DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner’s Note
Non-Patent Literature documents were received on 02/18/2025 and 01/22/2026 but were not disclosed on any Information Disclosure Statement. Additionally, English translations for these non-patent literature documents were not provided in the application contents. As such, these non-patent literature documents have not been considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 and 01/22/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on 07/17/2025 has been reviewed and considered. However, no English translation of cited document No. 3 (Taiwanese Office Action and Search Report for Taiwanese Application No. 113120329) was received, and as such this document has not been considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign applications TW113120329 and TW113120340, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 25, 26, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
"neither timing conflicts nor no path unit occupancy conflicts" should read "neither timing conflicts nor [[no]] path unit occupancy conflicts" (claim 23 and 26)
"determining whether an adjacent node set exists in the path expansion set table" should read "determining whether an adjacent node set exists in [[the]] a path expansion set table" (claim 25 and 28)
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 12-16 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 4-8 and 17-21 of Application No. 18/798,491 . Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claim 1-5 and 12-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-8 and 17-21, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/798,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method performed by the instant application is encompassed by that of the reference application.
Claim #
Instant application: 18/798,002
Claim #
Corresponding application: 18/798,491
1
A multi-mobile vehicle control method comprising:
determining whether a first mobile vehicle and a second mobile vehicle experience a forward conflict, a head-on conflict, or a cross conflict on a path unit;
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the forward conflict on the path unit, waiting for the second mobile vehicle to leave the path unit and controlling the first mobile vehicle to move on the path unit;
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the head-on conflict on the path unit, selecting an alternative edge for the first mobile vehicle; and
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience a cross conflict on the path unit, waiting for the second mobile vehicle to leave the path unit and controlling the first mobile vehicle to move on the path unit.
4
The multi-mobile vehicle control method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the target mobile vehicle and a first mobile vehicle encounter a forward conflict, a head-on conflict, or a cross conflict on a path unit;
when it is determined that the target mobile vehicle and the first mobile vehicle encounter the forward conflict on the path unit, waiting for the first mobile vehicle to leave the path unit before controlling the target mobile vehicle to travel the path unit;
when it is determined that the target mobile vehicle and the first mobile vehicle encounter the head-on conflict on the path unit, selecting an alternative edge for the target mobile vehicle; and
when it is determined that the target mobile vehicle and the first mobile vehicle encounter the cross conflict on the path unit, waiting for the first mobile vehicle to leave the path unit before controlling the target mobile vehicle to travel the path unit.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 12-16, the content of each of claims 5-8 and 17-21 in application 18/798,491 encompasses the claimed method of each of claims 2-5 and 12-16 of instant application 18/798,002, respectively (e.g., claim 2 of 18/798,002 is encompassed by claim 5 of application 18/798,491, claim 3 of 18/798,002 is encompassed by claim 6 of application 18/798,491, etc.).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “AT4” in claim 2 renders the claim indefinite because the term “AT4” is not defined by the claim. The limitation “a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT4∗V+D” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “AT4” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “AT4”.
The terms “AT5” and “e2” in claim 3 render the claim indefinite because the terms “AT5” and “e2” are not defined by the claim. The limitations “adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time s1’, AT5=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, abs(e2−s1) represents an absolute value of e2−s1” and “a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT5∗V+D” have been rendered indefinite by the use of the terms “AT5” and “e2”.
The term “s1” in claim 11 renders the claim indefinite because the term “s1” is not defined by the claim. The limitation “when [(s1−ei)>(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “s1”.
Claim 23 and claim 26 each recite "in case of a head-on conflict, an adjust time of the first mobile vehicle is that a [emphasis added] transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on a path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on an adjacent path unit." This language renders claims 23 and 26 indefinite, because the relationship between the adjust time of the first mobile vehicle and the transportation cost comparison is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the adjust time is equal to the difference between two transportation costs, whether the adjust time is equal to the transportation cost on the path unit, or whether the adjust time is adjusted based on the transportation costs.
Claims 24-25 and 27-28 are similarly rejected due to their dependency on rejected claims 23 and 26, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106251016 B ZHU, Long-biao et al. (hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses: A multi-mobile vehicle control method (see Zhu at least [0010] Under the premise of fully considering multi-AGV cooperative obstacle avoidance and time-varying environmental conditions, this invention adopts a time-sharing utilization strategy and effectively combines the Dijkstra algorithm and the time window method to provide a parking system path planning method based on dynamic time windows) comprising:
determining whether a first mobile vehicle and a second mobile vehicle experience a forward conflict, a head-on conflict, or a cross conflict on a path unit (see Zhu at least [0070] it is necessary to detect what kind of conflict exists in the optimized path of the suboptimal task, and select an appropriate conflict resolution strategy according to the different conflict types and [0135] Overtaking conflict refers to a conflict that occurs when two AGVs are running on the same path at the same time and [0061] The system detects whether unavoidable conflicts occur between multiple AGVs in a head-on collision);
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the forward conflict on the path unit, waiting for the second mobile vehicle to leave the path unit and controlling the first mobile vehicle to move on the path unit (see Zhu at least [0091] Figure 7 illustrates the overtaking conflict and [0136] If the system does not take any control measures for overtaking conflicts, a rear-end collision will inevitably occur between two AGVs running on the same path. Therefore, for this type of conflict, deceleration and waiting strategies can be adopted to resolve it);
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the head-on conflict on the path unit, selecting an alternative edge for the first mobile vehicle (see Zhu at least [0136] Figure 5(b) shows an unavoidable conflict. The most effective solution to this type of conflict is to replan a new feasible path for AGV2); and
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience a cross conflict on the path unit, waiting for the second mobile vehicle to leave the path unit and controlling the first mobile vehicle to move on the path unit (see Zhu at least [0055] Intersection conflict refers to a conflict caused by two or more AGVs sharing an intersection at the same time. For this type of conflict, the system generally adopts a waiting strategy to resolve it).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu discloses: A multi-mobile vehicle control method comprising:
determining whether a first mobile vehicle and a second mobile vehicle occur a conflict on a first path unit based on a first entry time of the first mobile vehicle into the first path unit, a first exit time of the first mobile vehicle from the first path unit, a second entry time of the second mobile vehicle into the first path unit or a second path unit, and a second exit time of the second mobile vehicle from the first path unit or the second path unit (see Zhu at least [0051] Furthermore, in step S4, the time window refers to the time spent by the AGV performing the vehicle retrieval task from entering to leaving a certain intersection or road segment. Its main function is to mark the intersection or road segment occupied by the AGV to avoid it being used by other AGVs during the time period occupied by the AGV, which could lead to deadlock or collision conflicts and [0133] figure 4 shows a comparison before and after using a waiting strategy to resolve time window conflicts at intersections. The white, black, and gray rectangles in the figure represent the time window for AGV1 to register, the time window for AGV2 to make a reservation, and the conflict time window between the two AGVs, respectively and [Fig. 4a] the conflict between AGV1 and AGV2 is shown by the overlapping medium gray section after t2_in and before t1_out);
when the conflict occurs between the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle on the first path unit, adjusting the first entry time of the first mobile vehicle until the conflict is resolved (see Zhu at least [0133] To avoid conflicts between AGV2 and AGV1 during task execution, the system will adopt a waiting strategy to shift the time window requested by AGV2 at intersection i back by a reasonable amount of time. That is, AGV2 will wait for a period of time before entering intersection i until intersection i is released, as shown in Figure b); and
moving the first mobile vehicle (see Zhu at least [0052] the AGV has left a certain road segment or intersection and is heading to the next road segment).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 6, wherein when "the first entry time (sc) of the first mobile vehicle into the first path unit is less than or equal to the second exit time (ei) of the second mobile vehicle from the first path unit or the second path unit" and "the second entry time (si) of the second mobile vehicle into the first path unit or the second path unit is less than or equal to the first exit time (ec) of the first mobile vehicle from the first path unit," the conflict is determined to occur (see Zhu at least [0133] The white, black, and gray rectangles in the figure represent the time window for AGV1 to register, the time window for AGV2 to make a reservation, and the conflict time window between the two AGVs, respectively and [Fig. 4(a)] wherein t2in is the first entry time of first mobile vehicle, t1out is the second exit time of the second mobile vehicle, t1in is the second entry time of the second mobile vehicle, and t2out is the first exit time of the first mobile vehicle).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Zhu Figs. 4(a) and 4(b)
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of US 20220227367 A1 Kario; Jack et al. (hereinafter Kario), and further in view of CN 117146843 A SHENG, Xiao-fei et al. (hereinafter Sheng).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 1, wherein when the path unit to be travelled by the first mobile vehicle and the path unit to be travelled by the second mobile vehicle are in the same direction, determining that the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the forward conflict (see Zhu at least [0136] If the system does not take any control measures for overtaking conflicts, a rear-end collision will inevitably occur between two AGVs running on the same path).
