, the measured or calculated work period associated with each station, the distance between workstations and the vehicle work speed associated with each workstation is determined by the fleet management system. Also see at least Fig. 5-7 in which showcases the steps of receiving sequences of assembles, assigning missions to vehicles, receiving and storing status updates to generate paths and missions for vehicles. ** the fleet management system encompasses a variety of determinations (finished assemblies, number of operations, an amount of time spent on an operation) to set distances between vehicles and associated work speeds for each vehicle to ensure that vehicles are able to operate without colliding during their movement paths.)
and the operation control unit controls the operation of the moving object using the third control signal without using the first control signal in the movement process. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0044] wherein a mission can be received from a fleet-management system in which the vehicle can be controlled to navigate.)
Regarding Claim 14, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The control system according to claim 12, (see rejection above)
wherein the inter-moving-object work is an assembly work to assemble a communicable device capable of communication with outside of the moving object to the moving object, and the determination unit determines that the one production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed has been completed when the communicable device is capable of communication with the outside of the moving object, and determines that the one production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed has not been completed when the communicable device is incapable of communication with the outside of the moving object. (Gariepy, see at least [0054-0058] *** a communication method/protocol is a well-known function of a management system communicating with vehicles about operations and if the communication method fails, its well known that the vehicle is unable to communicate with the fleet management system.)
Regarding Claim 15, Gariepy discloses A moving object configured as a vehicle capable of moving by unmanned driving in a factory where a plurality of production steps are performed in a production process for producing the moving object, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0066] wherein the workstation sequence 210, 212, 214 and 220. ** workstation sequence is interpreted to be a plurality of production steps in which are missions for the plurality of robots to perform)
wherein the moving object comprises a moving object control device that controls operation of the moving object, and the moving object control device comprises: (Gariepy, see at least [0054] which discloses a fleet management system and [0065] which discloses that the fleet management system generates a mission for the corresponding vehicle in order to covey through workstations in order to satisfy a sequence of operations)
a communication unit;
a step information acquisition unit that acquires production step information via the communication unit, which is information regarding one production step that is being performed on at least one of the own moving object and another moving object, which is another one of the moving object that moves at least one of ahead and behind of the moving object; (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0066-0068] wherein the workstation sequence 210, 212, 214 and 220 ** vehicle 224a and 224b are both given sequences for the workstation sequences. Also see at least [0067] wherein the vehicle may remain stopped until a trigger or signal is provided to indicate that the operation is complete.)
a signal generation unit that generates a first control signal as a control signal to define the operation of the own moving object so as to set an actual distance between the own moving object and the another moving object to the target distance; (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0050] wherein a work period associated with the operation being performed at the workstation is used to space the vehicles appropriately. Also see at least [0054-0055] The sequence of operations used to generate a particular finished workpiece may be received by a fleet management system in which the fleet management system can communicate information with the vehicles.)
and an operation control unit that controls the operation of the own moving object using the first control signal so that the actual distance matches the target distance, wherein (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0044] wherein a mission can be received from a fleet-management system in which the vehicle can be controlled to navigate.)
Gariepy while does disclose that vehicles a and vehicle b can be spaced appropriately, it does not explicitly a target distance specifically, therefore, Examiner brings forth reference Mithal in which discloses a target setting unit that sets a target distance between the own moving object and the another moving object according to the production step information; (Mithal, see at least [0029] “The movable-bots may be programmed to operate such that each of the individual movable-bots moves in sync with the other movable-bots in the same path. The movement of the movable-bots may depend upon various parameters. For example the movement may be associated with the distance between the individual movable-bots along the same path, an operating speed of each of the movable-bots, and the like.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Gariepy with the teachings of Mithal to include the capability of a utilizing target distances as a safety guideline for time-based intervals between vehicles as this would allow for variables such as speeds and other environment/vehicle conditions to be taken into account to increase/decrease following distances. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a plurality of movable objects.
Mithal while does disclose wherein a movable-bot can be controlled to adapt a speed to maintain a predefined safe-distance of a third movable-bot with respect to a first and second moveable-bot (speed could essentially be altered depending on the predefined distance to make sure distance is being maintained, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably come to the conclusion that the front bot would accelerate to create a larger distance between the front bot and the rear bot, or the rear bot would decelerate to create this larger distance), however, Examiner brings forth reference in which Hanslik in which discloses wherein when the target distance is longer than the actual distance and the moving object is moving behind another moving object, the signal generation unit generates the first control signal to cause the moving object to perform at least one of a deceleration process to decrease acceleration in a forward direction and a backing process to move backward in an opposite direction of the forward direction. (Hanslik, see at least [0016] wherein the firtst subject vehicle will accelerate to a desired acceleration in order to adjust a currently existing actual distance to the first desired distance.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Gariepy with the teachings of Hanslik to include the capability of a utilizing target distances as a safety guideline for time-based intervals between vehicles as this would allow for variables such as decreasing the vehicle speed of the rear vehicle to increase inter-vehicle distances. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a plurality of movable objects.
