DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/776,424, filed July 18, 2024. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits, Claims 1-4 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/06/2026, 03/06/2026, and 07/18/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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: “a control system configured to control the plurality of transport vehicles” in claims 1-4.
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.
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.
Regarding “a control system” the specification recites the structure of “As shown FIG. 3, the control system 40 includes a controller 41 that controls the transport vehicles 10 … The controller 41 includes an arithmetic processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) and a main storage such as a random-access memory (RAM) or a read-only memory (ROM). The functions of the controller 41 are implemented by the arithmetic processor and a program executable on the arithmetic processor cooperating with each other” in at least paragraph [0027].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kazama (US-20160246301).
Regarding claim 1, Kazama teaches an article transport facility comprising (Paragraph [0032], "The shelves 51 are arranged in a grid pattern on the floor of the warehouse. Typically, a plurality of shelves 51 are arranged (as viewed from above) so as to form rectangular blocks.")
a plurality of transport vehicles configured to travel on a floor to transport articles (Paragraph [0038], "Among the transport vehicles 2, those transporting the shelves 51 are referred to as “loaded vehicles.”")
and a control system configured to control the plurality of transport vehicles (See Figure 4, showing a transport vehicle control device)
and wherein the control system configured to (Paragraph [0040], "The transport vehicle control device 1 is a general purpose computer. The transport vehicle control device 1 includes a central control unit 11, an input device 12 such as a keyboard and a mouse, an output device 13 such as a display, a main memory 14, an auxiliary storage device 15, and a communication device 16.")
manage the floor by dividing the floor into a plurality of subareas each sized to accommodate a transport vehicle of the plurality of transport vehicles (Paragraph [0033], "The floor of the warehouse is managed as a set of squares in accordance with the shape of the shelf 51. Each square is referred to as a “cell.”")
control each of the plurality of transport vehicles to travel from a subarea at a starting point among the plurality of subareas to a subarea at a destination point among the plurality of subareas through adjacent subareas of the plurality of subareas in sequence (Paragraph [0069], "In general, there can be two or more candidates for a route from one cell as a start point to the other cell as an end point. Individual routes can be represented by arranging the cells for the transport vehicle 2 to travel in order of traveling. The route searcher 23 determines a route having the shortest travel distance among the two or more candidates as the “instruction route.” The instruction operation is an operation that is transmitted (instructed) by the route searcher 23 of the transport vehicle control device 1 to the transport vehicle 2.")
perform a normal process of controlling the plurality of transport vehicles to cause not more than one transport vehicle of the plurality of transport vehicles to enter a same subarea of the plurality of subareas at a same time (Paragraph [0045], "The unloaded vehicles can travel in any cells other than “non-travelable” cells to be described later. The loaded vehicle can travel in any cell which is other than “non-travelable” cell to be described later, and is in a “no shelf” state to be described later.") (Paragraph [0112], "The unloaded vehicles can travel in any cells other than “non-travelable” cells to be described later. The loaded vehicle can travel in any cell which is other than “non-travelable” cell to be described later, and is in a “no shelf” state to be described later.") (Paragraph [0104], "The route does not include a cell having a cell state of “non-travelable” in the latest map information 31," here the system is continuously receiving reports and updating the state of cells to indicate if vehicles can enter cells and preventing vehicles from entering cells in which a loaded vehicle occupies, for example a loaded vehicle can enter any cell other than un-travelable and if the cell is in a no-shelf state, cell that currently contains another loaded vehicle is in a shelf state, the system is therefore preventing a loaded vehicle from entering a cell with another loaded vehicle at the same time)
and perform, in response to an abnormality in a transport vehicle of the plurality of transport vehicles, an abnormality process of setting a subarea likely to contain, among the plurality of subareas, an abnormal transport vehicle having the abnormality as an entry prohibited area prohibiting entry of other normal transport vehicles of the plurality of transport vehicles (Paragraph [0062], "“Failure:” this indicates that the transport vehicle 2 has failed and has been stuck in that cell") (Paragraph [0043], "A state of a cell in the cell state field 112 is a current state of the cell, and indicates one of the following four states. … “Non-travelable:” this indicates that the transport vehicle 2 is unable to travel in the cell, for example, because an article has fallen (spilled) in the cell, or the transport vehicle 2 in failure is parked.") (Paragraph [0113], "Alternatively, the data transceiver 21 may transmit an instruction to the effect of continuing the travel for a while and then stopping in a cell just before the cell having a cell state of “non-travelable.”," here the system is the system is continuously receiving reports and updating the state of cells to indicate if vehicles can enter cells, if the system receives a report that a vehicle is in a failure state and is parked in a cell, that cell is indicated as non-travelable, the system will prevent other vehicles from entering or routing through that cell).