Zhu does not teach: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time point s1’, AT4=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, where e2 is an exit time of the second mobile vehicle from the path unit, abs(e2−s1) denotes an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time, and a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT4∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Kario teaches: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time point s1’, AT4=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, where e2 is an exit time of the second mobile vehicle from the path unit, abs(e2−s1) denotes an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time (see Kario at least [0248] That is, each car will arrive at point when a first part of the car passes the intersection point, and a certain amount of time will be required before the last part of the car passes through the intersection point. This amount of time separates the arrival time from the leaving time. Assuming that t.sub.1.sup.a<t.sub.2.sup.a (i.e., that the arrival time of vehicle 1 is less than the arrival time of vehicle 2), then we will want to ensure that vehicle 1 has left the intersection point prior to vehicle 2 arriving. Otherwise, a collision would result. Thus, a hard constraint may be implemented such that t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a. Moreover, to ensure that vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 do not miss one another by a minimal amount, an added margin of safety may be obtained by including a buffer time into the constraint (e.g., 0.5 seconds or another suitable value). A hard constraint relating to predicted intersection trajectories of two vehicles may be expressed as t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a+0.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the adding of a margin after one vehicle leaves a segment before allowing another vehicle to enter the same segment of Kario. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because including a time margin between different vehicles traveling in the same area helps avoid collisions between vehicles , as suggested by Kario (see Kario at least [0248] Constraints may also be applied such that the host vehicle will avoid maintaining a collision course with one or more other vehicles).
Zhu and Kario do not teach: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT4∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Sheng teaches: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT4∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes (see Sheng at least [0010] the hybrid A* algorithm sets the established cost function g(x) and the heuristic cost function h(x). The established cost function g(x) contains two parameters: the first is the distance from the starting point to the current node, obtained by multiplying the vehicle's speed by time… The heuristic cost function h(x) sets two cost calculation methods, and finally takes the larger value as the final cost. The first cost calculation conforms to vehicle kinematics. However, without considering whether a collision occurs along the path, the first cost calculation uses Reeds-Shepp curves. First, a Reeds-Shepp curve from the current pose to the target pose is generated, and the length of the Reeds-Shepp curve is used as the first cost).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu and Kario to include the multiple distance values included in a cost calculation of Sheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a cost calculation in an A* algorithm brings efficiency to the path planning process, as suggested by Sheng (see Sheng at least [0003] a technology is needed that can achieve efficient path planning in dynamic scenarios. To address this issue, this invention proposes a path planning method based on the hybrid A* algorithm).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 1, wherein
when the path unit to be travelled by the first mobile vehicle and the second path unit to be travelled by the second mobile vehicle reach at the same connection point, determining that the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the cross conflict (see Zhu at least [0055] Intersection conflict refers to a conflict caused by two or more AGVs sharing an intersection at the same time).
Zhu does not teach: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time s1’, AT5=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, abs(e2−s1) represents an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time, a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT5∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Kario teaches: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time s1’, AT5=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, abs(e2−s1) represents an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time (see Kario at least [0248] That is, each car will arrive at point when a first part of the car passes the intersection point, and a certain amount of time will be required before the last part of the car passes through the intersection point. This amount of time separates the arrival time from the leaving time. Assuming that t.sub.1.sup.a<t.sub.2.sup.a (i.e., that the arrival time of vehicle 1 is less than the arrival time of vehicle 2), then we will want to ensure that vehicle 1 has left the intersection point prior to vehicle 2 arriving. Otherwise, a collision would result. Thus, a hard constraint may be implemented such that t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a. Moreover, to ensure that vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 do not miss one another by a minimal amount, an added margin of safety may be obtained by including a buffer time into the constraint (e.g., 0.5 seconds or another suitable value). A hard constraint relating to predicted intersection trajectories of two vehicles may be expressed as t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a+0.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the adding of a margin after one vehicle leaves a segment before allowing another vehicle to enter the same segment of Kario. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because including a time margin between different vehicles traveling in the same area helps avoid collisions between vehicles, as suggested by Kario (see Kario at least [0248] Constraints may also be applied such that the host vehicle will avoid maintaining a collision course with one or more other vehicles).
Zhu and Kario do not teach: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT5∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Sheng teaches: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT5∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes (see Sheng at least [0010] the hybrid A* algorithm sets the established cost function g(x) and the heuristic cost function h(x). The established cost function g(x) contains two parameters: the first is the distance from the starting point to the current node, obtained by multiplying the vehicle's speed by time… The heuristic cost function h(x) sets two cost calculation methods, and finally takes the larger value as the final cost. The first cost calculation conforms to vehicle kinematics. However, without considering whether a collision occurs along the path, the first cost calculation uses Reeds-Shepp curves. First, a Reeds-Shepp curve from the current pose to the target pose is generated, and the length of the Reeds-Shepp curve is used as the first cost).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu and Kario to include the multiple distance values included in a cost calculation of Sheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a cost calculation in an A* algorithm brings efficiency to the path planning process, as suggested by Sheng (see Sheng at least [0003] a technology is needed that can achieve efficient path planning in dynamic scenarios. To address this issue, this invention proposes a path planning method based on the hybrid A* algorithm).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of US 20210011487 A1 NAWADE; Kaustubh et al. (hereinafter Nawade).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 1, wherein when the path unit to be travelled by the first mobile vehicle and the path unit to be travelled by the second mobile vehicle are in opposite directions, determining that the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the head-on conflict (see Zhu at least [0057] the conflict between opposing AGVs refers to the conflict caused by AGVs running in opposite directions on the same path competing for path resources within a certain time period).
Zhu does not teach: when the head-on conflict occurs, an adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle is such that a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on the path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on an adjacent path unit.
However, Nawade teaches: when the head-on conflict occurs, an adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle is such that a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on the path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on an adjacent path unit (see Nawade at least [0059] If the WCS 110 determines that a collision between the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b is likely, the WCS 110 may determine an alternate path that may be traversed by one of the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b for avoiding the collision. In some scenarios, the alternate path may be a sub-optimal path. In other words, there may be a penalty (such as a time penalty) associated with one of the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b traversing the alternate path… the WCS 110 may perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b should traverse the first and second paths or if one of the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b should traverse the alternate path. In performing the cost-benefit analysis, the WCS 110 determines whether the alternate path is viable (i.e., whether a penalty associated with the alternate path is acceptable)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the alternate path consideration in case of shared path conflict of Nawade. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because optimally each vehicle would travel the route with the lowest cost, but when these lowest-cost paths conflict with one another, alternative paths should be traveled based on cost balancing and consideration the collision potential, as suggested by Nawade (see Nawade at least [0096] If at step 1020, it is determined that at least one alternate path is viable, the process proceeds to step 1022. At step 1022, the WCS 110 allocates an alternate path to one of the identified available transport vehicles).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of CN 112748719 A LANG, Yuan-hui et al. (hereinafter Lang).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 1.
Zhu does not teach: wherein when there is no conflict between the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle, an adjusted transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is related to a distance between two nodes.
However, Lang teaches: wherein when there is no conflict between the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle, an adjusted transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is related to a distance between two nodes (see Lang at least [pg. 9, para. 2, beginning with “then, executing the main”] the second transportation cost s (a, y) can be determined according to the distance between the current position to the adjacent driving point, such as the distance between the current position to the adjacent driving point is 10, then the second transportation cost s (a, y) is 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the transportation cost distance consideration of Lang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering the distances between nodes along possible paths allows for a determination of the path with the minimum cost, therefore optimizing the vehicle’s route, as suggested by Lang (see Lang at least [pg. 9, para. 5, beginning with “in some optional”] the path planning is realized, and the obtained updated driving path is the driving path with the minimum transportation cost, and effectively controls the cost of the driving path).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of US 20250076892 A1 KIKKAWA; Norifumi (hereinafter Kikkawa).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 6.
Zhu does not teach: wherein the first path unit or the second path unit comprises a node and an edge.
However, Kikkawa teaches: wherein the first path unit or the second path unit comprises a node and an edge (see Kikkawa at least [0102] In most multi-robot path planning algorithms, there is a process for checking for conflicts between paths RT. In the checking for conflicts between paths RT, whether there is an overlap between times when robots MB wait at a node ND or times when robots MB pass through an edge ED is checked for all the nodes ND and the edges ED of the graph MP).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the node and edge makeup of paths of Kikkawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering overlap between occupancy of different node/edge paths over time helps identify and avoid conflicts between vehicles, as suggested by Kikkawa (see Kikkawa at least [0102] In a case where there is at least one time overlap, the set of paths RT is considered to be in conflict, and another set of paths RT is searched for).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of US 20210101600 A1 Kato; Daichi et al. (hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 8.
Zhu does not teach: wherein when [(si−e1)≥(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(e1−sc)+TT, where abs(e1−sc) represents an absolute value of e1−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e1 represents a third exit time point of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit.
However, Kato teaches: wherein when [(si−e1)≥(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(e1−sc)+TT (see Kato at least [0094] sets an area with a slight margin distance before and after the projected host vehicle M as the restrictive area RA and [0095] When a part of a nearby vehicle is not located in the set restrictive area RA, a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB is greater than a threshold value Th(B), and a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC is greater than a threshold value Th(C), the lane change controller 142 sets up the set target position TPs),
where abs(e1−sc) represents an absolute value of e1−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e1 represents a third exit time point of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit (see Kato at least [0095] a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB… a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC and [0094] a slight margin distance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the inter-vehicle timing gap consideration of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a vehicle is to enter a path segment that is occupied by other vehicles, it is necessary to make sure that there is enough of a time gap between two existing vehicles to fit another vehicle between with a safe margin, as suggested by Kato (see Kato at least [0093] when an instruction to execute lane change to the lane L2 is received by operating the direction indicator lever 82, the lane change controller 142 selects two arbitrary vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the host vehicle M) out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2, and sets a lane change target position TPs between the selected two nearby vehicles).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 8.
Zhu does not teach: wherein when [(si−e(i−1))<(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(ei−sc)+TT, where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e(i−1) represents a third exit time of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit.
However, Kato teaches: wherein when [(si−e(i−1))<(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(ei−sc)+TT (see Kato at least [0096] When a part of a nearby vehicle is located in the set restrictive area RA, the time-to-collision TTC(B) is equal to or less than the threshold value Th(B), or the time-to-collision TTC(C) is equal to or less than the threshold value Th(C), the lane change controller 142 selects two other vehicles out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2 and sets up a target position by newly setting the target position TPs),
where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e(i−1) represents a third exit time of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit (see Kato at least [0095] a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB… a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC and [0094] a slight margin distance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the checking of whether a time gap between vehicles on a segment allows for insertion of another vehicle in the same segment of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a vehicle is to enter a path segment that is occupied by other vehicles, it is necessary to make sure that there is enough of a time gap between two existing vehicles to fit another vehicle between with a safe margin, and if the gap is too small, the other vehicle must be added to the segment before or after the existing vehicles, as suggested by Kato (see Kato at least [0093] when an instruction to execute lane change to the lane L2 is received by operating the direction indicator lever 82, the lane change controller 142 selects two arbitrary vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the host vehicle M) out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2, and sets a lane change target position TPs between the selected two nearby vehicles).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu discloses: The multi-mobile vehicle control method of claim 8.
Zhu does not teach: wherein when [(s1−ei)>(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc−sc’=abs(ei−sc)+TT, where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time.
However, Kato teaches: wherein when [(s1−ei)>(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc−sc’=abs(ei−sc)+TT (see Kato at least [0094] sets an area with a slight margin distance before and after the projected host vehicle M as the restrictive area RA and [0095] When a part of a nearby vehicle is not located in the set restrictive area RA, a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB is greater than a threshold value Th(B), and a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC is greater than a threshold value Th(C), the lane change controller 142 sets up the set target position TPs),
where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time (see Kato at least [0095] a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB… a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC and [0094] a slight margin distance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Zhu to include the inter-vehicle timing gap consideration of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a vehicle is to enter a path segment that is occupied by other vehicles, it is necessary to make sure that there is enough of a time gap between two existing vehicles to fit another vehicle between with a safe margin, as suggested by Kato (see Kato at least [0093] when an instruction to execute lane change to the lane L2 is received by operating the direction indicator lever 82, the lane change controller 142 selects two arbitrary vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the host vehicle M) out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2, and sets a lane change target position TPs between the selected two nearby vehicles).
Claim(s) 12, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of US 20230325746 A1 SHI; Deqiang et al. (hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu discloses: A multi-mobile vehicle control system (see Zhu at least [0028] the system) comprising:
the control unit or the path server or the mobile vehicles are configured for: determining whether a first mobile vehicle and a second mobile vehicle experience a forward conflict, a head-on conflict, or a cross conflict on a path unit (see Zhu at least [0070] it is necessary to detect what kind of conflict exists in the optimized path of the suboptimal task, and select an appropriate conflict resolution strategy according to the different conflict types and [0135] Overtaking conflict refers to a conflict that occurs when two AGVs are running on the same path at the same time and [0061] The system detects whether unavoidable conflicts occur between multiple AGVs in a head-on collision);
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the forward conflict on the path unit, waiting for the second mobile vehicle to leave the path unit and controlling the first mobile vehicle to move on the path unit (see Zhu at least [0091] Figure 7 illustrates the overtaking conflict and [0136] If the system does not take any control measures for overtaking conflicts, a rear-end collision will inevitably occur between two AGVs running on the same path. Therefore, for this type of conflict, deceleration and waiting strategies can be adopted to resolve it);
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the head-on conflict on the path unit, selecting an alternative edge for the first mobile vehicle (see Zhu at least [0136] Figure 5(b) shows an unavoidable conflict. The most effective solution to this type of conflict is to replan a new feasible path for AGV2); and
when the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience a cross conflict on the path unit, waiting for the second mobile vehicle to leave the path unit and controlling the first mobile vehicle to move on the path unit (see Zhu at least [0055] Intersection conflict refers to a conflict caused by two or more AGVs sharing an intersection at the same time. For this type of conflict, the system generally adopts a waiting strategy to resolve it).
Zhu does not teach: a path server; a control unit communicating with the path; and a plurality of mobile vehicles communicating with the path server and the control, and wherein the path server stores multiple entry-exit timing of each of the mobile vehicles on each path unit.
However, Shi teaches: a path server (see Shi at least [0006] a server);
a control unit communicating with the path server (see Shi at least [0069] The server 103 may be configured to receive the AGV scheduling instruction from the real AGV scheduling controller 101); and
a plurality of mobile vehicles communicating with the path server and the control unit (see Shi at least [0069] the server 103 may be communicatively coupled with the real AGV 102 and the real AGV scheduling controller 101 respectively), and
wherein the path server stores multiple entry-exit timing of each of the mobile vehicles on each path unit (See Shi at least [0075] In some embodiments, the real AGV 102 includes AGVs from a plurality of AGV manufacturers, and the server 103 has a plurality of adapters corresponding to the plurality of AGV manufacturers for providing adaptation between the real AGV and the real AGV scheduling controller).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu to include the server, controller, and communication structure of Shi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because incorporating a server into the multi-vehicle control system facilitates efficient communication with the vehicles and consideration of various environmental factors affecting overall operation efficiency, as suggested by Shi (see Shi at least [0017] By maintaining the task table and the AGV status list, the AGV scheduling controller can globally grasp the task requirements and AGV status, comprehensively consider various factors, and determine the most suitable AGV for executing tasks, which is conducive to improving the overall efficiency of the production line).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 12, wherein the control unit executes: determining whether the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle occur a conflict on a first path unit based on a first entry time of the first mobile vehicle into the first path unit, a first exit time of the first mobile vehicle from the first path unit, a second entry time of the second mobile vehicle into the first path unit or a second path unit, and a second exit time of the second mobile vehicle from the first path unit or the second path unit (see Zhu at least [0051] Furthermore, in step S4, the time window refers to the time spent by the AGV performing the vehicle retrieval task from entering to leaving a certain intersection or road segment. Its main function is to mark the intersection or road segment occupied by the AGV to avoid it being used by other AGVs during the time period occupied by the AGV, which could lead to deadlock or collision conflicts and [0133] figure 4 shows a comparison before and after using a waiting strategy to resolve time window conflicts at intersections. The white, black, and gray rectangles in the figure represent the time window for AGV1 to register, the time window for AGV2 to make a reservation, and the conflict time window between the two AGVs, respectively and [Fig. 4a] the conflict between AGV1 and AGV2 is shown by the overlapping medium gray section after t2_in and before t1_out);
when the conflict occurs between the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle on the first path unit, adjusting the first entry time of the first mobile vehicle until the conflict is resolved (see Zhu at least [0133] To avoid conflicts between AGV2 and AGV1 during task execution, the system will adopt a waiting strategy to shift the time window requested by AGV2 at intersection i back by a reasonable amount of time. That is, AGV2 will wait for a period of time before entering intersection i until intersection i is released, as shown in Figure b); and
moving the first mobile vehicle (see Zhu at least [0052] the AGV has left a certain road segment or intersection and is heading to the next road segment).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 17, wherein when "the first entry time (sc) of the first mobile vehicle into the first path unit is less than or equal to the second exit time (ei) of the second mobile vehicle from the first path unit or the second path unit" and "the second entry time (si) of the second mobile vehicle into the first path unit or the second path unit is less than or equal to the first exit time (ec) of the first mobile vehicle from the first path unit," the conflict is determined to occur (see Zhu at least [0133] The white, black, and gray rectangles in the figure represent the time window for AGV1 to register, the time window for AGV2 to make a reservation, and the conflict time window between the two AGVs, respectively and [Fig. 4(a)] wherein t2in is the first entry time of first mobile vehicle, t1out is the second exit time of the second mobile vehicle, t1in is the second entry time of the second mobile vehicle, and t2out is the first exit time of the first mobile vehicle).