Regarding Claim 16, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The moving object according to claim 15, (see rejection above)
wherein the production step information includes inter-moving-object work information, which indicates whether or not an inter-moving-object work, in which workers enter a region between the moving object and the another moving object to work, is performed, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 7, element 716 and [0120-0123] wherein if an obstruction is detected (human operator) is in the vehicle’s path, the motion of the vehicle is paused.)
and the target setting unit sets the target distance in the production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed to be longer than the target distance in the production step in which the inter-moving-object work is not performed, using the production step information. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 7, element 716 and [0120-0123] wherein if an obstruction is detected (human operator) is in the vehicle’s path, the motion of the vehicle is paused. ** if the human operator is in between vehicle a and b, and vehicle b is paused, the distance between vehicle a (not paused and still would be moving in this case) and vehicle b would be longer.)
Regarding Claim 18, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The moving object according to claim 15, (see rejection above)
Mithal further discloses wherein when the target distance is longer than the actual distance and the moving object is moving the ahead of another moving object, the signal generation unit generates the first control signal to cause the moving object to perform an acceleration process to increase acceleration in a forward direction. (Mithal, see at least [0059] wherein a movable-bot can be controlled to adapt a speed to maintain a predefined safe-distance of a third movable-bot with respect to a first and second moveable-bot. ** speed can be altered depending on the predefined safe-distance, to make sure the distance is maintained between movable bots.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Gariepy with the teachings of Mithal to include the capability of a utilizing target distances as a safety guideline for time-based intervals between vehicles as this would allow for variables such as speeds and other environment/vehicle conditions to be taken into account to increase/decrease following distances by changing the vehicles speed. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a plurality of movable objects.
Regarding Claim 19, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The moving object according to claim 16, (see rejection above)
wherein the production process has a movement process in which the moving object moves between a first work site where the one production step is performed and a second work site where a next production step, which is performed after the one production step, is performed, (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 4 in which showcases elements 410, 412, 414, 416, 418 and 420 in which shows a movement process for a moving object as it moves between a first work site (410) and a second work site (412) in which site 412 is performed after 410.)
the moving object control device further comprises a determination unit that determines whether or not the one production step has been completed, and when it is determined by the determination unit that the one production step in which the inter-moving-object work is performed has been completed, the target setting unit sets the target distance to a standard distance, which is a distance between the moving object and the another moving object and is shorter than the target distance when the inter-moving-object work is performed, the signal generation unit generates a second control signal as the control signal to define the operation of the moving object so as to set the actual distance to the standard distance as the target distance in the movement process, (Gariepy, see at least [0090-0096] wherein an assembly input sequence of finished assemblies, number of operations for a particular assembly, predetermined work periods associated with a work station, the measured or calculated work period associated with each station, the distance between workstations and the vehicle work speed associated with each workstation is determined by the fleet management system. Also see at least Fig. 5-7 in which showcases the steps of receiving sequences of assembles, assigning missions to vehicles, receiving and storing status updates to generate paths and missions for vehicles.)
and the operation control unit controls the operation of the moving object using the second control signal without using the first control signal in the movement process.
Regarding Claim 20, Gariepy in view of Mithal in further view of Hanslik discloses The moving object according to claim 16, (see rejection above)
wherein the production process has a movement process in which the moving object moves between a first work site where the one production step is performed and a second work site where a next production step, which is performed after the one production step, is performed, the step information acquisition unit further acquires next production step information, which is information regarding the next production step, the moving object control device further comprises a determination unit that determines whether or not the one production step has been completed, and when it is determined by the determination unit that the one production step has been completed, the target setting unit sets the target distance to a next target distance, which is a distance between the moving object and the another moving object according to the next production step information, the signal generation unit generates a third control signal to define the operation of the moving object so as to set the actual distance to the next target distance as the target distance in the movement process, (Gariepy, see at least [0090-0096] wherein an assembly input sequence of finished assemblies, number of operations for a particular assembly, predetermined work periods associated with a work station, the measured or calculated work period associated with each station, the distance between workstations and the vehicle work speed associated with each workstation is determined by the fleet management system. Also see at least Fig. 5-7 in which showcases the steps of receiving sequences of assembles, assigning missions to vehicles, receiving and storing status updates to generate paths and missions for vehicles. ** the fleet management system encompasses a variety of determinations (finished assemblies, number of operations, an amount of time spent on an operation) to set distances between vehicles and associated work speeds for each vehicle to ensure that vehicles are able to operate without colliding during their movement paths.)
and the operation control unit controls the operation of the moving object using the third control signal without using the first control signal in the movement process. (Gariepy, see at least Fig. 2 and [0044] wherein a mission can be received from a fleet-management system in which the vehicle can be controlled to navigate.)
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180275681– Systems and methods for flexible conveyance in an assembly-line or manufacturing process are disclosed. A fleet of self-driving vehicles and a fleet-management system can be used to convey workpieces through a sequence of workstations at which operations are performed in order to produce a finished assembly. An assembly can be transported to a first workstation using a self-driving vehicle, where an operation is performed on the assembly. Subsequently, the assembly can be transported to a second workstation using the self-driving vehicle. The operation can be performed on the assembly while it is being conveyed by the self-driving vehicle.
US 9014902 B1– A system and method of automatic guided vehicles (AGVs) that is capable of providing synchronized travel along a line or path while maintaining a desired takt time such that regular manufacturing operations may be performed to material or workpieces on the vehicle without the need for a traditional conveyor systems.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights