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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Amada (US 2010/0032247 A1) in view of Komamura (US 2012/0027882 A1), Hirtt (US 2011/0237386 A1), and Jahkonen (US 2006/0027424 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant correctly observes that Komamura’s rotary encoders 7a, 7b are both connected to servo motors 29a, 29b, and that Komamura’s timing belts 6a, 6b transmit drive rather than serving as an independent component for checking position. Komamura therefore does not teach an external encoder connected to a timing belt as claimed. Accordingly, that rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration and an updated search, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kono (JP 6257213 B2), Hashizume (JP 3640065 B2), Eschelbacher (US 2010/0237306 A1), and Jeon (JP 2019-043685 A), as set forth below. Claims 5 and 10 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Because these new grounds were not necessitated by amendment, this action is non-final. Applicant’s arguments directed specifically to Amada, Komamura, Hirtt, and Jahkonen are moot because none of those references is relied upon in the present rejections. To the extent Applicant’s remaining arguments may apply to the new grounds, they are addressed as follows.
Field of the references. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not look to Komamura (injection molding) or Hirtt (gear-train backlash) to modify a stacker crane. The new grounds do not present that issue. Kono, Hashizume, and Jeon are each directed to stacker cranes, which is Applicant’s own field of endeavor. Eschelbacher, directed to a motor-driven hoist, is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned: detecting a discrepancy between motor-side and independently measured position so that a collision does not occur when the actual traveling position cannot be accurately calculated (spec. ¶ [0029]). See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Hindsight and the claimed invention as a whole. Applicant argues that the prior rejection selected features from the references using Applicant’s teachings as a roadmap, citing Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The new grounds do not assemble the claim piecemeal. Kono alone discloses the claimed combination as a whole: a stacker crane whose controller identifies a position from the motor encoder, identifies an independently measured position, computes the deviation between them, and controls the traveling motor based on that deviation. Hashizume is relied upon only to supply the type of independent position detector, and the reason for that substitution comes from the references themselves rather than from Applicant’s disclosure. Kono identifies wheel slip as the source of motor-encoder position error and provides a separate position detector to correct it, and Hashizume teaches that a rotary encoder forcibly rotated by a timing belt along the ground rail is preferable for accurately detecting stacker-crane travel position. Likewise, Eschelbacher itself teaches that a discrepancy between two encoders indicates a drive-train failure, including belt slippage, warranting stopping the motor. An obviousness determination is proper so long as it takes into account only knowledge within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); MPEP 2145(X)(A).
Dependent claims. Applicant argues that claims 2–5 and 7–10 are allowable based solely on their dependence from claims 1 and 6. Because claims 1 and 6 are rejected on the new grounds set forth below, this argument is not persuasive, and the dependent claims are rejected for the reasons set forth.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2173.02(I). The claims, read in light of the specification, must inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
Claims 5 and 10 each recite that “the operation pattern and the designated pattern each further indicate at least one of the time, the speed, or the acceleration according to a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane.” The relationship required by “according to” is unclear.
Although the specification discusses the crane moving a “longest distance,” stating that “[t]he deviation may become a maximum deviation when the stocker crane 100 moves a longest distance” and that a maximum deviation may be determined in advance “on the basis of the test” (spec. [0038]), it does not define the relationship the claim requires between that distance and the time, speed, or acceleration indicated by each pattern. That passage uses the longest distance only to establish the magnitude of a deviation threshold. The specification describes the designated (predicted) operation pattern as “a value predetermined by the repeated tests” stored as table information, and the operation pattern as the current pattern “determined on the basis of at least one of the command position or the movement position” (spec. [0030], [0037]). The current operation pattern is therefore a measured profile of whatever move the crane is actually performing.
Neither the claims nor the specification indicates what relationship “according to” requires between that maximum movement distance and the time, speed, or acceleration indicated by each pattern. It is unclear whether the recited quantities must be calculated from the maximum movement distance; selected from stored values on the basis of that distance; measured during a maximum-distance move; normalized to that distance; or merely correspond to a profile capable of operating over that distance. The uncertainty is material because these readings capture different systems. For example, a crane whose predicted pattern is stored for each individual move would fall within the claim under some readings and outside it under others, as would a crane whose patterns are scaled to its full travel range. The uncertainty is greater as applied to the operation pattern, which is a measured profile of the move actually being performed. A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore could not determine with reasonable certainty whether a given pair of patterns falls within the scope of claims 5 and 10.
Interpretation for purposes of examination. For purposes of applying the prior art, “a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane” is interpreted as the maximum permitted travel distance of the stocker crane along its traveling path, consistent with the wheel-driven travel recited in parent claims 1 and 6. “According to” is interpreted as requiring that the time, speed, or acceleration indicated by each of the designated pattern and the operation pattern be determined with reference to that distance. This interpretation is applied in the rejection of claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. Because a reasonable interpretation exists that does not require speculation as to the meaning of the claims, the prior-art rejection is properly made together with this rejection. See MPEP 2173.06(II); compare In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono (JP 6257213 B2) in view of Hashizume (JP 3640065 B2).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono in view of Hashizume, and further in view of Eschelbacher (US 2010/0237306 A1).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono in view of Hashizume, and further in view of Jeon (JP 2019-043685 A).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Kono
Kono discloses:
A stocker crane comprising:
See at least:
“Hereinafter, a stacker crane will be described as an example of the transport device according to the embodiment.” (Kono, p. 7)
“The traveling rail 12 is laid along a rack 60 installed on the ground. The traveling carriage 14 is movable along the traveling rail 12.” (Kono, p. 5)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses a stacker crane 10 whose traveling carriage 14 moves along a traveling rail 12 laid along a storage rack 60. The terms “stacker crane” and “stocker crane” both denote a rail-traveling automated-warehouse crane that loads articles onto and unloads articles from storage racks; Applicant’s own specification describes the claimed stocker crane in exactly those terms (spec. [0003], [0023]). This is an express disclosure of the claimed stocker crane.
a drive motor
See at least:
“The drive unit 100b is, for example, an inverter, and drives the traveling motor 100a based on the torque command value Tcom.” (Kono, p. 7)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses traveling motor 100a, driven by drive unit 100b in response to a torque command. The traveling motor 100a is a drive motor.
configured to operate a wheel;
See at least:
“Here, in the ideal state where there is no idling or slipping of the wheels of the traveling carriage 14, the first position detection value Xfb1 detected by the motor encoder 114 and the actual position X1 coincide with each other. An error occurs between them. The absolute position correction unit 130 is provided to correct these errors.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono explains that the motor-encoder position equals the actual carriage position only when there is “no idling or slipping of the wheels of the traveling carriage 14.” That statement is meaningful only because traveling motor 100a rotates the wheels that propel carriage 14 along rail 12; wheel slip is precisely what causes motor rotation and carriage travel to diverge. Kono therefore implicitly discloses that the drive motor is configured to operate a wheel. This is also consistent with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, for whom rail-traveling stacker cranes are conventionally propelled by motor-driven wheels.
a motor encoder
See at least:
“The stacker crane 10 includes a motor 100a, a driving unit 100b, a subtractor 102, a position controller 104, an adder / subtractor 106, a differentiator 108, a speed controller 110, an adder 112, a motor encoder 114, a rangefinder 116, and a vibration control unit 120.” (Kono, p. 7)
Rationale: Kono expressly lists a motor encoder 114 among the components of stacker crane 10. This is an express disclosure of a motor encoder.
connected to the drive motor;
See at least:
“The motor encoder 114 detects the position of the mover of the motor and generates a first position detection value Xfb1 indicating the current position X1 of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that motor encoder 114 detects the position of the mover of the motor, i.e., it is coupled to and senses traveling motor 100a. This is an express disclosure of a motor encoder connected to the drive motor.
a controller
See at least:
“The onboard control panel 30 of the stacker crane 10 controls the traveling device 16 so that the position X of the traveling carriage 14 coincides with the position command value Vref.” (Kono, p. 7)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses an onboard control panel 30 that controls traveling of the carriage, implemented through the control blocks of FIG. 3 (subtractor 102, position controller 104, speed controller 110, absolute position correction unit 130, and related blocks). Collectively these constitute a controller. Applicant’s own specification confirms that the claimed controller may include servo-drive elements of this kind (spec. [0028]).
connected to the drive motor, the motor encoder,
See at least:
“In this control system, the part including the drive unit 100b, the motor 100a, the traveling carriage 14 and the mast 18 is handled as the plant 100.” (Kono, p. 7)
“The adder 112 outputs the torque command value Tcom ′ added with the torque feedforward value Tff to the plant 100.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The subtracter 102 subtracts the first position detection value Xfb1 from the position command value Xref″, and generates an error dX thereof.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that the controller’s torque command is output to plant 100, which includes drive unit 100b and motor 100a, so the controller is connected to the drive motor. Kono also expressly discloses that subtracter 102 receives the first position detection value Xfb1 generated by motor encoder 114, so the controller is connected to the motor encoder.
wherein the controller is configured to:
See at least:
“Below, the traveling control system of the stacker crane 10 is demonstrated. FIG. 3 is a control block diagram relating to travel of the stacker crane 10 according to the embodiment.” (Kono, p. 7)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that the control blocks of FIG. 3 form the traveling control system of the stacker crane, i.e., the controller is configured to perform the traveling-control functions mapped below.
instruct the drive motor to move a position of the stocker crane;
See at least:
“Stacker crane 10 is in the major loop, the position X1 of the traveling carriage 14 take feedback to match the position command value Xref. In the minor loop, the motor torque command value Tcom is adjusted so that the motor speed Vfb matches the speed command value Vcom generated in accordance with the major loop control.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that the controller adjusts the torque command Tcom to the traveling motor so that the carriage position X1 follows the position command value Xref. Issuing a torque command that drives the traveling motor so the carriage reaches a commanded position is instructing the drive motor to move a position of the stocker crane.
identify a command position
See at least:
“The subtractor 140 subtracts the position correction value Xc that is the output of the absolute position correction unit 130 from the first position detection value Xfb1 from the motor encoder 114 to correct the first position detection value Xfb1.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Applicant’s specification defines the “command position” as “a position of the stocker crane 100 that is determined on the basis of the rotational speed of the drive motor 220” (spec. [0028]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the command position is therefore the carriage position derived from the motor encoder, not a commanded set point. Kono expressly identifies exactly that quantity: the first position detection value Xfb1, generated from motor encoder 114, which Kono uses and corrects as the current carriage position.
based on information on a first rotational speed received from the motor encoder;
See at least:
“The differentiator 108 differentiates the first position detection value Xfb1 and generates a current speed detection value Vfb of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The encoder 508 detects the speed of the traveling carriage 14 and generates a speed feedback value Vfb.” (Kono, p. 5)
Rationale: Kono expressly obtains both the first position detection value Xfb1 and the speed detection value Vfb from the same motor-encoder feedback channel, and mathematically relates them by time differentiation (differentiator 108). Kono further describes its encoder as detecting speed to generate the speed feedback value Vfb. Kono itself therefore establishes that both position and speed are derived from the same encoder feedback signal, and it relates the two through differentiation (in the direction position → speed). It therefore would have been a predictable implementation of the same disclosed encoder-feedback architecture to obtain the corresponding motor-derived position by accumulation of the rotational-speed information over time, yielding the same position value Kono already uses (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP 2143(I)(A)). This limitation is accordingly rendered obvious by Kono.
identify a movement position
See at least:
“The rangefinder 116 is a highly accurate position sensor provided separately from the motor encoder 114, and generates a second position detection value Xfb2 indicating the position X1.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Applicant’s specification describes the “movement position” as the independently measured actual position of the crane (spec. [0028]). Kono expressly discloses a second position detection value Xfb2 indicating the actual carriage position X1, generated by a position sensor provided separately from the motor encoder. This is an express disclosure of identifying a movement position. (The particular sensor from which that information is received is addressed below.)
control an operation of the drive motor
See at least:
“The speed controller 110 generates the torque command value Tcom so that the error dV becomes zero.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that the speed controller 110 generates the torque command value Tcom that drives the traveling motor. Generating the torque command is controlling an operation of the drive motor.
based on a deviation between the command position and the movement position.
See at least:
“More specifically, the subtractor 132 generates an error dXfb between the first position detection value Xfb1 and the second position detection value Xfb2.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The adder 128 adds a position correction value Xc generated by an absolute position correction unit 130 described later to the position command value Xref ′ that has passed through the filter 122, and outputs a position command value Xref ″.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that subtractor 132 computes the error dXfb between Xfb1 (the claimed “command position,” i.e., the motor-encoder-derived position under the specification’s definition) and Xfb2 (the independently measured movement position). That deviation is filtered, processed by correction control unit 136, and integrated into position correction value Xc, which adder 128 adds to the position command to form Xref″. Xref″ drives the position loop (subtracter 102 and position controller 104), which in turn sets the speed command and torque command applied to the traveling motor. The operation of the drive motor is therefore controlled based on the deviation between the command position and the movement position. This is an express disclosure.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Kono
Kono does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
an external encoder
connected to a timing belt; and
and the external encoder,
based on information on a second rotational speed received from the external encoder; and
Disclosure by Hashizume
Hashizume discloses:
an external encoder
See at least:
“As shown in FIG. 5, a rotary encoder 48 for detecting the traveling position is arranged at a substantially middle part in the front and rear of the carriage unit 5, and details thereof are shown in FIGS. 7 and 8.” (Hashizume, [0044])
“The rotary encoder 48 includes an attachment plate 50 fixed to a bracket plate 49, and a rotor 52 that is supported by a bearing 51 and a detection unit 53 that calculates a travel distance from the rotation.” (Hashizume, [0045])
“A traveling motor 44 is attached to a portion of the carriage unit 5 on the side of the driving traveling wheel 40 via a reduction box 43” (Hashizume, [0041])
Rationale: Hashizume expressly discloses a rotary encoder 48 for detecting the traveling position of the stacker crane, mounted on the carriage unit 5 separately from the traveling motor 44 that drives the traveling wheel 40. Because it is a rotary encoder distinct from, and not part of, the drive motor, it is an external encoder as claimed (cf. spec. [0027], external encoder “disposed outside the drive motor”). This is an express disclosure.
connected to a timing belt; and
See at least:
“A gear 54 that meshes with the timing belt 20 is attached to the tip of the rotor 52.” (Hashizume, [0045])
“A timing belt 20 is fitted into the long groove 18 with its rack teeth facing downward. Both ends of the timing belt 20 are fixed to the ground rail 13.” (Hashizume, [0029])
Rationale: Hashizume expressly discloses that the gear 54 on the encoder rotor 52 meshes with a timing belt 20 laid along and fixed to the ground rail 13. The external encoder is therefore connected to a timing belt. This is an express disclosure.
and the external encoder,
See at least:
“(by using this position sensor 57 and the rotary encoder 48 together, accurate traveling control is possible.” (Hashizume, [0051])
Rationale: Hashizume discloses that the output of rotary encoder 48 is used for traveling control of the stacker crane. Using an encoder’s output for traveling control requires that the encoder be communicatively connected to the controller performing that control; the connection is therefore implicitly disclosed. In the combination, Hashizume’s encoder takes the place of Kono’s separately provided position sensor 116, whose output is supplied to Kono’s absolute position correction unit 130, so the external encoder is connected to the controller.