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Shi, further in view of Kario, and further in view of Sheng.
Regarding claim 13, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 12, wherein, when the path unit to be travelled by the first mobile vehicle and the path unit to be travelled by the second mobile vehicle are in the same direction, determining that the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the forward conflict (see Zhu at least [0136] If the system does not take any control measures for overtaking conflicts, a rear-end collision will inevitably occur between two AGVs running on the same path).
Zhu and Shi do not teach: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time point s1’, AT4=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, where e2 is an exit time of the second mobile vehicle from the path unit, abs(e2−s1) denotes an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time, a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT4∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Kario teaches: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time point s1’, AT4=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, where e2 is an exit time of the second mobile vehicle from the path unit, abs(e2−s1) denotes an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time (see Kario at least [0248] That is, each car will arrive at point when a first part of the car passes the intersection point, and a certain amount of time will be required before the last part of the car passes through the intersection point. This amount of time separates the arrival time from the leaving time. Assuming that t.sub.1.sup.a<t.sub.2.sup.a (i.e., that the arrival time of vehicle 1 is less than the arrival time of vehicle 2), then we will want to ensure that vehicle 1 has left the intersection point prior to vehicle 2 arriving. Otherwise, a collision would result. Thus, a hard constraint may be implemented such that t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a. Moreover, to ensure that vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 do not miss one another by a minimal amount, an added margin of safety may be obtained by including a buffer time into the constraint (e.g., 0.5 seconds or another suitable value). A hard constraint relating to predicted intersection trajectories of two vehicles may be expressed as t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a+0.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu to include the adding of a margin after one vehicle leaves a segment before allowing another vehicle to enter the same segment of Kario. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because including a time margin between different vehicles traveling in the same area helps avoid collisions between vehicles , as suggested by Kario (see Kario at least [0248] Constraints may also be applied such that the host vehicle will avoid maintaining a collision course with one or more other vehicles).
Zhu, Shi, and Kario do not teach: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT4∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Sheng teaches: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT4∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes (see Sheng at least [0010] the hybrid A* algorithm sets the established cost function g(x) and the heuristic cost function h(x). The established cost function g(x) contains two parameters: the first is the distance from the starting point to the current node, obtained by multiplying the vehicle's speed by time… The heuristic cost function h(x) sets two cost calculation methods, and finally takes the larger value as the final cost. The first cost calculation conforms to vehicle kinematics. However, without considering whether a collision occurs along the path, the first cost calculation uses Reeds-Shepp curves. First, a Reeds-Shepp curve from the current pose to the target pose is generated, and the length of the Reeds-Shepp curve is used as the first cost).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, and Kario to include the multiple distance values included in a cost calculation of Sheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a cost calculation in an A* algorithm brings efficiency to the path planning process, as suggested by Sheng (see Sheng at least [0003] a technology is needed that can achieve efficient path planning in dynamic scenarios. To address this issue, this invention proposes a path planning method based on the hybrid A* algorithm).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 12, wherein, when the path unit to be travelled by the first mobile vehicle and the second path unit to be travelled by the second mobile vehicle reach at the same connection point, determining that the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the cross conflict (see Zhu at least [0055] Intersection conflict refers to a conflict caused by two or more AGVs sharing an intersection at the same time).
Zhu and Shi do not teach: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time s1’, AT5=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, abs(e2−s1) represents an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time, a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT5∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Kario teaches: adjusting an entry time s1 of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted entry time s1’, AT5=s1’−s1=abs(e2−s1)+TT, abs(e2−s1) represents an absolute value of e2−s1, and TT is a tolerance time (see Kario at least [0248] That is, each car will arrive at point when a first part of the car passes the intersection point, and a certain amount of time will be required before the last part of the car passes through the intersection point. This amount of time separates the arrival time from the leaving time. Assuming that t.sub.1.sup.a<t.sub.2.sup.a (i.e., that the arrival time of vehicle 1 is less than the arrival time of vehicle 2), then we will want to ensure that vehicle 1 has left the intersection point prior to vehicle 2 arriving. Otherwise, a collision would result. Thus, a hard constraint may be implemented such that t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a. Moreover, to ensure that vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 do not miss one another by a minimal amount, an added margin of safety may be obtained by including a buffer time into the constraint (e.g., 0.5 seconds or another suitable value). A hard constraint relating to predicted intersection trajectories of two vehicles may be expressed as t.sub.1.sup.l>t.sub.2.sup.a+0.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the adding of a margin after one vehicle leaves a segment before allowing another vehicle to enter the same segment of Kario. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because including a time margin between different vehicles traveling in the same area helps avoid collisions between vehicles, as suggested by Kario (see Kario at least [0248] Constraints may also be applied such that the host vehicle will avoid maintaining a collision course with one or more other vehicles).
Zhu, Shi, and Kario do not teach: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT5∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes.
However, Sheng teaches: a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is AT5∗V+D, where V represents a speed of the first mobile vehicle, and D represents a distance between two nodes (see Sheng at least [0010] the hybrid A* algorithm sets the established cost function g(x) and the heuristic cost function h(x). The established cost function g(x) contains two parameters: the first is the distance from the starting point to the current node, obtained by multiplying the vehicle's speed by time… The heuristic cost function h(x) sets two cost calculation methods, and finally takes the larger value as the final cost. The first cost calculation conforms to vehicle kinematics. However, without considering whether a collision occurs along the path, the first cost calculation uses Reeds-Shepp curves. First, a Reeds-Shepp curve from the current pose to the target pose is generated, and the length of the Reeds-Shepp curve is used as the first cost).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, and Kario to include the multiple distance values included in a cost calculation of Sheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a cost calculation in an A* algorithm brings efficiency to the path planning process, as suggested by Sheng (see Sheng at least [0003] a technology is needed that can achieve efficient path planning in dynamic scenarios. To address this issue, this invention proposes a path planning method based on the hybrid A* algorithm).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Shi, and further in view of Nawade.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 12, wherein,
when the path unit to be travelled by the first mobile vehicle and the path unit to be travelled by the second mobile vehicle are in opposite directions, determining that the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle experience the head-on conflict (see Zhu at least [0057] the conflict between opposing AGVs refers to the conflict caused by AGVs running in opposite directions on the same path competing for path resources within a certain time period).
Zhu and Shi do not teach: when the head-on conflict occurs, an adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle is such that a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on the path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on an adjacent path unit.
However, Nawade teaches: when the head-on conflict occurs, an adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle is such that a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on the path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle travelling on an adjacent path unit (see Nawade at least [0059] If the WCS 110 determines that a collision between the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b is likely, the WCS 110 may determine an alternate path that may be traversed by one of the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b for avoiding the collision. In some scenarios, the alternate path may be a sub-optimal path. In other words, there may be a penalty (such as a time penalty) associated with one of the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b traversing the alternate path… the WCS 110 may perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b should traverse the first and second paths or if one of the first and second transport vehicles 106a and 106b should traverse the alternate path. In performing the cost-benefit analysis, the WCS 110 determines whether the alternate path is viable (i.e., whether a penalty associated with the alternate path is acceptable)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the alternate path consideration in case of shared path conflict of Nawade. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because optimally each vehicle would travel the route with the lowest cost, but when these lowest-cost paths conflict with one another, alternative paths should be traveled based on cost balancing and consideration the collision potential, as suggested by Nawade (see Nawade at least [0096] If at step 1020, it is determined that at least one alternate path is viable, the process proceeds to step 1022. At step 1022, the WCS 110 allocates an alternate path to one of the identified available transport vehicles).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Shi, and further in view of Lang.
Regarding claim 16, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 12.
Zhu and Shi do not teach: wherein when there is no conflict between the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle, an adjusted transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is related to a distance between two nodes.
However, Lang teaches: wherein when there is no conflict between the first mobile vehicle and the second mobile vehicle, an adjusted transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle is related to a distance between two nodes (see Lang at least [pg. 9, para. 2, beginning with “then, executing the main”] the second transportation cost s (a, y) can be determined according to the distance between the current position to the adjacent driving point, such as the distance between the current position to the adjacent driving point is 10, then the second transportation cost s (a, y) is 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the transportation cost distance consideration of Lang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering the distances between nodes along possible paths allows for a determination of the path with the minimum cost, therefore optimizing the vehicle’s route, as suggested by Lang (see Lang at least [pg. 9, para. 5, beginning with “in some optional”] the path planning is realized, and the obtained updated driving path is the driving path with the minimum transportation cost, and effectively controls the cost of the driving path).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 17.
Zhu and Shi do not teach: wherein the first path unit or the second path unit includes a node and an edge.
However, Kikkawa teaches: wherein the first path unit or the second path unit includes a node and an edge (see Kikkawa at least [0102] In most multi-robot path planning algorithms, there is a process for checking for conflicts between paths RT. In the checking for conflicts between paths RT, whether there is an overlap between times when robots MB wait at a node ND or times when robots MB pass through an edge ED is checked for all the nodes ND and the edges ED of the graph MP).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the node and edge makeup of paths of Kikkawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering overlap between occupancy of different node/edge paths over time helps identify and avoid conflicts between vehicles, as suggested by Kikkawa (see Kikkawa at least [0102] In a case where there is at least one time overlap, the set of paths RT is considered to be in conflict, and another set of paths RT is searched for).
Claim(s) 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Shi, and further in view of Kato.
Regarding claim 20, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 19.
Zhu and Shi do not teach: wherein when [(si−e1)≥(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(e1−sc)+TT, where abs(e1−sc) represents an absolute value of e1−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e1 represents a third exit time point of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit.
However, Kato teaches: wherein when [(si−e1)≥(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(e1−sc)+TT (see Kato at least [0094] sets an area with a slight margin distance before and after the projected host vehicle M as the restrictive area RA and [0095] When a part of a nearby vehicle is not located in the set restrictive area RA, a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB is greater than a threshold value Th(B), and a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC is greater than a threshold value Th(C), the lane change controller 142 sets up the set target position TPs),
where abs(e1−sc) represents an absolute value of e1−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e1 represents a third exit time point of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit (see Kato at least [0095] a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB… a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC and [0094] a slight margin distance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the inter-vehicle timing gap consideration of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a vehicle is to enter a path segment that is occupied by other vehicles, it is necessary to make sure that there is enough of a time gap between two existing vehicles to fit another vehicle between with a safe margin, as suggested by Kato (see Kato at least [0093] when an instruction to execute lane change to the lane L2 is received by operating the direction indicator lever 82, the lane change controller 142 selects two arbitrary vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the host vehicle M) out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2, and sets a lane change target position TPs between the selected two nearby vehicles).
Regarding claim 21, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 19.
Zhu and Shi do not teach: wherein when [(si−e(i−1))<(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(ei−sc)+TT, where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e(i−1) represents a third exit time of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit.
However, Kato teaches: wherein when [(si−e(i−1))<(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc’−sc=abs(ei−sc)+TT (see Kato at least [0096] When a part of a nearby vehicle is located in the set restrictive area RA, the time-to-collision TTC(B) is equal to or less than the threshold value Th(B), or the time-to-collision TTC(C) is equal to or less than the threshold value Th(C), the lane change controller 142 selects two other vehicles out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2 and sets up a target position by newly setting the target position TPs),
where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time, and e(i−1) represents a third exit time of a third mobile vehicle from the first path unit (see Kato at least [0095] a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB… a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC and [0094] a slight margin distance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the checking of whether a time gap between vehicles on a segment allows for insertion of another vehicle in the same segment of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a vehicle is to enter a path segment that is occupied by other vehicles, it is necessary to make sure that there is enough of a time gap between two existing vehicles to fit another vehicle between with a safe margin, and if the gap is too small, the other vehicle must be added to the segment before or after the existing vehicles, as suggested by Kato (see Kato at least [0093] when an instruction to execute lane change to the lane L2 is received by operating the direction indicator lever 82, the lane change controller 142 selects two arbitrary vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the host vehicle M) out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2, and sets a lane change target position TPs between the selected two nearby vehicles).
Regarding claim 22, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 19.
Zhu and Shi do not teach: wherein, when [(s1−ei)>(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc−sc’=abs(ei−sc)+TT, where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time.
However, Kato teaches: wherein, when [(s1−ei)>(ec−sc+TT)] holds true, for conflict resolution, adjusting the first entry time sc of the first mobile vehicle to an adjusted first entry time sc’, sc−sc’=abs(ei−sc)+TT (see Kato at least [0094] sets an area with a slight margin distance before and after the projected host vehicle M as the restrictive area RA and [0095] When a part of a nearby vehicle is not located in the set restrictive area RA, a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB is greater than a threshold value Th(B), and a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC is greater than a threshold value Th(C), the lane change controller 142 sets up the set target position TPs),
where abs(ei−sc) represents an absolute value of ei−sc, TT represents a tolerance time (see Kato at least [0095] a time-to-collision TTC(B) between the host vehicle M and the front reference vehicle MB… a time-to-collision TTC(C) between the host vehicle M and the rear reference vehicle MC and [0094] a slight margin distance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the inter-vehicle timing gap consideration of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a vehicle is to enter a path segment that is occupied by other vehicles, it is necessary to make sure that there is enough of a time gap between two existing vehicles to fit another vehicle between with a safe margin, as suggested by Kato (see Kato at least [0093] when an instruction to execute lane change to the lane L2 is received by operating the direction indicator lever 82, the lane change controller 142 selects two arbitrary vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the host vehicle M) out of nearby vehicles located in the lane L2, and sets a lane change target position TPs between the selected two nearby vehicles).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Shi, further in view of US 9886036 B2 Douglas; Barry et al. (hereinafter Douglas), further in view of CN 110009259 B SONG, Li-mei et al. (hereinafter Song), and further in view of US 20170219353 A1 Alesiani; Francesco (hereinafter Alesiani).
Regarding claim 23, Zhu and Shi disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 12.
Zhu and Shi do not teach: wherein the control unit performs the following: obtaining a plurality of adjacent nodes of a current node of the first mobile vehicle and obtaining a plurality of timing data of the second mobile vehicle at the current node and the adjacent nodes; determining whether a path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to one of the adjacent nodes occur a conflict with the second mobile vehicle; when determining that timing conflicts or path unit occupancy conflicts occur, determining whether there is a head-on conflict; when determining that neither timing conflicts nor path unit occupancy conflicts occur, calculating a plurality of target functions of the path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to the adjacent node; in case of a head-on conflict, an adjust time of the first mobile vehicle is that a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on a path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on an adjacent path unit; when there is no head-on conflict, calculating the adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle to adjust a target function of a conflicting edge; and controlling movement of the first mobile vehicle.
However, Douglas teaches: wherein the control unit performs the following:
obtaining a plurality of adjacent nodes of a current node of the first mobile vehicle and obtaining a plurality of timing data of the second mobile vehicle at the current node and the adjacent nodes (see Douglas at least [col. 9, lines 17-27] This third methodology relies on knowing the locations and directions of travel and load status of each AGV when making routing decisions before the AGV actually travels along the section of the route in question. The methodology selects the next node for the AGV to travel so as to reach its destination based on the status of neighboring nodes and information about the global network of AGVs. In this methodology, the next node to be traveled to is selected among all adjacent nodes which will result in the shortest travel time for the AGV);
determining whether a path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to one of the adjacent nodes occur a conflict with the second mobile vehicle (see Douglas at least [col. 10, lines 22-26] a check is made to verify that other AGV activity orders are not already queued for the crossover elevator or elevator bank in question. If so, either a penalty is assessed for this situation or the crossover floor can be removed as a potential travel path);
in case of a head-on conflict, an adjust time of the first mobile vehicle is that a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on a path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on an adjacent path unit (see Douglas at least [col. 8, lines 43-54] when an AGV is navigating through a route, the control system “locks down” nodes along the vehicle route so that other AGVs will not utilize the same nodes which are occupied. As a consequence, no other AGV will attempt to navigate along the route where another AGV is traveling. This can be accomplished by applying an infinite distance penalty to the applicable node or nodes to prevent the routing algorithm to select a route already assigned to another AGV. As a consequence, the route or location of the AGV is virtually removed from the potential travel route for the other AGV(s) in question);
when there is no head-on conflict, calculating the adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle to adjust a target function of a conflicting edge (See Douglas at least [col. 6, lines 36-53] The present disclosure seeks to take into consideration numerous system parameters in addition to the shortest route, including impediments or obstacles in the potential travel path of the AGV, the number of turns required to be made by the AGV, as well as the need for the AGV to travel from one floor to another in a multi-floor structure. The routing system of the present disclosure evaluates these system parameters and dynamically adds a cost, burden, or penalty to a potential travel route in the form of a virtual distance that reflects the effect of the system parameter on the ability of the AGV to travel the proposed route. This cost, burden, or penalty can be in the form of a virtual distance penalty added to the route. As an alternative methodology, the cost, burden, or penalty can be in the form of an added virtual time required for the AGVs to complete its travel and perform required related tasks. In this regard, potential travel routes are evaluated and the evaluated travel route with the shortest route in terms of distance or time is selected); and
controlling movement of the first mobile vehicle (See Douglas at least [claim 1] controlling the travel of the wheeled automated guided vehicle along the selected travel path).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu and Shi to include the path conflict consideration and transportation cost calculations of Douglas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a time or distance penalty as implemented by Douglas provides a standardized comparison metric between different routes with different parameters, as suggested by Douglas (see Douglas at least [col. 2, lines 47-52] the virtual penalty is a virtual distance penalty or a virtual time penalty. Such virtual penalty may be based on one or more of the distance of alternative travel paths available to avoid the impediment(s); the time required to remove or move the impediment(s); and the time required for waiting for the impediment(s) to be removed).
Zhu, Shi, and Douglas do not teach: when determining that timing conflicts or path unit occupancy conflicts occur, determining whether there is a head-on conflict; and when determining that neither timing conflicts nor path unit occupancy conflicts occur, calculating a plurality of target functions of the path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to the adjacent node.
However, Song teaches: when determining that timing conflicts or path unit occupancy conflicts occur, determining whether there is a head-on conflict (see Song at least [pg. 5, para. 4, beginning with “step 8”] judge the conflict type according to the detection time window, and divide the conflict type into node conflict and opposite conflict).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, and Douglas to include the conflict determination step of Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the type of conflict may motivate the type of response in AGV path planning, as suggested by Song (see Song at least [pg. 5, para. 4, beginning with “step 8”] the AGV conflict type is opposite conflict, returning to step 7, re-searching the temporary path for the AGVG; the AGVG does not have path with no opposite conflict, then the AGVG is removed from the to-be-scheduled car set SA in step 6, returning to step 7).
Zhu, Shi, Douglas, and Song do not teach: when determining that neither timing conflicts nor path unit occupancy conflicts occur, calculating a plurality of target functions of the path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to the adjacent node.
However, Alesiani teaches: when determining that neither timing conflicts nor path unit occupancy conflicts occur, calculating a plurality of target functions of the path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to the adjacent node (see Alesiani at least [0090] it is checked if the transition from the current parent node to one of the child nodes is free of obstacles… all neighbor nodes within the radius R.sub.max are determined. In a tenth step T10 for each of the determined neighbor nodes their costs are checked against the determined cost of the new child node plus the cost for the connection from the new node to the neighbor node).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, and Song to include the obstacle-free path cost determinations of Alesiani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because calculating cost values can help the system determine which path is most optimal to follow, as suggested by Alesiani (see Alesiani at least [0012] f) determining a lowest overall cost value from the cost values determined according to d)-e) and selecting a child node associated with the determined lowest overall cost value as a new parent node).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Shi, further in view of Douglas, further in view of Song, further in view of Alesiani, further in view of CN 109242602 A ZHANG, KAI et al. (hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of US 20210341309 A1 YUAN; Yuanqiang et al. (hereinafter Yuan).
Regarding claim 24, Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 23 wherein, before obtaining the adjacent nodes of the current node of the first mobile vehicle, the control unit further performs the following: placing a start node data into a path expansion set table of the first mobile vehicle (see Alesiani at least [0090] In a first step T1 the start node in inserted into a priority queue);
selecting a minimum target function node from the path expansion set table, moving the minimum target function node from the path expansion set table to a path convergence set table, and defining the minimum target function node as the current node (See Alesiani at least [0072] a queue is used to indicate the cost values for each node, such that the node with the lowest expected cost value is used as the next node and the other nodes with a higher cost are ordered according to their expected cost value in the queue. This enables to provide a priority queue where nodes are inserted during the exploration. This priority queue returns and removes an element with a lower cost which is then used as a parent node).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani to include the cost comparison in selecting nodes for path determination of Alesiani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering lowest cost pathways throughout the path planning process results in optimal low-cost path decisions, as suggested by Alesiani (see Alesiani at least [0066] for each new parent and/or child node the nodes are added along the direct path to the destination and determination condition is only applied when the end node set is reached by a partial path with steps a)-g) performed and the new parent node being a node representing an end state of the end state set with lower overall cost).
Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani do not teach: determining whether the current node is an endpoint; when determining that the current node is the endpoint, extracting an endpoint-connecting parent node set from the path convergence set table to obtain a multi-mobile vehicle optimal path node timing plan, summing a plurality of target functions on an optimal path to get a path cost, and updating relevant data on the path server; when determining that the current node is not the endpoint, determining whether the path expansion set table has no nodes; and when determining that the path expansion set table has no nodes, determining that the first mobile vehicle has no path.
However, Zhang teaches: determining whether the current node is an endpoint (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “(g) recycling step”] (g) recycling step (c)-(f) until the current node is the end point);
when determining that the current node is not the endpoint, determining whether the path expansion set table has no nodes (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “(f) when the target”] if the target node is not added to the OPEN list, and the OPEN list is empty, it shows that cannot find the optimal reference route); and
when determining that the path expansion set table has no nodes, determining that the first mobile vehicle has no path (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “(f) when the target”] if the target node is not added to the OPEN list, and the OPEN list is empty, it shows that cannot find the optimal reference route).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani to include the node exploration lists for path routing of Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using such a technique of sequentially determining the lowest function nodes along a path helps find the best route, as suggested by Zhang (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “(f) when the target”] (f) when the target node is added to the OPEN list, it means finding the optimal reference route).
Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Zhang do not teach: when determining that the current node is the endpoint, extracting an endpoint-connecting parent node set from the path convergence set table to obtain a multi-mobile vehicle optimal path node timing plan, summing a plurality of target functions on an optimal path to get a path cost, and updating relevant data on the path server.
However, Yuan teaches: when determining that the current node is the endpoint, extracting an endpoint-connecting parent node set from the path convergence set table to obtain a multi-mobile vehicle optimal path node timing plan, summing a plurality of target functions on an optimal path to get a path cost, and updating relevant data on the path server (see Yuan at least [0084] a first start node and a first destination node of the current AGV may be determined in the first modified topological map. A plurality of first total costs associated with a plurality of nodes between the first start node and the first destination node may be determined based on node information in the first modified topological map. A first route planning may be performed for the current AGV based on the plurality of first total costs and [0036] the server 110 may be directly connected to or communicate with one or more components (e.g., the vehicle(s) 130, the terminal device(s) 140, the storage device 150) of the route planning system 100 and [0034] the server 110 may be directly connected to the vehicle(s) 130, the terminal device(s) 140, and/or the storage device 150 to access stored information and/or data and [0031] The systems may generate a target map by modifying at least part of node information of each of at least one of the plurality of nodes based on the motion status information associated with the one or more vehicles. Then the systems may determine a target route of the target vehicle based on the target map, the start location, and the destination. When determining the target route, the systems may determine a plurality of costs associated with a plurality of target nodes between a start node corresponding to the start location a destination node corresponding to the destination.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Zhang to include the completed planned route cost analysis of Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering and weighing a variety of costs in environments where multiple vehicles travel helps avoid costly outcomes such as multi-vehicle collisions, as suggested by Yuan (see Yuan at least [0072] according to the embodiments of the present disclosure, a situation under which the current AGV may collide with other AGVs can be avoided).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Shi, further in view of Douglas, further in view of Song, further in view of Alesiani, and further in view of CN 114877901 A CAI, ZHI et al. (hereinafter Cai), further in view of CN 110046213 B ZHOU, Jun-yi et al. (hereinafter Zhou), and further in view of CN 111189468 A SANG, Hong-qiang (hereinafter Sang).
Regarding claim 25, Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani disclose: The multi-mobile vehicle control system of claim 23.
Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani do not teach: wherein, after calculating the adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle to adjust the target function of the conflicting edge, the control unit further performs the following: determining whether an adjacent node set exists in a path expansion set table; when the adjacent node set exists in the path expansion set table, determining whether an updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than a current target function value; when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating an adjacent node data and moving the adjacent node data back to the path expansion set table; when the adjacent node set does not exist in the path expansion set table, determining whether the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table; when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value; when determining that the adjacent node set does not exist in the path convergence set table, determining that the adjacent node set exists in neither the path expansion set table nor the path convergence set table, and adding the adjacent node to the path expansion set table; and when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating a plurality of adjacent node data of the path expansion set table of the first mobile vehicle.
However, Cai teaches: wherein, after calculating the adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle to adjust the target function of the conflicting edge, the control unit further performs the following: determining whether an adjacent node set exists in a path expansion set table (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table);
when the adjacent node set exists in the path expansion set table, determining whether an updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than a current target function value (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table, then calculating the new g (n) value according to the current path, when the new g (n) value is less than the g (n) value in the original OPEN table);
when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating an adjacent node data and moving the adjacent node data back to the path expansion set table (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table, then calculating the new g (n) value according to the current path, when the new g (n) value is less than the g (n) value in the original OPEN table, the adjacent node M takes the node N as the father node, updating the h (n) value of the node M, deleting the adjacent node M before updating in the OPEN table, placing the updated adjacent node M, and deleting the node N in the OPEN table); and
when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating a plurality of adjacent node data of the path expansion set table of the first mobile vehicle (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table, then calculating the new g (n) value according to the current path, when the new g (n) value is less than the g (n) value in the original OPEN table, the adjacent node M takes the node N as the father node, updating the h (n) value of the node M, deleting the adjacent node M before updating in the OPEN table, placing the updated adjacent node M, and deleting the node N in the OPEN table).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani to include the A-star search strategy featuring considering adjacent nodes and their respective function values of Cai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a search strategy helps determine the shortest route through an environment, as suggested by Cai (see Cai at least [pg. 2, para. 4, beginning with “A-star search”] A-star search strategy is a popular heuripotent path planning method, which is often used for finding the shortest path in the static road network, and also is an effective method for solving multiple search problems).
Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Cai do not teach: when the adjacent node set does not exist in the path expansion set table, determining whether the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table; when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value; and when determining that the adjacent node set does not exist in the path convergence set table, determining that the adjacent node set exists in neither the path expansion set table nor the path convergence set table, and adding the adjacent node to the path expansion set table.
However, Zhou teaches: when the adjacent node set does not exist in the path expansion set table, determining whether the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table (See Zhou at least [pg. 11, para. 2, beginning with “(2.4.3) each of the adjacent”] each of the adjacent domain of the current node meets the limit condition and is not in the close table of the node, if it is not in the open table); and
when determining that the adjacent node set does not exist in the path convergence set table, determining that the adjacent node set exists in neither the path expansion set table nor the path convergence set table, and adding the adjacent node to the path expansion set table (see Zhou at least [pg. 7, para. 1, beginning on pg. 6 with “The flow of the optimized”] each of the adjacent domain of the current node meets the limit condition and is not in the close table of the node, if it is not in the open table, then moving it into the table).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Cai to include the checking whether an adjacent node has been assigned to a list and if not assigning it to the open list of Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the open list is for nodes that have not yet been checked for their function values, as suggested by Zhou (see Zhou at least [pg. 7, para. 1, beginning on pg. 6 with “The flow of the optimized”] wherein the open table is stored all the detected but not verified node, the close table stores the checked node).
Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, Alesiani, Cai, and Zhou do not teach: when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value.
However, Sang teaches: when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value (see Sang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “the wave glider after”] calculating all the adjacent node in the CLOSED set, and obtaining the cost estimation by comparing the current node cost estimate with the cost estimate of the adjacent node, the cost estimate if the adjacent node is lower, then the node is added to the OPEN node set).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, Alesiani, Cai, and Zhou to include the determination of function value of an adjacent node in the closed set of Sang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so in each iteration allows the procedure to find the best global path, as suggested by Sang (see Sang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “the wave glider after”] each iteration, the current node to the next node, then the current node is recorded to be the parent node of the next node, which is the target node to the next node until to the last extended. The information recorded by the father node, orderly iteration to obtain the global path).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas, in view of Song, and further in view of Alesiani.
Regarding claim 26, Douglas discloses: A method for controlling multi-mobile vehicles (see Douglas at least [col. 3, lines 13-14] A method for controlling the travel path of an AGV from a first location to a second location), comprising:
obtaining a plurality of adjacent nodes of a current node of a first mobile vehicle and obtaining a plurality of timing data of a second mobile vehicle at the current node and the adjacent nodes (see Douglas at least [col. 9, lines 17-27] This third methodology relies on knowing the locations and directions of travel and load status of each AGV when making routing decisions before the AGV actually travels along the section of the route in question. The methodology selects the next node for the AGV to travel so as to reach its destination based on the status of neighboring nodes and information about the global network of AGVs. In this methodology, the next node to be traveled to is selected among all adjacent nodes which will result in the shortest travel time for the AGV);
determining whether a path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to one of the adjacent nodes occur a conflict with the second mobile vehicle (see Douglas at least [col. 10, lines 22-26] a check is made to verify that other AGV activity orders are not already queued for the crossover elevator or elevator bank in question. If so, either a penalty is assessed for this situation or the crossover floor can be removed as a potential travel path);
in case of a head-on conflict, an adjust time of the first mobile vehicle is that a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on a path unit is higher than a transportation cost of the first mobile vehicle moving on an adjacent path unit (see Douglas at least [col. 8, lines 43-54] when an AGV is navigating through a route, the control system “locks down” nodes along the vehicle route so that other AGVs will not utilize the same nodes which are occupied. As a consequence, no other AGV will attempt to navigate along the route where another AGV is traveling. This can be accomplished by applying an infinite distance penalty to the applicable node or nodes to prevent the routing algorithm to select a route already assigned to another AGV. As a consequence, the route or location of the AGV is virtually removed from the potential travel route for the other AGV(s) in question);
when there is no head-on conflict, calculating the adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle to adjust a target function of a conflicting edge (See Douglas at least [col. 6, lines 36-53] The present disclosure seeks to take into consideration numerous system parameters in addition to the shortest route, including impediments or obstacles in the potential travel path of the AGV, the number of turns required to be made by the AGV, as well as the need for the AGV to travel from one floor to another in a multi-floor structure. The routing system of the present disclosure evaluates these system parameters and dynamically adds a cost, burden, or penalty to a potential travel route in the form of a virtual distance that reflects the effect of the system parameter on the ability of the AGV to travel the proposed route. This cost, burden, or penalty can be in the form of a virtual distance penalty added to the route. As an alternative methodology, the cost, burden, or penalty can be in the form of an added virtual time required for the AGVs to complete its travel and perform required related tasks. In this regard, potential travel routes are evaluated and the evaluated travel route with the shortest route in terms of distance or time is selected); and
controlling movement of the first mobile vehicle (See Douglas at least [claim 1] controlling the travel of the wheeled automated guided vehicle along the selected travel path).
Douglas does not teach: when determining that timing conflicts or path unit occupancy conflicts occur, determining whether there is a head-on conflict; and
when determining that neither timing conflicts nor path unit occupancy conflicts occur, calculating a plurality of target functions of the path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to the adjacent node.
However, Song teaches: when determining that timing conflicts or path unit occupancy conflicts occur, determining whether there is a head-on conflict (see Song at least [pg. 5, para. 4, beginning with “step 8”] judge the conflict type according to the detection time window, and divide the conflict type into node conflict and opposite conflict).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Douglas to include the conflict determination step of Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the type of conflict may motivate the type of response in AGV path planning, as suggested by Song (see Song at least [pg. 5, para. 4, beginning with “step 8”] the AGV conflict type is opposite conflict, returning to step 7, re-searching the temporary path for the AGVG; the AGVG does not have path with no opposite conflict, then the AGVG is removed from the to-be-scheduled car set SA in step 6, returning to step 7).
Douglas and Song do not teach: when determining that neither timing conflicts nor path unit occupancy conflicts occur, calculating a plurality of target functions of the path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to the adjacent node.
However, Alesiani teaches: when determining that neither timing conflicts nor path unit occupancy conflicts occur, calculating a plurality of target functions of the path unit set of the first mobile vehicle from the current node to the adjacent node (see Alesiani at least [0090] it is checked if the transition from the current parent node to one of the child nodes is free of obstacles… all neighbor nodes within the radius R.sub.max are determined. In a tenth step T10 for each of the determined neighbor nodes their costs are checked against the determined cost of the new child node plus the cost for the connection from the new node to the neighbor node).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple-vehicle control method disclosed by Douglas and Song to include the obstacle-free path cost determinations of Alesiani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because calculating cost values can help the system determine which path is most optimal to follow, as suggested by Alesiani (see Alesiani at least [0012] f) determining a lowest overall cost value from the cost values determined according to d)-e) and selecting a child node associated with the determined lowest overall cost value as a new parent node).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas, in view of Song, further in view of Alesiani, further in view of Zhang, and further in view of Yuan.
Regarding claim 27, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani disclose: The method for controlling multi-mobile vehicles of claim 26, wherein, before the step of obtaining the adjacent nodes of the current node of the first mobile vehicle, the method further comprises: placing a start node data into a path expansion set table of the first mobile vehicle (see Alesiani at least [0090] In a first step T1 the start node in inserted into a priority queue);
selecting a minimum target function node from the path expansion set table, moving the minimum target function node from the path expansion set table to a path convergence set table, and defining the minimum target function node as the current node; determining whether the current node is an endpoint (See Alesiani at least [0072] a queue is used to indicate the cost values for each node, such that the node with the lowest expected cost value is used as the next node and the other nodes with a higher cost are ordered according to their expected cost value in the queue. This enables to provide a priority queue where nodes are inserted during the exploration. This priority queue returns and removes an element with a lower cost which is then used as a parent node).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control method disclosed by Douglas, Song, and Alesiani to include the cost comparison in selecting nodes for path determination of Alesiani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering lowest cost pathways throughout the path planning process results in optimal low-cost path decisions, as suggested by Alesiani (see Alesiani at least [0066] for each new parent and/or child node the nodes are added along the direct path to the destination and determination condition is only applied when the end node set is reached by a partial path with steps a)-g) performed and the new parent node being a node representing an end state of the end state set with lower overall cost).
Douglas, Song, and Alesiani do not teach: when determining that the current node is the endpoint, extracting an endpoint-connecting parent node set from the path convergence set table to obtain a multi-mobile vehicle optimal path node timing plan, summing a plurality of target functions on an optimal path to get a path cost, and updating relevant data on the path server; when determining that the current node is not the endpoint, determining whether the path expansion set table has no nodes; and when determining that the path expansion set table has no nodes, determining that the first mobile vehicle has no path.
However, Zhang teaches: determining whether the current node is an endpoint (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “(g) recycling step”] (g) recycling step (c)-(f) until the current node is the end point);
when determining that the current node is not the endpoint, determining whether the path expansion set table has no nodes (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “(f) when the target”] if the target node is not added to the OPEN list, and the OPEN list is empty, it shows that cannot find the optimal reference route); and
when determining that the path expansion set table has no nodes, determining that the first mobile vehicle has no path (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “(f) when the target”] if the target node is not added to the OPEN list, and the OPEN list is empty, it shows that cannot find the optimal reference route).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani to include the node exploration lists for path routing of Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using such a technique of sequentially determining the lowest function nodes along a path helps find the best route, as suggested by Zhang (see Zhang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “(f) when the target”] (f) when the target node is added to the OPEN list, it means finding the optimal reference route).
Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Zhang do not teach: when determining that the current node is the endpoint, extracting an endpoint-connecting parent node set from the path convergence set table to obtain a multi-mobile vehicle optimal path node timing plan, summing a plurality of target functions on an optimal path to get a path cost, and updating relevant data on the path server;
However, Yuan teaches: when determining that the current node is the endpoint, extracting an endpoint-connecting parent node set from the path convergence set table to obtain a multi-mobile vehicle optimal path node timing plan, summing a plurality of target functions on an optimal path to get a path cost, and updating relevant data on the path server (see Yuan at least [0084] a first start node and a first destination node of the current AGV may be determined in the first modified topological map. A plurality of first total costs associated with a plurality of nodes between the first start node and the first destination node may be determined based on node information in the first modified topological map. A first route planning may be performed for the current AGV based on the plurality of first total costs and [0036] the server 110 may be directly connected to or communicate with one or more components (e.g., the vehicle(s) 130, the terminal device(s) 140, the storage device 150) of the route planning system 100 and [0034] the server 110 may be directly connected to the vehicle(s) 130, the terminal device(s) 140, and/or the storage device 150 to access stored information and/or data and [0031] The systems may generate a target map by modifying at least part of node information of each of at least one of the plurality of nodes based on the motion status information associated with the one or more vehicles. Then the systems may determine a target route of the target vehicle based on the target map, the start location, and the destination. When determining the target route, the systems may determine a plurality of costs associated with a plurality of target nodes between a start node corresponding to the start location a destination node corresponding to the destination.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control system disclosed by Zhu, Shi, Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Zhang to include the completed planned route cost analysis of Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering and weighing a variety of costs in environments where multiple vehicles travel helps avoid costly outcomes such as multi-vehicle collisions, as suggested by Yuan (see Yuan at least [0072] according to the embodiments of the present disclosure, a situation under which the current AGV may collide with other AGVs can be avoided).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas, in view of Song, further in view of Alesiani, further in view of Cai, further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Sang.
Regarding claim 28, Douglas, Song, and Alesiani disclose: The method for controlling multi-mobile vehicles of claim 26.
Douglas, Song, and Alesiani do not teach: wherein, after the step of calculating the adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle to adjust the target function of the conflicting edge, the method further comprises: determining whether an adjacent node set exists in a path expansion set table; when the adjacent node set exists in the path expansion set table, determining whether an updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than a current target function value; when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating an adjacent node data and moving the adjacent node data back to the path expansion set table; when the adjacent node set does not exist in the path expansion set table, determining whether the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table; when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value; when determining that the adjacent node set does not exist in the path convergence set table, determining that the adjacent node set exists in neither the path expansion set table nor the path convergence set table, and adding the adjacent node to the path expansion set table; and when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating a plurality of adjacent node data of the path expansion set table of the first mobile vehicle.
However, Cai teaches: wherein, after the step of calculating the adjustment time of the first mobile vehicle to adjust the target function of the conflicting edge, the method further comprises: determining whether an adjacent node set exists in a path expansion set table (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table);
when the adjacent node set exists in the path expansion set table, determining whether an updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than a current target function value (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table, then calculating the new g (n) value according to the current path, when the new g (n) value is less than the g (n) value in the original OPEN table);
when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating an adjacent node data and moving the adjacent node data back to the path expansion set table (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table, then calculating the new g (n) value according to the current path, when the new g (n) value is less than the g (n) value in the original OPEN table, the adjacent node M takes the node N as the father node, updating the h (n) value of the node M, deleting the adjacent node M before updating in the OPEN table, placing the updated adjacent node M, and deleting the node N in the OPEN table); and
when the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value, updating a plurality of adjacent node data of the path expansion set table of the first mobile vehicle (see Cai at least [pg. 3, para. 9, beginning with “step six”] if the node M adjacent to the node N is already in the OPEN table, then calculating the new g (n) value according to the current path, when the new g (n) value is less than the g (n) value in the original OPEN table, the adjacent node M takes the node N as the father node, updating the h (n) value of the node M, deleting the adjacent node M before updating in the OPEN table, placing the updated adjacent node M, and deleting the node N in the OPEN table).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control method disclosed by Douglas, Song, and Alesiani to include the A-star search strategy featuring considering adjacent nodes and their respective function values of Cai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a search strategy helps determine the shortest route through an environment, as suggested by Cai (see Cai at least [pg. 2, para. 4, beginning with “A-star search”] A-star search strategy is a popular heuripotent path planning method, which is often used for finding the shortest path in the static road network, and also is an effective method for solving multiple search problems).
Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Cai do not teach: when the adjacent node set does not exist in the path expansion set table, determining whether the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table; when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value; and when determining that the adjacent node set does not exist in the path convergence set table, determining that the adjacent node set exists in neither the path expansion set table nor the path convergence set table, and adding the adjacent node to the path expansion set table.
However, Zhou teaches: when the adjacent node set does not exist in the path expansion set table, determining whether the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table (See Zhou at least [pg. 11, para. 2, beginning with “(2.4.3) each of the adjacent”] each of the adjacent domain of the current node meets the limit condition and is not in the close table of the node, if it is not in the open table); and
when determining that the adjacent node set does not exist in the path convergence set table, determining that the adjacent node set exists in neither the path expansion set table nor the path convergence set table, and adding the adjacent node to the path expansion set table (See Zhou at least [pg. 7, para. 1, beginning on pg. 6 with “The flow of the optimized”] each of the adjacent domain of the current node meets the limit condition and is not in the close table of the node, if it is not in the open table, then moving it into the table).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control method disclosed by Douglas, Song, Alesiani, and Cai to include the checking whether an adjacent node has been assigned to a list and if not assigning it to the open list of Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the open list is for nodes that have not yet been checked for their function values, as suggested by Zhou (see Zhou at least [pg. 7, para. 1, beginning on pg. 6 with “The flow of the optimized”] wherein the open table is stored all the detected but not verified node, the close table stores the checked node).
Douglas, Song, Alesiani, Cai, and Zhou do not teach: when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value.
However, Sang teaches: when determining that the adjacent node set exists in the path convergence set table, determining whether the updated target function value of the adjacent node set is less than the current target function value (see Sang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “the wave glider after”] calculating all the adjacent node in the CLOSED set, and obtaining the cost estimation by comparing the current node cost estimate with the cost estimate of the adjacent node, the cost estimate if the adjacent node is lower, then the node is added to the OPEN node set).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-mobile vehicle control method disclosed by Douglas, Song, Alesiani, Cai, and Zhou to include the determination of function value of an adjacent node in the closed set of Sang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so in each iteration allows the procedure to find the best global path, as suggested by Sang (see Sang at least [pg. 3, para. 8, beginning with “the wave glider after”] each iteration, the current node to the next node, then the current node is recorded to be the parent node of the next node, which is the target node to the next node until to the last extended. The information recorded by the father node, orderly iteration to obtain the global path).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 111060109 B ZHANG, TAO et al. discloses using an A* algorithm for path planning.
US 11397442 B2 Aisu; Hideyuki discloses a multiple-vehicle travel planning system for avoiding conflict based on timing scheduling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/20/26