Regarding claim 2, Kazama teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Kazama further teaches wherein: in the abnormality process, in response to the control system detecting, among the plurality of subareas, one subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle or a plurality of subareas containing the abnormal transport vehicle across a boundary between the plurality of subareas the control system sets, as the entry prohibited area, a full area of at least one subarea detected to contain the abnormal transport vehicle (Paragraph [0062], "“Failure:” this indicates that the transport vehicle 2 has failed and has been stuck in that cell") (Paragraph [0043], "A state of a cell in the cell state field 112 is a current state of the cell, and indicates one of the following four states. … “Non-travelable:” this indicates that the transport vehicle 2 is unable to travel in the cell, for example, because an article has fallen (spilled) in the cell, or the transport vehicle 2 in failure is parked.") (Paragraph [0113], "Alternatively, the data transceiver 21 may transmit an instruction to the effect of continuing the travel for a while and then stopping in a cell just before the cell having a cell state of “non-travelable.”," here the system is the system is continuously receiving reports and updating the state of cells to indicate if vehicles can enter cells, if the system receives a report that a vehicle is in a failure state and is parked in a cell, that cell is indicated as non-travelable, the system will prevent other vehicles from entering or routing through that cell).
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 nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama (US-20160246301) in view of Kanai (JP 2020197885).
Regarding claim 3, Kazama teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however while Kazama teaches an abnormality process which sets a prohibited area for a transport vehicle.
Kazama does not explicitly teach wherein: in the abnormality process, in response to the control system not detecting, among the plurality of subareas, one subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle or a plurality of subareas containing the abnormal transport vehicle across a boundary between the plurality of subareas, the control system sets a different range of the entry prohibited area based on a type of the abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle.
Kanai teaches a vehicle managements system at a work site where unmanned vehicles run autonomous and coexist with manned vehicles including
wherein: in the abnormality process, in response to the control system not detecting, among the plurality of subareas, one subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle or a plurality of subareas containing the abnormal transport vehicle across a boundary between the plurality of subareas (Paragraph [0010], “Furthermore, by having the control station independently determine any abnormalities in the manned vehicle's location notification, even if, for example, a malfunction in the manned vehicle's wireless communication device prevents the manned vehicle from notifying the control station of its location,” here the system is experiencing an abnormality and initiating an abnormality process wherein the system cannot determine a vehicle position)
the control system sets a different range of the entry prohibited area based on a type of the abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle (Paragraph [0044], “If an anomaly in the location notification is detected, the unmanned vehicle entry prohibited area generation unit 315 sets a circular anomaly-prohibited unmanned vehicle entry prohibited area 64b that encompasses the points and areas where the manned vehicle 90 can stop if it brakes immediately from the time of anomaly detection. This area is centered on the normal location 402 that was last received from the manned vehicle 90 (in other words, immediately before the anomaly in the location notification was detected), and the unit takes into account the vehicle length L in the longitudinal direction, the position error e, the travel distance Ld calculated based on the time from the time the last normal location was received to the time the anomaly was detected and the speed at the last received (i.e., the speed at the time it was last determined to be normal), and the stopping distance Ls if braking is started immediately from the time of anomaly detection,” here based on the type of abnormality, in this case a position abnormality where the system cannot determine a position of the vehicle, the system sets a entry prohibited area based on the last known location and takes into account a vehicle size, a position error, and a travel distance from the last time).
