DETAILED ACTION
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka (US Pub No 2024/0010250).
In regard to claim 1, Otsuka discloses a transport system (see the Title and Abstract) comprising:
a first transport vehicle (comprising, at least, first drive unit, 2 and wheels 11, Fig 2) including a first driving wheel (11) and configured to move by rotation of the first driving wheel (for example, see Paragraph 0028: “the output rotation of the motor to the wheels”);
a second transport vehicle (comprising, at least, second drive unit, 3 and wheels 12) including a second driving wheel (12) and configured to move by rotation of the second driving wheel (see Paragraph 0028); and
an upper controller (control device 10, Fig 2, considered to be a “upper” controller as it is higher in the command structure; i.e., it sends control commands down to drive devices 2 and 3) controlling the first transport vehicle and the second transport vehicle (Paragraph 0029: “The control device 10 controls the first drive device 2 and the second drive device 3.”),
wherein the upper controller provides a cooperative transport command to the first transport vehicle and the second transport vehicle (see Fig 2 and the flowchart of Fig 5, along with Paragraph 0033: “FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing an example of control processing by the control device 10. In the following description, torque that is transmitted from the first drive device 2 to the first wheels 11 is given as “first wheel torque T1”, and torque that is transmitted from the second drive device 3 to the second wheels 12 is given as “second wheel torque T2”.”),
the first transport vehicle generates a position command according to the cooperative transport command, generates a first torque command based on the position command, and controls the first driving wheel based on the first torque command, and
See Paragraph 0034: “the control device 10, first, determines the first wheel torque T1 based on at least either a target position or a target velocity of the body 1 (step #1)”).
Also see Paragraph 0063: “in the present embodiment, the first wheel torque T1 is determined based on at least either the target position or target velocity of the body 1”.
In other words, a position of the first vehicle is determined when a command is sent by control device 10, and a torque value is determined based on the determined position.
the second transport vehicle receives the first torque command and controls the second driving wheel based on the first torque command (see step #10 in Fig 5; also see Paragraph 0063: “the second wheel torque T2 is determined based on multiplication of the determined first wheel torque T1 by the setting coefficient K”).
In regard to claim 2, Otsuka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second transport vehicle does not receive the position command (Torque T1 of the first wheels being determined based on the position command. Torque T2 being based to T1 and coefficient K, see Fig 5 and Paragraphs 0034 and 0063).
In regard to claim 3, Otsuka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second transport vehicle receives the first torque command through vehicle to vehicle communication (communication within the system of Otsuka considered to be “vehicle to vehicle communication”, as broadly claimed, as it involves communication of torque information from unit (vehicle) 2 to provide a torque signal to unit (vehicle) 3).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US Pub No 2024/0010250) in view of Oh (US Pub No 2019/0196456).
In regard to claim 4,
Otsuka discloses the system of claim 1.
Otsuka does not positively disclose wherein the upper controller provides a command specifying that the first transport vehicle is a master vehicle and the second transport vehicle is a slave vehicle to the first transport vehicle and the second transport vehicle.
However, it is known in the art, in general, when utilizing a pair of drive units, to establish one of the units as a master and the other as a slave.
For example, see Oh. Oh discloses a similar overhead transport system utilizing multiple vehicles. Most importantly, Oh teaches using one vehicle arranged as a master and another vehicle arranged as a slave, to allow for more stable communication (see Paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system of Otsuka such that the upper controller provides a command specifying that the first transport vehicle is a master vehicle and the second transport vehicle is a slave vehicle to the first transport vehicle and the second transport vehicle, to allow for stable communication between the vehicles as taught by Oh.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US Pub No 2024/0010250), alone.
In regard to claim 8,
Otsuka discloses the system of claim 1.
Further, Otsuka discloses adjusting the torque output ratio between the first vehicle and second vehicle based on the relative loading the wheel of each vehicle sees (see the Abstract: “the control device controlling the first drive device and the second drive device in such a manner that a torque ratio of a wheel with increased load, which is a ratio of a torque transmitted to the wheel with increased load to a sum of a first wheel torque and a second wheel torque, is higher while the body is accelerating and decelerating than while the body is traveling at constant velocity, where the wheel with increased load is one of the first wheel and the second wheel that is subjected to an increase in vertical downward load that increases in response to acceleration or deceleration of the body”).
In other words, in the system of Otsuka, the ratio of the first torque and the second torque of the first and second vehicles would change depending on the inclination of the track.
Otsuka does not positively disclose “wherein the first transport vehicle generates a first current for rotation of the first driving wheel based on the first torque command, the second transport vehicle generates a second current for rotation of the second driving wheel based on the first torque command”.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is ubiquitously known throughout the art to control a motor output torque by adjusting current through the motor, and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system of Otsuka thus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 5, Examiner notes especially the following limitations:
“the first motion controller generates the position command at preset intervals, the first driver generates the first torque command based on the position command, and generates a first current for rotation of the first driving wheel based on the first torque command, and the first communicator transmits the first torque command to the second transport vehicle”.
Claims 9-20 appear to contain allowable subject matter.
In regard to claim 9, Examiner notes especially the following limitations:
“wherein in a first mode, the motion controller generates a position command, and the driver generates a first torque command based on the position command, and generates a first current for rotation of the driving wheel based on the first torque command, and in a second mode, the driver generates a second current for rotation of the first driving wheel based on a second torque command provided from the outside through the communicator”.
In regard to claim 16, Examiner notes especially the following limitations:
“wherein the motion controller generates a position command at preset intervals, the driver receives an encoder signal from an encoder of the motor that rotates the driving wheel, the driver generates a speed command for changing a speed of the transport vehicle based on the encoder signal, the driver generates a torque command for changing an acceleration of the transport vehicle based on the speed command, the communicator transmits the torque command to a slave vehicle performing a cooperative transport together, and the driver generates a current corresponding to the torque command and rotates the driving wheel”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747