based on information on a second rotational speed received from the external encoder; and
See at least:
“When the stacker crane 2 travels, the gear 54 is rotated by the timing belt 20, whereby the travel position can be detected. Since the timing belt 20 is fitted in the long groove 18, the timing belt 20 does not shift laterally, and as a result, the traveling position (distance) can be accurately detected.” (Hashizume, [0047])
“This rotary encoder detects the travel distance by counting pulses generated by the rotation of the rotor” (Hashizume, [0017])
Rationale: Hashizume expressly discloses that the timing belt rotates the encoder gear as the crane travels and that the external encoder detects the travel position (distance) by counting pulses generated by rotation of its rotor. The pulse count represents the rotor’s rotational displacement; the rate of those same pulses represents the rotor’s rotational speed, which is a second rotational speed distinct from the motor’s. Hashizume thus expressly determines the movement position from rotational pulse information produced by the external encoder. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Hashizume’s rotary encoder to determine the travel position from that rotational-motion information, including the pulse-rate (second rotational speed) information generated during rotation, because accumulating rotational rate over time and counting rotational increments are conventional, interchangeable ways of obtaining displacement from a rotary encoder. In the combination, this external-encoder position supplies the movement position Xfb2 used by Kono.
Motivation to Combine Kono and Hashizume
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono and Hashizume before them, to implement the separately provided second position detector of Kono (rangefinder 116) as the travel-position rotary encoder 48 of Hashizume, whose gear 54 meshes with a timing belt 20 laid along the ground rail, so that the controller identifies the movement position from the rotational information received from that external encoder and continues to control the drive motor based on the deviation dXfb between the motor-encoder-derived command position and that movement position. The references themselves supply the reason. Kono recognizes that the motor-encoder position diverges from the actual carriage position whenever the wheels idle or slip, and provides an independent second position detector specifically to correct that error (Kono, p. 8); Kono also notes that its rangefinder updates more slowly than the motor encoder (Kono, p. 8: “the update speed of the second position detection value Xfb2 by the rangefinder 116 is slower than that of the motor encoder 114”). Hashizume, addressing the same stacker-crane environment, teaches that the travel position is conventionally detected with a rotary encoder, that roller-driven encoders can rotate incompletely because of wear or bounce, and that “it is preferable to forcibly rotate the rotor by a belt (preferably a timing belt) disposed along the ground rail” so that the traveling position can be accurately detected (Hashizume, [0018], [0047]). Replacing one known independent travel-position detector with another known travel-position detector used for the same purpose in the same type of machine is a simple substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(B)). The substitution also carries an affirmative benefit grounded in the references: a timing-belt-driven encoder is mechanically independent of wheel slip, which is the very error Kono seeks to correct, and it outputs pulses continuously as the crane travels, which addresses Kono’s stated limitation of a slowly updating second detector. Kono’s correction loop requires only a second position value and is indifferent to the sensing technology, so a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in Applicant’s field of endeavor (stacker cranes for automated warehouses) and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2. Accordingly, the limitation The stocker crane of claim 1, is met.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the operation of the drive motor
See at least:
“The position controller 104 generates the speed command value Vcom so that the error dX becomes zero.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The speed controller 110 generates the torque command value Tcom so that the error dV becomes zero.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that position controller 104 and speed controller 110, which form part of the controller, generate the speed and torque commands that drive the traveling motor. This is an express disclosure of the controller being further configured to control the operation of the drive motor.
based on a deviation between a designated pattern and an operation pattern
See at least:
“In the stacker crane 10 of FIG. 3, the position command value Xref can be changed according to an arbitrary waveform. FIG. 4B shows a state when the position command value Xref is changed according to the one-dot chain line in FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
“The subtracter 102 subtracts the first position detection value Xfb1 from the position command value Xref″, and generates an error dX thereof.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses a position command value Xref that follows a commanded waveform over time; this time-varying commanded position waveform reasonably corresponds to the designated pattern. Kono also expressly discloses the continuously measured carriage position Xfb1 used in feedback control, and subtracter 102 computes the deviation dX between Xref″ and Xfb1, which the position controller drives toward zero. Kono does not use the term “operation pattern.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the measured time-varying trajectory of Xfb1 reasonably corresponds to the recited operation pattern: a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the time-varying sequence of measured positions Xfb1 produced while following the designated waveform as the crane’s actual operating trajectory, i.e., an operation pattern. Kono therefore expressly supplies the designated waveform, the actual time-varying position, and control based on the deviation between them; the actual time-varying trajectory reasonably corresponds to the recited operation pattern, and that correspondence would at minimum have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
according to at least one of the command position and the movement position.
See at least:
“The motor encoder 114 detects the position of the mover of the motor and generates a first position detection value Xfb1 indicating the current position X1 of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: The operation pattern identified above is the time history of Xfb1, which is generated by motor encoder 114 and is therefore the claimed “command position,” i.e., the motor-encoder-derived position under the definition in the specification (spec. [0028]). The operation pattern is accordingly “according to” the command position, which satisfies the “at least one of” alternative.
Motivation to Combine Kono and Hashizume
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono and Hashizume before them, to retain, in the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume, Kono’s position loop, in which the drive motor is controlled based on the deviation dX between the designated position-command waveform Xref and the operating trajectory of the motor-encoder-derived position Xfb1. That loop is the mechanism by which Kono moves the carriage to its target, and the substitution of Hashizume’s timing-belt encoder for Kono’s second detector (see claim 1) leaves it unchanged. Retaining an existing control function of the primary reference in the modified system involves no change in Kono’s principle of operation and yields the predictable result of trajectory-following travel control (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The same rationale set forth for claim 1 for combining Kono and Hashizume applies equally here.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the apparatus of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 3. Accordingly, the limitation The stocker crane of claim 2, is met.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono discloses:
when the deviation between the operation pattern and the designated pattern
See at least:
“The subtracter 102 subtracts the first position detection value Xfb1 from the position command value Xref″, and generates an error dX thereof.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses computing the deviation dX between its time-varying commanded position waveform and the motor-encoder-derived position trajectory, which reasonably correspond to the designated pattern and the operation pattern, respectively, for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
or the deviation between the command position and the movement position
See at least:
“More specifically, the subtractor 132 generates an error dXfb between the first position detection value Xfb1 and the second position detection value Xfb2.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses computing the deviation dXfb between the motor-encoder-derived command position Xfb1 and the independently measured movement position Xfb2; in the combination with Hashizume, Xfb2 is obtained from the timing-belt external encoder. This is an express disclosure of the deviation recited.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Kono and Hashizume
The combination of Kono and Hashizume does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the controller is further configured to stop the operation of the drive motor
is equal to or higher than a first critical value
is equal to or higher than a maximum deviation.
Disclosure by Eschelbacher
Eschelbacher discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to stop the operation of the drive motor
See at least:
“The remedial actions may include: (i) activate the motor brake by control signal 132; (ii) activate the drum brake by control signal 133; (iii) stop or slow the motor; (iv) sound an alarm; and/or power down the hoist.” (Eschelbacher, [0030])
“If the encoder-encoder comparison does indicate a potential problem, then remedial action(s) is/are taken as discussed above in connection with maximum safe speed type protection.” (Eschelbacher, [0031])
Rationale: Eschelbacher expressly discloses that the motor control system takes remedial action when a monitored comparison indicates a problem, and that the remedial actions include “stop or slow the motor.” This is an express disclosure of a controller configured to stop the operation of the drive motor.
is equal to or higher than a first critical value
See at least:
“In this exemplary embodiment, potential problems can be detected on the basis of comparison to three targets: (i) target motion as determined from digital control signals from the remote motor controller, (ii) target motion as determined from analog control signals from the local motor controller; and (iii) target motion as determined from the output signal from the motor motion detector.” (Eschelbacher, [0037])
“Each of the common basis target motions (i), (ii) and (iii) are compared to the actual motion (iv). If any of the differences determined by these three comparisons exceeds a predetermined error threshold, then the comparison module commands that remedial action be taken by sending out appropriate control signals to the local motor controller, the remote motor controller and the brake.” (Eschelbacher, [0038])
Rationale: Eschelbacher expressly discloses comparing the target motion determined from the motor control signals (the commanded, i.e., designated, motion) with the actual motion (the operation), and taking remedial action when the difference “exceeds a predetermined error threshold.” That predetermined threshold corresponds to a first critical value applied to the deviation between the designated and operation patterns. Eschelbacher triggers when the difference exceeds the threshold, whereas the claim recites equal to or higher than. Selecting whether the remedial action is triggered when the measured difference is strictly greater than the threshold or greater than or equal to it would have been a routine implementation choice in a digital comparator: both settings implement the same predetermined boundary separating permissible from impermissible deviation, and the record identifies no technical criticality associated with equality at the single boundary value.
is equal to or higher than a maximum deviation.
See at least:
“In this exemplary embodiment, potential problems can be detected on the basis of comparison to three targets: (i) target motion as determined from digital control signals from the remote motor controller, (ii) target motion as determined from analog control signals from the local motor controller; and (iii) target motion as determined from the output signal from the motor motion detector.” (Eschelbacher, [0037])
“Each of the common basis target motions (i), (ii) and (iii) are compared to the actual motion (iv). If any of the differences determined by these three comparisons exceeds a predetermined error threshold, then the comparison module commands that remedial action be taken by sending out appropriate control signals to the local motor controller, the remote motor controller and the brake.” (Eschelbacher, [0038])
“The drum assembly motion detector may detect: (i) position of a rotational component of the drum assembly (for example, the shaft)” (Eschelbacher, [0036])
Rationale: Eschelbacher expressly discloses comparing the target motion determined from the motor motion detector (motor side) with the actual motion detected at the drum (load side), including rotational position, and taking remedial action, including stopping the motor, when that difference exceeds a predetermined threshold. Eschelbacher does not use the phrase “maximum deviation.” However, the predetermined threshold defines the maximum allowable deviation between the motor-side position and the independently detected load-side position before remedial action is required, and therefore corresponds to the claimed maximum deviation between the command position and the movement position. The strictly-greater versus greater-than-or-equal boundary is a routine comparator implementation choice for the reasons stated above. The combination therefore establishes a controller responsive to both recited trigger conditions.
Motivation to Combine Kono, Hashizume, and Eschelbacher
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono, Hashizume, and Eschelbacher before them, to configure the controller of the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume to stop the drive motor when either the deviation between the designated pattern and the operation pattern, or the deviation between the motor-encoder-derived command position and the timing-belt-encoder-derived movement position, reaches a predetermined threshold, as taught by Eschelbacher. Eschelbacher teaches comparing motion detected at two different points of the same drive train, and comparing commanded target motion to actual motion, because “a failure in any component will tend to quickly manifest itself as an unexpected difference in the rotational motion respectively detected by the two encoders” (Eschelbacher, [0033]); it expressly identifies “belt slippage” as a condition such a comparison detects ( [0017]); and it teaches that when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold the remedial action includes stopping the motor ( [0030], [0038]). Kono already computes both deviations (dX and dXfb), but treats dXfb only as a small, slowly varying error that is low-pass filtered and integrated into a correction value (Kono, p. 8). Kono provides no response to a gross deviation, such as wheel lock-up, disengagement of the encoder gear from the timing belt, or loss of drive-train rigidity, which its correction loop would otherwise absorb while the crane continues to travel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from Eschelbacher that bounding these already-computed deviations with a threshold and stopping the motor when the threshold is reached improves safety and prevents collision or equipment damage. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP 2143(I)(C)). Eschelbacher, directed to a motor-driven material-handling hoist, is reasonably pertinent to the problem Applicant addresses: detecting a discrepancy between motor-side and load-side position so that a collision does not occur when the actual position cannot be accurately calculated (spec. [0029]). Implementation requires only threshold comparisons on signals the combined controller already computes, so there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the apparatus of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 4. Accordingly, the limitation The stocker crane of claim 2, is met.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono discloses:
wherein the operation pattern and the designated pattern
See at least:
“In the stacker crane 10 of FIG. 3, the position command value Xref can be changed according to an arbitrary waveform. FIG. 4B shows a state when the position command value Xref is changed according to the one-dot chain line in FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
“FIG. 4B is an operation waveform diagram of the stacker crane 10 of FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses a time-varying commanded position waveform Xref and the resulting actual carriage-position trajectory shown in Kono’s operation waveform diagram (FIG. 4B), which reasonably correspond to the designated pattern and the operation pattern, respectively, for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
each indicate at least one of a movement distance, a time, a speed, or an acceleration
See at least:
“The speed command value Vref has a predetermined waveform such as a trapezoidal wave or a triangular wave, and the time integral value thereof corresponds to the moving distance of the traveling carriage 14, that is, the target value Xref of the coordinate X.” (Kono, p. 5)
“The differentiator 108 differentiates the first position detection value Xfb1 and generates a current speed detection value Vfb of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses that the speed-command waveform integrates over time to the moving distance of the traveling carriage, and that the measured carriage position Xfb1 is differentiated to obtain the carriage speed Vfb. Each of the designated pattern and the operation pattern can therefore be represented as position (movement distance) or speed as a function of time. Because the claim recites “at least one of,” speed alone is sufficient; Kono need not be shown to disclose every alternative.
of the stocker crane.
See at least:
“The traveling rail 12 is laid along a rack 60 installed on the ground. The traveling carriage 14 is movable along the traveling rail 12.” (Kono, p. 5)
Rationale: The patterns in Kono describe the motion of traveling carriage 14 of the stacker crane along traveling rail 12, i.e., they are patterns of the stocker crane. This is an express disclosure.
Motivation to Combine Kono and Hashizume
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono and Hashizume before them, to retain, in the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume, Kono’s designated and operation patterns expressed as position and speed of the traveling carriage over time. Those quantities are the native variables of Kono’s position and speed loops, and the substitution of Hashizume’s timing-belt encoder for Kono’s second detector (see claim 1) does not change them. Doing so yields the predictable result of controlling the crane’s travel by distance and speed (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The same rationale set forth for claim 1 for combining Kono and Hashizume applies equally here.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the apparatus of Claim 4, which is the basis for Claim 5. Accordingly, the limitation The stocker crane of claim 4, is met.
As set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 5 is interpreted as requiring that the time, speed, or acceleration indicated by each of the designated pattern and the operation pattern be determined with reference to the maximum permitted travel distance of the stocker crane along its traveling path. The following mapping applies that interpretation.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono discloses:
wherein the operation pattern and the designated pattern
See at least:
“In the stacker crane 10 of FIG. 3, the position command value Xref can be changed according to an arbitrary waveform. FIG. 4B shows a state when the position command value Xref is changed according to the one-dot chain line in FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
“FIG. 4B is an operation waveform diagram of the stacker crane 10 of FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses a time-varying commanded position waveform Xref and the resulting actual carriage-position trajectory, which reasonably correspond to the designated pattern and the operation pattern, respectively, for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
each further indicate at least one of the time, the speed, or the acceleration
See at least:
“The speed command value Vref has a predetermined waveform such as a trapezoidal wave or a triangular wave, and the time integral value thereof corresponds to the moving distance of the traveling carriage 14, that is, the target value Xref of the coordinate X.” (Kono, p. 5)
“The differentiator 108 differentiates the first position detection value Xfb1 and generates a current speed detection value Vfb of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly discloses a speed waveform over time and the measured carriage speed Vfb, so each pattern can be represented as speed as a function of time. One alternative suffices.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Kono and Hashizume
The combination of Kono and Hashizume does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
according to a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane.
Disclosure by Jeon
Jeon discloses:
according to a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane.
See at least:
“In determining the drive pattern, first, the horizontal distance La to be traveled by the traveling carriage 22 is determined from the horizontal coordinate of the target position included in the conveyance instruction and the horizontal coordinate of the current position of the elevator 23, and the horizontal distance La is calculated. The shortest travel time ta0 required to travel at the standard upper limit travel speed vam is calculated (step S21).” (Jeon, p. 9)
“the electric power which can be supplied by the main power supply 70 and the storage device 72 basically travels alone by the maximum distance assumed for the traveling carriage 22 and the elevator 23 respectively.” (Jeon, p. 11)
“Therefore, the maximum value of the power consumption for moving the maximum possible distance as far as the traveling carriage 22 and the elevator 23 can be calculated is calculated” (Jeon, p. 11)
“First, the maximum distance the elevator 23 can move up and down is confirmed.” (Jeon, p. 11)
“How much time (maximum distance elevating time) is required to raise and lower this maximum elevating distance at the highest possible speed (for example, standard upper limit elevating speed vbm)” (Jeon, p. 11)
“Then, with regard to the calculated maximum distance elevating time, when the traveling vehicle 22 travels at the standard upper limit traveling speed vam for the same period, it is calculated what value (maximum traveling power) the power consumption will be maximum.” (Jeon, p. 11)
Rationale: Jeon, directed to a stacker crane, expressly determines drive-pattern time and speed from movement distance on the horizontal traveling axis: it calculates the horizontal distance La the traveling carriage must travel and the shortest travel time required at the standard upper-limit travel speed. Jeon also expressly refers to the maximum distance assumed for the traveling carriage, and to the maximum possible distance the traveling carriage can move, and it computes operating quantities for that maximum-distance movement. Jeon’s step-by-step maximum-distance calculation is set out for the elevator: the maximum distance, the time to move it at the upper-limit speed, and the traveling carriage at its upper-limit speed over the same period. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied that same disclosed calculation to the traveling carriage’s maximum distance, which Jeon itself identifies. Doing so is a use of Jeon’s own drive-pattern methodology on a travel axis that Jeon already controls by distance, time, and speed, rather than a transfer from an unrelated system. The resulting time and speed parameters are set according to a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane, i.e., its maximum permitted travel distance along its traveling path. Applying this to both the designated pattern and the operation pattern of the combination is a further obviousness step, explained in the motivation below; it is not attributed expressly to Jeon.
Motivation to Combine Kono, Hashizume, and Jeon
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono, Hashizume, and Jeon before them, to define the designated pattern and the operation pattern of the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume, which already indicate time and speed of the traveling carriage, according to the maximum movement distance of the stocker crane, as taught by Jeon. Jeon, directed to the same type of stacker crane, teaches determining drive-pattern time and speed from the distance to be traveled on the horizontal traveling axis (Jeon, p. 9). It also teaches establishing time and speed quantities for movement over the maximum distance, including the time to move the maximum distance at the upper-limit speed and the traveling operation at the upper-limit traveling speed over the same period, and using those maximum-distance quantities in planning and evaluating drive patterns (Jeon, pp. 10–11). Jeon explains that the maximum-distance movement establishes the operating envelope the crane must support. Jeon already calculates horizontal travel time from horizontal travel distance using the traveling-axis upper-limit speed (Jeon, p. 9), and separately identifies the maximum distance assumed for the traveling carriage and establishes maximum-distance operating parameters for the same coordinated drive system (Jeon, p. 11). Applying those maximum-distance parameters to Jeon’s own horizontal distance-time-speed calculation would therefore have been a use of the same disclosed drive-pattern methodology on the same controlled travel axis, not a transfer from an unrelated system. Once Jeon’s maximum-distance-dependent time and speed parameters define Kono’s designated profile, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the same time and speed coordinate framework for the measured operation profile, because Kono compares the intended and actual trajectories to determine deviation. Expressing both profiles using the same maximum-distance-dependent motion parameters permits direct comparison on a common basis, and would have been a predictable implementation of the disclosed control architecture. Applying the same maximum-distance-derived operating envelope to both profiles permits the intended and measured profiles to be evaluated on a common basis over the full permitted travel range. This is a known design technique in the same field, applied for its established purpose with predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP 2143(I)(C)). The rationale set forth for claim 1 for combining Kono and Hashizume applies equally here, and Jeon is analogous art because it is in Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Regarding Claim 6,
Disclosure by Kono
Kono (JP 6257213 B2) teaches:
A method of operating a stocker crane, the method comprising:
See at least:
“Hereinafter, a stacker crane will be described as an example of the transport device according to the embodiment.” (Kono, p. 7)
“Below, the traveling control system of the stacker crane 10 is demonstrated. FIG. 3 is a control block diagram relating to travel of the stacker crane 10 according to the embodiment.” (Kono, p. 7)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches the operation of a stacker crane 10 under the traveling control system of FIG. 3. The stacker crane is a stocker crane for the reasons set forth for claim 1, and operating it under that control system is a method of operating a stocker crane. This is an express teaching.
instructing, by a controller, a drive motor to move a position of the stocker crane;
See at least:
“The onboard control panel 30 of the stacker crane 10 controls the traveling device 16 so that the position X of the traveling carriage 14 coincides with the position command value Vref.” (Kono, p. 7)
“Stacker crane 10 is in the major loop, the position X1 of the traveling carriage 14 take feedback to match the position command value Xref. In the minor loop, the motor torque command value Tcom is adjusted so that the motor speed Vfb matches the speed command value Vcom generated in accordance with the major loop control.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches that onboard control panel 30 (the controller) adjusts the torque command to the traveling motor so that the carriage position follows the position command value. This is instructing, by a controller, a drive motor to move a position of the stocker crane. This is an express teaching.
identifying a command position
See at least:
“The subtractor 140 subtracts the position correction value Xc that is the output of the absolute position correction unit 130 from the first position detection value Xfb1 from the motor encoder 114 to correct the first position detection value Xfb1.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Applicant’s specification defines the “command position” as “a position of the stocker crane 100 that is determined on the basis of the rotational speed of the drive motor 220” (spec. [0028]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the command position is therefore the carriage position derived from the motor encoder, not a commanded set point. Kono expressly identifies exactly that quantity: the first position detection value Xfb1, generated from motor encoder 114, which Kono uses and corrects as the current carriage position.
based on information on a first rotational speed received from a motor encoder;
See at least:
“The motor encoder 114 detects the position of the mover of the motor and generates a first position detection value Xfb1 indicating the current position X1 of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The differentiator 108 differentiates the first position detection value Xfb1 and generates a current speed detection value Vfb of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The encoder 508 detects the speed of the traveling carriage 14 and generates a speed feedback value Vfb.” (Kono, p. 5)
Rationale: Kono expressly obtains both the first position detection value Xfb1 and the speed detection value Vfb from the same motor-encoder feedback channel, and mathematically relates them by time differentiation (differentiator 108). Kono further describes its encoder as detecting speed to generate the speed feedback value Vfb. Kono itself therefore establishes that both position and speed are derived from the same encoder feedback signal, and it relates the two through differentiation (in the direction position → speed). It therefore would have been a predictable implementation of the same disclosed encoder-feedback architecture to obtain the corresponding motor-derived position by accumulation of the rotational-speed information over time, yielding the same position value Kono already uses (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP 2143(I)(A)). This limitation is accordingly rendered obvious by Kono.
identifying a movement position
See at least:
“The rangefinder 116 is a highly accurate position sensor provided separately from the motor encoder 114, and generates a second position detection value Xfb2 indicating the position X1.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Applicant’s specification describes the “movement position” as the independently measured actual position of the crane (spec. [0028]). Kono expressly teaches a second position detection value Xfb2 indicating the actual carriage position X1, generated by a position sensor provided separately from the motor encoder. This is an express teaching of identifying a movement position. (The particular sensor from which that information is received is addressed below.)
controlling an operation of the drive motor
See at least:
“The speed controller 110 generates the torque command value Tcom so that the error dV becomes zero.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches that the speed controller 110 generates the torque command value Tcom that drives the traveling motor. Generating the torque command is controlling an operation of the drive motor.
based on a deviation between the command position and the movement position.
See at least:
“More specifically, the subtractor 132 generates an error dXfb between the first position detection value Xfb1 and the second position detection value Xfb2.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The adder 128 adds a position correction value Xc generated by an absolute position correction unit 130 described later to the position command value Xref ′ that has passed through the filter 122, and outputs a position command value Xref ″.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches that subtractor 132 computes the error dXfb between Xfb1 (the claimed “command position,” i.e., the motor-encoder-derived position under the specification’s definition) and Xfb2 (the independently measured movement position). That deviation is filtered, processed by correction control unit 136, and integrated into position correction value Xc, which adder 128 adds to the position command to form Xref″. Xref″ drives the position loop (subtracter 102 and position controller 104), which in turn sets the speed command and torque command applied to the traveling motor. The operation of the drive motor is therefore controlled based on the deviation between the command position and the movement position. This is an express teaching.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Kono
Kono does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
based on information on a second rotational speed received from an external encoder; and
Disclosure by Hashizume
Hashizume teaches:
based on information on a second rotational speed received from an external encoder; and
See at least:
“As shown in FIG. 5, a rotary encoder 48 for detecting the traveling position is arranged at a substantially middle part in the front and rear of the carriage unit 5, and details thereof are shown in FIGS. 7 and 8.” (Hashizume, [0044])
“A gear 54 that meshes with the timing belt 20 is attached to the tip of the rotor 52.” (Hashizume, [0045])
“When the stacker crane 2 travels, the gear 54 is rotated by the timing belt 20, whereby the travel position can be detected. Since the timing belt 20 is fitted in the long groove 18, the timing belt 20 does not shift laterally, and as a result, the traveling position (distance) can be accurately detected.” (Hashizume, [0047])
“This rotary encoder detects the travel distance by counting pulses generated by the rotation of the rotor” (Hashizume, [0017])
Rationale: Hashizume expressly teaches an external rotary encoder 48, separate from the traveling motor 44 and driven by a timing belt 20, that detects the travel position of the stacker crane by counting the pulses generated by rotation of its rotor. The pulse count represents the rotor’s rotational displacement; the rate of those same pulses represents the rotor’s rotational speed, which is a second rotational speed distinct from the motor’s. Hashizume thus expressly determines the movement position from rotational pulse information produced by the external encoder. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Hashizume’s rotary encoder to determine the travel position from that rotational-motion information, including the pulse-rate (second rotational speed) information generated during rotation, because accumulating rotational rate over time and counting rotational increments are conventional, interchangeable ways of obtaining displacement from a rotary encoder. In the combination, this external-encoder position supplies the movement position Xfb2 used by Kono.
Motivation to Combine Kono and Hashizume
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono and Hashizume before them, to implement the separately provided second position detector of Kono (rangefinder 116) as the travel-position rotary encoder 48 of Hashizume, whose gear 54 meshes with a timing belt 20 laid along the ground rail, so that the controller identifies the movement position from the rotational information received from that external encoder and continues to control the drive motor based on the deviation dXfb between the motor-encoder-derived command position and that movement position. The references themselves supply the reason. Kono recognizes that the motor-encoder position diverges from the actual carriage position whenever the wheels idle or slip, and provides an independent second position detector specifically to correct that error (Kono, p. 8); Kono also notes that its rangefinder updates more slowly than the motor encoder (Kono, p. 8: “the update speed of the second position detection value Xfb2 by the rangefinder 116 is slower than that of the motor encoder 114”). Hashizume, addressing the same stacker-crane environment, teaches that the travel position is conventionally detected with a rotary encoder, that roller-driven encoders can rotate incompletely because of wear or bounce, and that “it is preferable to forcibly rotate the rotor by a belt (preferably a timing belt) disposed along the ground rail” so that the traveling position can be accurately detected (Hashizume, [0018], [0047]). Replacing one known independent travel-position detector with another known travel-position detector used for the same purpose in the same type of machine is a simple substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(B)). The substitution also carries an affirmative benefit grounded in the references: a timing-belt-driven encoder is mechanically independent of wheel slip, which is the very error Kono seeks to correct, and it outputs pulses continuously as the crane travels, which addresses Kono’s stated limitation of a slowly updating second detector. Kono’s correction loop requires only a second position value and is indifferent to the sensing technology, so a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in Applicant’s field of endeavor (stacker cranes for automated warehouses) and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the method of Claim 6, which is the basis for Claim 7. Accordingly, the limitation The method of claim 6, is met.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono teaches:
further comprising controlling the operation of the drive motor
See at least:
“The position controller 104 generates the speed command value Vcom so that the error dX becomes zero.” (Kono, p. 8)
“The speed controller 110 generates the torque command value Tcom so that the error dV becomes zero.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches that the position and speed controllers generate the commands that drive the traveling motor. This is the further step of controlling the operation of the drive motor. This is an express teaching.
based on a deviation between a designated pattern and an operation pattern
See at least:
“In the stacker crane 10 of FIG. 3, the position command value Xref can be changed according to an arbitrary waveform. FIG. 4B shows a state when the position command value Xref is changed according to the one-dot chain line in FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
“The subtracter 102 subtracts the first position detection value Xfb1 from the position command value Xref″, and generates an error dX thereof.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches a position command value Xref that follows a commanded waveform over time; this time-varying commanded position waveform reasonably corresponds to the designated pattern. Kono also expressly teaches the continuously measured carriage position Xfb1 used in feedback control, and subtracter 102 computes the deviation dX between Xref″ and Xfb1, which the position controller drives toward zero. Kono does not use the term “operation pattern.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the measured time-varying trajectory of Xfb1 reasonably corresponds to the recited operation pattern: a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the time-varying sequence of measured positions Xfb1 produced while following the designated waveform as the crane’s actual operating trajectory, i.e., an operation pattern. Kono therefore expressly supplies the designated waveform, the actual time-varying position, and control based on the deviation between them; the actual time-varying trajectory reasonably corresponds to the recited operation pattern, and that correspondence would at minimum have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
according to at least one of the command position and the movement position.
See at least:
“The motor encoder 114 detects the position of the mover of the motor and generates a first position detection value Xfb1 indicating the current position X1 of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: The operation pattern identified above is the time history of Xfb1, which is generated by motor encoder 114 and is therefore the claimed “command position,” i.e., the motor-encoder-derived position under the definition in the specification (spec. [0028]). The operation pattern is accordingly “according to” the command position, which satisfies the “at least one of” alternative.
Motivation to Combine Kono and Hashizume
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono and Hashizume before them, to retain, in the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume, Kono’s position loop, in which the drive motor is controlled based on the deviation dX between the designated position-command waveform Xref and the operating trajectory of the motor-encoder-derived position Xfb1. That loop is the mechanism by which Kono moves the carriage to its target, and the substitution of Hashizume’s timing-belt encoder for Kono’s second detector (see claim 1) leaves it unchanged. Retaining an existing control function of the primary reference in the modified system involves no change in Kono’s principle of operation and yields the predictable result of trajectory-following travel control (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The same rationale set forth for claim 1 for combining Kono and Hashizume applies equally here.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the method of Claim 7, which is the basis for Claim 8. Accordingly, the limitation The method of claim 7, is met.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono teaches:
when the deviation between the operation pattern and the designated pattern
See at least:
“The subtracter 102 subtracts the first position detection value Xfb1 from the position command value Xref″, and generates an error dX thereof.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches computing the deviation dX between its time-varying commanded position waveform and the motor-encoder-derived position trajectory, which reasonably correspond to the designated pattern and the operation pattern, respectively, for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
or the deviation between the command position and the movement position
See at least:
“More specifically, the subtractor 132 generates an error dXfb between the first position detection value Xfb1 and the second position detection value Xfb2.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches computing the deviation dXfb between the motor-encoder-derived command position Xfb1 and the independently measured movement position Xfb2; in the combination with Hashizume, Xfb2 is obtained from the timing-belt external encoder. This is an express teaching of the deviation recited.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Kono and Hashizume
The combination of Kono and Hashizume does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
wherein the controlling of the operation of the drive motor comprises stopping the operation of the drive motor
is equal to or higher than a first critical value
is equal to or higher than a maximum deviation.
Disclosure by Eschelbacher
Eschelbacher teaches:
wherein the controlling of the operation of the drive motor comprises stopping the operation of the drive motor
See at least:
“The remedial actions may include: (i) activate the motor brake by control signal 132; (ii) activate the drum brake by control signal 133; (iii) stop or slow the motor; (iv) sound an alarm; and/or power down the hoist.” (Eschelbacher, [0030])
“If the encoder-encoder comparison does indicate a potential problem, then remedial action(s) is/are taken as discussed above in connection with maximum safe speed type protection.” (Eschelbacher, [0031])
Rationale: Eschelbacher expressly teaches that, as part of controlling the motor, the motor control system takes remedial action including “stop or slow the motor” when a monitored comparison indicates a problem. This is an express teaching of the controlling step comprising stopping the operation of the drive motor.
is equal to or higher than a first critical value
See at least:
“In this exemplary embodiment, potential problems can be detected on the basis of comparison to three targets: (i) target motion as determined from digital control signals from the remote motor controller, (ii) target motion as determined from analog control signals from the local motor controller; and (iii) target motion as determined from the output signal from the motor motion detector.” (Eschelbacher, [0037])
“Each of the common basis target motions (i), (ii) and (iii) are compared to the actual motion (iv). If any of the differences determined by these three comparisons exceeds a predetermined error threshold, then the comparison module commands that remedial action be taken by sending out appropriate control signals to the local motor controller, the remote motor controller and the brake.” (Eschelbacher, [0038])
Rationale: Eschelbacher expressly teaches comparing the target motion determined from the motor control signals (the commanded, i.e., designated, motion) with the actual motion (the operation), and taking remedial action when the difference “exceeds a predetermined error threshold.” That predetermined threshold corresponds to a first critical value applied to the deviation between the designated and operation patterns. Eschelbacher triggers when the difference exceeds the threshold, whereas the claim recites equal to or higher than. Selecting whether the remedial action is triggered when the measured difference is strictly greater than the threshold or greater than or equal to it would have been a routine implementation choice in a digital comparator: both settings implement the same predetermined boundary separating permissible from impermissible deviation, and the record identifies no technical criticality associated with equality at the single boundary value.
is equal to or higher than a maximum deviation.
See at least:
“In this exemplary embodiment, potential problems can be detected on the basis of comparison to three targets: (i) target motion as determined from digital control signals from the remote motor controller, (ii) target motion as determined from analog control signals from the local motor controller; and (iii) target motion as determined from the output signal from the motor motion detector.” (Eschelbacher, [0037])
“Each of the common basis target motions (i), (ii) and (iii) are compared to the actual motion (iv). If any of the differences determined by these three comparisons exceeds a predetermined error threshold, then the comparison module commands that remedial action be taken by sending out appropriate control signals to the local motor controller, the remote motor controller and the brake.” (Eschelbacher, [0038])
“The drum assembly motion detector may detect: (i) position of a rotational component of the drum assembly (for example, the shaft)” (Eschelbacher, [0036])
Rationale: Eschelbacher expressly teaches comparing the target motion determined from the motor motion detector (motor side) with the actual motion detected at the drum (load side), including rotational position, and taking remedial action, including stopping the motor, when that difference exceeds a predetermined threshold. Eschelbacher does not use the phrase “maximum deviation.” However, the predetermined threshold defines the maximum allowable deviation between the motor-side position and the independently detected load-side position before remedial action is required, and therefore corresponds to the claimed maximum deviation between the command position and the movement position. The strictly-greater versus greater-than-or-equal boundary is a routine comparator implementation choice for the reasons stated above. The combination therefore establishes a controller responsive to both recited trigger conditions.
Motivation to Combine Kono, Hashizume, and Eschelbacher
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono, Hashizume, and Eschelbacher before them, to configure the controller of the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume to stop the drive motor when either the deviation between the designated pattern and the operation pattern, or the deviation between the motor-encoder-derived command position and the timing-belt-encoder-derived movement position, reaches a predetermined threshold, as taught by Eschelbacher. Eschelbacher teaches comparing motion detected at two different points of the same drive train, and comparing commanded target motion to actual motion, because “a failure in any component will tend to quickly manifest itself as an unexpected difference in the rotational motion respectively detected by the two encoders” (Eschelbacher, [0033]); it expressly identifies “belt slippage” as a condition such a comparison detects ( [0017]); and it teaches that when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold the remedial action includes stopping the motor ( [0030], [0038]). Kono already computes both deviations (dX and dXfb), but treats dXfb only as a small, slowly varying error that is low-pass filtered and integrated into a correction value (Kono, p. 8). Kono provides no response to a gross deviation, such as wheel lock-up, disengagement of the encoder gear from the timing belt, or loss of drive-train rigidity, which its correction loop would otherwise absorb while the crane continues to travel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from Eschelbacher that bounding these already-computed deviations with a threshold and stopping the motor when the threshold is reached improves safety and prevents collision or equipment damage. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP 2143(I)(C)). Eschelbacher, directed to a motor-driven material-handling hoist, is reasonably pertinent to the problem Applicant addresses: detecting a discrepancy between motor-side and load-side position so that a collision does not occur when the actual position cannot be accurately calculated (spec. [0029]). Implementation requires only threshold comparisons on signals the combined controller already computes, so there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the method of Claim 7, which is the basis for Claim 9. Accordingly, the limitation The method of claim 7, is met.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono teaches:
wherein the operation pattern and the designated pattern
See at least:
“In the stacker crane 10 of FIG. 3, the position command value Xref can be changed according to an arbitrary waveform. FIG. 4B shows a state when the position command value Xref is changed according to the one-dot chain line in FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
“FIG. 4B is an operation waveform diagram of the stacker crane 10 of FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches a time-varying commanded position waveform Xref and the resulting actual carriage-position trajectory shown in Kono’s operation waveform diagram (FIG. 4B), which reasonably correspond to the designated pattern and the operation pattern, respectively, for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
each indicate at least one of a movement distance, a time, a speed, or an acceleration
See at least:
“The speed command value Vref has a predetermined waveform such as a trapezoidal wave or a triangular wave, and the time integral value thereof corresponds to the moving distance of the traveling carriage 14, that is, the target value Xref of the coordinate X.” (Kono, p. 5)
“The differentiator 108 differentiates the first position detection value Xfb1 and generates a current speed detection value Vfb of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches that the speed-command waveform integrates over time to the moving distance of the traveling carriage, and that the measured carriage position Xfb1 is differentiated to obtain the carriage speed Vfb. Each of the designated pattern and the operation pattern can therefore be represented as position (movement distance) or speed as a function of time. Because the claim recites “at least one of,” speed alone is sufficient; Kono need not be shown to teach every alternative.
of the stocker crane.
See at least:
“The traveling rail 12 is laid along a rack 60 installed on the ground. The traveling carriage 14 is movable along the traveling rail 12.” (Kono, p. 5)
Rationale: The patterns in Kono describe the motion of traveling carriage 14 of the stacker crane along traveling rail 12, i.e., they are patterns of the stocker crane. This is an express teaching.
Motivation to Combine Kono and Hashizume
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono and Hashizume before them, to retain, in the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume, Kono’s designated and operation patterns expressed as position and speed of the traveling carriage over time. Those quantities are the native variables of Kono’s position and speed loops, and the substitution of Hashizume’s timing-belt encoder for Kono’s second detector (see claim 1) does not change them. Doing so yields the predictable result of controlling the crane’s travel by distance and speed (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The same rationale set forth for claim 1 for combining Kono and Hashizume applies equally here.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Kono and Hashizume establishes the method of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10. Accordingly, the limitation The method of claim 9, is met.
As set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 10 is interpreted as requiring that the time, speed, or acceleration indicated by each of the designated pattern and the operation pattern be determined with reference to the maximum permitted travel distance of the stocker crane along its traveling path. The following mapping applies that interpretation.
Disclosure by Kono
Kono teaches:
wherein the operation pattern and the designated pattern
See at least:
“In the stacker crane 10 of FIG. 3, the position command value Xref can be changed according to an arbitrary waveform. FIG. 4B shows a state when the position command value Xref is changed according to the one-dot chain line in FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
“FIG. 4B is an operation waveform diagram of the stacker crane 10 of FIG.” (Kono, p. 9)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches a time-varying commanded position waveform Xref and the resulting actual carriage-position trajectory, which reasonably correspond to the designated pattern and the operation pattern, respectively, for the reasons set forth for claim 2.
each further indicate at least one of the time, the speed, or the acceleration
See at least:
“The speed command value Vref has a predetermined waveform such as a trapezoidal wave or a triangular wave, and the time integral value thereof corresponds to the moving distance of the traveling carriage 14, that is, the target value Xref of the coordinate X.” (Kono, p. 5)
“The differentiator 108 differentiates the first position detection value Xfb1 and generates a current speed detection value Vfb of the traveling carriage 14.” (Kono, p. 8)
Rationale: Kono expressly teaches a speed waveform over time and the measured carriage speed Vfb, so each pattern can be represented as speed as a function of time. One alternative suffices.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Kono and Hashizume
The combination of Kono and Hashizume does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
according to a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane.
Disclosure by Jeon
Jeon teaches:
according to a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane.
See at least:
“In determining the drive pattern, first, the horizontal distance La to be traveled by the traveling carriage 22 is determined from the horizontal coordinate of the target position included in the conveyance instruction and the horizontal coordinate of the current position of the elevator 23, and the horizontal distance La is calculated. The shortest travel time ta0 required to travel at the standard upper limit travel speed vam is calculated (step S21).” (Jeon, p. 9)
“the electric power which can be supplied by the main power supply 70 and the storage device 72 basically travels alone by the maximum distance assumed for the traveling carriage 22 and the elevator 23 respectively.” (Jeon, p. 11)
“Therefore, the maximum value of the power consumption for moving the maximum possible distance as far as the traveling carriage 22 and the elevator 23 can be calculated is calculated” (Jeon, p. 11)
“First, the maximum distance the elevator 23 can move up and down is confirmed.” (Jeon, p. 11)
“How much time (maximum distance elevating time) is required to raise and lower this maximum elevating distance at the highest possible speed (for example, standard upper limit elevating speed vbm)” (Jeon, p. 11)
“Then, with regard to the calculated maximum distance elevating time, when the traveling vehicle 22 travels at the standard upper limit traveling speed vam for the same period, it is calculated what value (maximum traveling power) the power consumption will be maximum.” (Jeon, p. 11)
Rationale: Jeon, directed to a stacker crane, expressly determines drive-pattern time and speed from movement distance on the horizontal traveling axis: it calculates the horizontal distance La the traveling carriage must travel and the shortest travel time required at the standard upper-limit travel speed. Jeon also expressly refers to the maximum distance assumed for the traveling carriage, and to the maximum possible distance the traveling carriage can move, and it computes operating quantities for that maximum-distance movement. Jeon’s step-by-step maximum-distance calculation is set out for the elevator: the maximum distance, the time to move it at the upper-limit speed, and the traveling carriage at its upper-limit speed over the same period. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied that same disclosed calculation to the traveling carriage’s maximum distance, which Jeon itself identifies. Doing so is a use of Jeon’s own drive-pattern methodology on a travel axis that Jeon already controls by distance, time, and speed, rather than a transfer from an unrelated system. The resulting time and speed parameters are set according to a maximum movement distance of the stocker crane, i.e., its maximum permitted travel distance along its traveling path. Applying this to both the designated pattern and the operation pattern of the combination is a further obviousness step, explained in the motivation below; it is not attributed expressly to Jeon.
Motivation to Combine Kono, Hashizume, and Jeon
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Kono, Hashizume, and Jeon before them, to define the designated pattern and the operation pattern of the stocker crane of Kono as modified by Hashizume, which already indicate time and speed of the traveling carriage, according to the maximum movement distance of the stocker crane, as taught by Jeon. Jeon, directed to the same type of stacker crane, teaches determining drive-pattern time and speed from the distance to be traveled on the horizontal traveling axis (Jeon, p. 9). It also teaches establishing time and speed quantities for movement over the maximum distance, including the time to move the maximum distance at the upper-limit speed and the traveling operation at the upper-limit traveling speed over the same period, and using those maximum-distance quantities in planning and evaluating drive patterns (Jeon, pp. 10–11). Jeon explains that the maximum-distance movement establishes the operating envelope the crane must support. Jeon already calculates horizontal travel time from horizontal travel distance using the traveling-axis upper-limit speed (Jeon, p. 9), and separately identifies the maximum distance assumed for the traveling carriage and establishes maximum-distance operating parameters for the same coordinated drive system (Jeon, p. 11). Applying those maximum-distance parameters to Jeon’s own horizontal distance-time-speed calculation would therefore have been a use of the same disclosed drive-pattern methodology on the same controlled travel axis, not a transfer from an unrelated system. Once Jeon’s maximum-distance-dependent time and speed parameters define Kono’s designated profile, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the same time and speed coordinate framework for the measured operation profile, because Kono compares the intended and actual trajectories to determine deviation. Expressing both profiles using the same maximum-distance-dependent motion parameters permits direct comparison on a common basis, and would have been a predictable implementation of the disclosed control architecture. Applying the same maximum-distance-derived operating envelope to both profiles permits the intended and measured profiles to be evaluated on a common basis over the full permitted travel range. This is a known design technique in the same field, applied for its established purpose with predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP 2143(I)(C)). The rationale set forth for claim 1 for combining Kono and Hashizume applies equally here, and Jeon is analogous art because it is in Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