Kazama and Kanai are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for collaboratively controlling a plurality of autonomous vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein: in the abnormality process, in response to the control system not detecting, among the plurality of subareas, one subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle or a plurality of subareas containing the abnormal transport vehicle across a boundary between the plurality of subareas, the control system sets a different range of the entry prohibited area based on a type of the abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle of Kanai in the system for an article transport facility of Kazama with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the safety of the system by preventing collisions even when the exact position of a malfunctioning vehicle cannot be determined (Paragraph [0007], “This invention has been made in view of the above problems, and aims to provide a vehicle management system that can ensure the safety of manned vehicles by preventing collisions with unmanned vehicles, while avoiding a significant decrease in mine productivity, even when the position of manned vehicles cannot be properly acquired for a long period of time.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiners statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to disclose or render obvious claims 4 disclosing systems and methods for abnormality response patterns for transport vehicles in an article handling facility. Specifically the closest prior art Kanai and Kazama fail to teach “a first abnormality caused by the transport vehicle deviating from a stop target position within a range in which the position information holder at the stop target position is readable by the transport vehicle, a second abnormality caused by the transport vehicle deviating from the stop target position by a degree to which the position information holder at the stop target position is unreadable by the transport vehicle, and a third abnormality caused by the transport vehicle colliding with another transport vehicle of the plurality of transport vehicles, in response to the first abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle, the control system sets, as the entry prohibited area, a range of L subareas in a forward traveling direction of the abnormal transport vehicle starting from, among the plurality of subareas, a subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle immediately before having the abnormality where L is an integer greater than or equal to 2, in response to the second abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle, the control system sets, as the entry prohibited area, a range of M X M subareas in the forward traveling direction of the abnormal transport vehicle including the subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle immediately before having the abnormality, where M is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and in response to the third abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle, the control system sets, as the entry prohibited area, a range of N X N subareas centered at the subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle immediately before having the abnormality, where N is an integer greater than M” as disclosed in claim 4.
The prior art made of record below fails to disclose “a first abnormality caused by the transport vehicle deviating from a stop target position within a range in which the position information holder at the stop target position is readable by the transport vehicle, a second abnormality caused by the transport vehicle deviating from the stop target position by a degree to which the position information holder at the stop target position is unreadable by the transport vehicle, and a third abnormality caused by the transport vehicle colliding with another transport vehicle of the plurality of transport vehicles, in response to the first abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle, the control system sets, as the entry prohibited area, a range of L subareas in a forward traveling direction of the abnormal transport vehicle starting from, among the plurality of subareas, a subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle immediately before having the abnormality where L is an integer greater than or equal to 2, in response to the second abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle, the control system sets, as the entry prohibited area, a range of M X M subareas in the forward traveling direction of the abnormal transport vehicle including the subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle immediately before having the abnormality, where M is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and in response to the third abnormality in the abnormal transport vehicle, the control system sets, as the entry prohibited area, a range of N X N subareas centered at the subarea containing the abnormal transport vehicle immediately before having the abnormality, where N is an integer greater than M”.
Some of the similar prior art that does not disclose the applicants invention:
Pearman (US-20250026565) teaches determining an exclusion zone in a workspace of transport devices including determining a specific sized exclusion zone based on a type of fault. However Pearman does not explicitly teach the specific series of escalating abnormalities with the specific series of abnormality responses as disclosed above.
Li (US-20210155271) teaches systems and methods for controlling automated guided vehicles, receiving a fault message from a vehicle and determining a fault region and sending that fault region as a prohibited area to a second vehicle. However Li does not explicitly teach the specific series of escalating abnormalities with the specific series of abnormality responses as disclosed above.
Coady (US-20190176323) teaches configurable service isolation zones for a plurality of mobile robots including different safety protocols may be employed based on a determination as to the priority level of service required and/or the estimated length of time service will take. However Coady does not explicitly teach the specific series of escalating abnormalities with the specific series of abnormality responses as disclosed above.
Therefore Kazama and Kanai nor any of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests the combination of limitations in claims 4. The combination of claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights