Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “synchronization”, “consistency” and “normal state” (with respect to the integrated “serial data” and “area detection command data”) and also the various data types such as “serial data”, “area detection command data”, and “detection level data”. “Stop level” is also noted as being an unexplained nonstandard term that is crucial to several of the instant claims. There appears to be a gap (possibly due to translation issues between Korean and English) between the various methods said to be disclosed in the instant specification and our understanding of just what processes are being performed and how they achieve their purposes. For example, paragraphs [74]-[75], introducing the diagram fig. 5 which presents an example of applicant’s “integrated” data in the form of appended bit patterns, does not discuss the significance or meaning of the bit patterns. Paragraph [76] recites, “Therefore, first by determining the synchronization and consistency of the first serial data D11 of the first integrated data D1, the reliability of the remaining command data D12 may be ensured only when the synchronization and consistency are determined to be in a normal state, thereby enabling normal communication.” We see no consequential connection (no “therefore” relationship) between the appended bit patterns and the reliability of the remaining command data D12, nor do we see any method disclosed here for determining synchronization and consistency, much less “normal state” or “normal communication”. Rather, these paragraphs as well as the preceding paragraphs [57]-[73] either disclose mechanical aspects of the method without explaining them, or declare alleged beneficial consequences of the method steps, but never disclose how the method actually works and how a normal state of applicant’s driving direction detection unit is actually determined. See associated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) below.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant describes “serial data” in paragraph [58] as data that may be arranged in chronological or sequential order, which overrides the usual computer engineering interpretation of the term for this application. Applicant exemplifies “area detection command data” in [60]. Applicant describes “detection level data” in paragraph [61] as data regarding detections of movement actions such as turns. None of these paragraphs constitute formal lexicographic definitions of the terms as the paragraphs are hedged with qualifiers such as “Serial data may refer to….”
Our interpretations of the terms in this office action follow.
Regarding “serial data”, virtually any data whatsoever ordered in sequence may be considered serial data in this office action. Even random numbers generated in sequence may constitute serial data according to applicant’s [58] as there is no requirement that the data be collected by a sensor or indeed that it be related to an AMHS in any way.
Regarding “area detection command data”, we expand our interpretation beyond that exemplified by [60] using plain English meaning because [60] is non-limiting. Any data that has any bearing on areas (locations, positions, regions, places, directions, etc.) and/or the detection thereof, and/or commands related to areas or to detection of areas may be considered “area detection command data” in this office action. Among other examples, the common AMHS practice of labeling rail positions with barcode or RFID tags for detection by vehicle sensors will result in “area detection command data” when such sensors report their detections to a vehicle control unit as the vehicle approaches or passes by the tag.
Regarding “detection level data”, we include applicant’s exemplary series of movement action detections of [61] in our interpretation along with similar detections of correct or expected positions of the carriage as it performs its assigned movement tasks as suggested by [61]. We cannot expand the interpretation to include the plain English meaning even though [61] is non-limiting because the plain English meaning of “detection level data”, i.e. something like “the degree or level of detection data” does not seem to be germane to applicant’s invention. However, see claim objection below.
We note as an aside that applicant’s “command input/output data” also lacks any lexicographic definition and is not even exemplified in the manner of “serial data” or “area detection command data”. Had it been necessary to interpret this term in this office action, the interpretation would have been by plain English meaning, but in the actual event this term is always accompanied by an alternation with the extremely broad term “area detection command data” which made the use of “command input/output data” unnecessary. Moreover, “command input/output data” appears to overlap in meaning with “area detection command data.” The term “command input/output data” could therefore be redacted from all claims without broadening any claim.
If applicant wishes to narrow these very broad interpretations to the definitions loosely implied by their contingently qualified, exemplary, and non-definitive specification paragraphs, their claims should be amended to incorporate the narrower definitions explicitly.
Applicant sometimes uses the term “unit” to refer to a physical device (such as the claimed driving direction detection unit which is explicitly described as a structure) and sometimes as an aspect of software (such as the claimed serial data generation unit which appears to be a control function of the driving direction detection unit). Most of applicant’s units appear to be aspects of control software, where others may be aspects of a general-purpose computer such as a controller, but not all can be clearly identified. Where it is unclear whether a given unit is hardware or software, any combination of hardware and/or software that has the claimed functionality in a teaching reference may be mapped to the claimed unit.
Regarding applicant’s “driving direction determination unit”, applicant recites in claim 1 that it is “configured to detect a driving direction or surrounding objects.” This definition admits an extremely wide variety of sensors, from inertial compasses and electromagnetic sensors to photocells and cameras, all of which may be considered driving direction determination units or which may be comprised by such a unit. In this office action we interpret the driving direction determination unit as a device comprising at least one of any of these or similar sensors mounted as claimed on a “carriage” or vehicle that travels on a rail. Claim 1 is distinguished from generic AMHS or OHT systems in that apart from controlling the carriage (as all such systems do), the carriage’s controller also determines if the driving direction determination unit is operating normally.
Many claims refer to “integrated” data, for example the integration of “serial data” and “area detection command data”. While applicant’s specification supports integration in the form of appending bit patterns together (see figs. 5-6), in the absence of an invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the specification does not limit the claims. No lexicographic definition is provided for the term “integration”, for which a broadest reasonable interpretation is very broad indeed. Any function or algorithm that makes use of two data elements as inputs to yield some output may be said to integrate the data as the output is determined by the combination or integration of inputs.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-11, 13, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the term “detection level data” which is not lexicographically defined in the instant specification. As somewhat loosely explained in paragraph [61], this data has nothing to do with “detection levels” or levels of any kind, but rather has to do with a sequence of movement actions on a rail network such as turns and straight movement between intersections, which, when detected, can be compared to the commanded movements of the carriage. As currently employed in the claims, the term is almost obfuscatory. This objection can be overcome by explicitly explaining the term clearly, concisely, and exactly in the claims in which it is introduced. See also rejections related to “stop level” under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 disclose “serial data” meaning, per the non-limiting explanation of applicant’s paragraph [58], data generated in a chronological order. Per this explanation, any data collected by a sensor and transmitted when collected is serial data, and moreover even random numbers generated in sequence are serial data. We do not understand how such broadly defined serial data may be used as claimed to determine the normal operation or state of applicant’s driving direction detection unit, which appears to be a sensor. Applicant’s paragraphs [57]-[79] purport to explain applicant’s method, but fail to provide sufficient information for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how applicant’s invention actually works and what it does. Applicant repeatedly asserts in these paragraphs that serial data (combined or “integrated” with area detection command data) enables determinations of consistency and synchronization that in turn are said to determine a normal state or normal operation of the claimed unit. However, while certain explicit procedural steps such as the appending of bit patterns related to the data are fully disclosed (see also applicant’s figs. 5-6), the means by which these determinations of consistency, synchronization, and normal state or operation are made on the basis of the integrated data is undisclosed. This amounts to a failure of written support for applicant’s claims.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 inherit the lack of written support of claims 1 and 14 respectively.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, the failures of written support cited in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above also constitute points of indefiniteness as it is unclear what applicant’s invention is actually doing and how it works. See rejections above for a discussion of the explanatory gap in the instant application. Claims 2-13 and 15-19 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1 and 14.
Claims 1 and 20 moreover contain limitations with the phrase “operating normally” that are subjective limitations. The instant specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of a “normal” operation. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. See In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970). Claims 2-13 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 6 moreover recites, “…configured to periodically determine consistency between the first serial data of the first integrated data, determined as synchronized, and first serial data generated by the vehicle control unit or an external server.” This limitation appears to be internally inconsistent. “First serial data” cannot both be integrated from data originating with the driving direction detection unit and be generated by the vehicle control unit, as the driving direction detection unit is not comprised by the vehicle control unit and indeed is explicitly stated in parent claim 1 to be different and separate from it. According to the parent claims, first serial data is explicitly generated by the serial data generation unit, which is comprised by the driving direction detection unit. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we interpret the claim as requiring a consistency check on the integrated, synchronized serial data and area detection command data without reference to its source. Claim 7 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 6.
Claims 13, 18, and 20 moreover recite the term “stop level”, which is not a standard term of art (appearing in no PE2E documents in combination with field of art terms AMHS or OHT), and which is not lexicographically defined in the instant specification. Paragraphs such as [20] refer to a stop level without providing any explanation of what a stop level may be. As the term is not understood this is another point of indefiniteness. Claim 19 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 18. For purpose of examination on the merits in this office action we interpret “stop level” as a signal to stop recognized or received by an AMHS vehicle such as applicant’s carriage, but this is mere speculation as to applicant’s intended meaning. As an aside, we suspect the word “level” in the terms “detection level data” and “stop level” is due to a translation error, but we cannot suggest what word applicant may have intended in its place.
Claims 5, 11, 15, 17, and 20 recite the limitation "under same conditions” in lines 3, 3, 3, 3, and 24 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. No conditions have yet been introduced in these or any parent claims which can be compared as “the same”, nor is it clear even what conditions are being referred to. Claims 6-7 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 5, claims 12-13 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 11, and claims 16-19 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 15 and 17. Note that even if “same conditions” were supplied with an antecedent basis it would still be indefinite on the grounds of lack of clarity as to the association of “conditions” with the claimed data. We cannot guess what conditions applicant intends in these claims. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action we must disregard the claimed “same conditions”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi Takao, US 2011/0251735 (hereinafter Hayashi).
Hayashi discloses:
A carriage driving method of a carriage driving system (traveling vehicle system 2: fig. 1) which comprises
a carriage (vehicle 10: fig. 1) configured to travel along a driving rail of a track (routes 4, 6, 8: fig. 1, vehicle on rails [0003]),
a driving direction detection unit (plurality of sensors including linear sensor 52: fig. 3) formed on a part of the carriage and configured to detect a driving direction or surrounding objects,Hayashi discloses a plurality of sensors in [0033]-[0035], several of which including linear sensor 52 could be used either to detect a driving direction or to detect surrounding objects. The claimed driving direction detection unit comprises these sensors.
and a vehicle control unit (controller 41: fig. 3) formed on another part of the carriage and configured to control driving of the carriage,
the carriage driving method comprising:
(a) at the driving direction detection unit, receiving area detection command data or command input/output data from the vehicle control unit;“Area detection command data”, per Claim Interpretation, may be data regarding the detection of objects in the carriage’s area. Thus, Hayashi’s linear detector, which detects magnetic markings on the rails in order to determine carriage position and velocity (velocity, being a vector, always includes direction), generates area detection command data.
(b) at the driving direction detection unit, generating first serial data and integrating the area detection command data or command input/output data with the first serial data;The claimed integration with serial data occurs through timestamping this data, as Hayashi discloses in [0034], as timestamps are a form of serial data.
and (c) at the vehicle control unit, receiving first integrated data, in which the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data are integrated or sequentially linked.Per Claim Interpretation above, serial data is any sequential or time-ordered data. As Hayashi discloses timestamping its sensor data in [0034], this data is serial data and the timestamping is generated by software that maps to the claimed serial data generation unit. The integration step comprises appending the timestamp to sensor data.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Ryle, et al., US 5,606,251 (hereinafter Ryle).
Regarding claim 1,
Hayashi discloses:
A carriage driving system (traveling vehicle system 2: fig. 1) comprising:
a carriage (vehicle 10: fig. 1) configured to travel along a driving rail of a track (routes 4, 6, 8: fig. 1, vehicle on rails [0003]);
a driving direction detection unit (plurality of sensors including linear sensor 52: fig. 3) formed on a part of the carriage and configured to detect a driving direction or surrounding objects;Hayashi discloses a plurality of sensors in [0033]-[0035], several of which including linear sensor 52 could be used either to detect a driving direction or to detect surrounding objects. The claimed driving direction detection unit comprises these sensors.
and a vehicle control unit (controller 41: fig. 3) formed on another part of the carriage and configured to control driving of the carriage,
wherein the driving direction detection unit comprises at least one serial data generation unit configured to generate serial data (data generated over time and timestamped, [0034]) [so as to allow the vehicle control unit to check in real time whether the driving direction detection unit is operating normally].Per Claim Interpretation above, serial data is any sequential or time-ordered data. As Hayashi discloses timestamping its sensor data in [0034], this data is serial data and the timestamping is generated by software that maps to the claimed serial data generation unit.
However, Hayashi does not disclose all aspects of:
so as to allow the vehicle control unit to check in real time whether the driving direction detection unit is operating normally.While Hayashi’s system detects an abnormal condition of a vehicle by analysis of “serial data” generated as claimed, it does not explicitly detect an abnormality in the vehicle sensors, i.e. in its “driving direction detection unit”. However, inasmuch as an abnormality in a sensor of a vehicle is an abnormality of the vehicle, Hayashi’s method is compatible with the claimed method and Hayashi may well be implicitly determining sensor failures.
Ryle, an invention in the field of substrate processing, teaches:
so as to allow the vehicle control unit to check in real time whether the driving direction detection unit is operating normally.Ryle teaches this method in C19/L1-28. Using data collected over time, Ryle’s system infers that one of two sensors may be abnormal. In combination with Hayashi and its plurality of sensors, Ryle’s method would be used to determine if Hayashi’s driving direction detection unit is operating normally by introducing pairs of similar sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Hayashi, so as to allow the vehicle control unit to check in real time whether the driving direction detection unit is operating normally, as taught by Ryle, because plainly the determination that a vehicle sensor is faulty (i.e. that it is no longer operating normally) is an important indicator for maintaining the vehicle and avoiding costly damage to systems and substrates in an AMHS.
Regarding claim 2,
Hayashi in view of Ryle teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the driving direction detection unit comprises an area detection command data receiving unit configured to receive area detection command data or command input/output data from the vehicle control unit and a first serial data generation unit configured to generate first serial data and integrate the area detection command data or command input/output data with the first serial data.As noted above under Claim Interpretation, we consider all these “units” apart from the driving direction detection unit either to be aspects of control software or aspects of a general purpose computer. In particular the claimed receiving unit is mapped to the aspect of control software that receives sensor inputs from a controller’s data communication interface, a universal feature of all controllers. Hayashi has already been demonstrated to generate serial data in the form of timestamped data. “Area detection command data”, per Claim Interpretation, may be data regarding the detection of objects in the carriage’s area. Thus, Hayashi’s linear detector, which detects magnetic markings on the rails in order to determine carriage position and velocity (velocity, being a vector, always includes direction), generates area detection command data. The claimed integration with serial data occurs through timestamping this data, as Hayashi discloses in [0034], as timestamps are a form of serial data.
Regarding claim 3,
Hayashi in view of Ryle teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the vehicle control unit comprises an area detection command data transmission unit configured to transmit the area detection command data or command input/output data to the area detection command data receiving unit and a first integrated data receiving unit configured to receive first integrated data in which the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data are integrated or sequentially linked.Again, the claimed transmission and receiving units are mapped to aspects of control software and not to real devices. We consider these units to be software implementations of algorithmic steps that take inputs and generate outputs. By timestamping sensor data per [0034], Hayashi’s system performs these integration and sequential linking steps.
Regarding claim 8,
Hayashi in view of Ryle teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the driving direction detection unit comprises a detection level data transmission unit configured to transmit detection level data detected by a sensor to the vehicle control unit and a second serial data generation unit configured to generate second serial data and integrate the detection level data with the second serial data.Hayashi discloses the generation and transmission of detection level data in [0034] in the form of recognition of expected position marks by the linear sensor. Also per [0034], linear sensor data is integrated with timestamp information representing serial data. The detection level data transmission unit is considered an aspect of control software per Claim Interpretation and is implied by Hayashi’s control unit which must be in communication with its driving direction detection unit to receive the claimed information. All general purpose computers such as controllers comprise data communications interfaces.
Regarding claim 9,
Hayashi in view of Ryle teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein the vehicle control unit comprises a second integrated data receiving unit configured to receive second integrated data in which the detection level data and the second serial data are integrated or sequentially linked.The second integrated data receiving unit is considered an aspect of control software per Claim Interpretation and is implied by Hayashi’s control unit which must be in communication with its driving direction detection unit to receive the claimed information. All general purpose computers such as controllers comprise data communications interfaces.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Ryle and further in view of Arnold, et al., US 1,0250,868 (hereinafter Arnold).
Regarding claim 4,
Hayashi in view of Ryle teaches the limitations of claim 3, but not:
wherein the first integrated data is a data set in which first serial data, located at one or more predetermined positions among a front, middle, or rear position of the entire data set, is integrated with command data located at remaining positions.While Hayashi teaches integration via timestamping, neither reference explicitly teaches applicant’s method of appending the elements of data as claimed. However, Hayashi’s integration method is compatible with the claimed method.
Arnold, an invention in the field of data stream synchronization, teaches:
wherein the first integrated data is a data set in which first serial data, located at one or more predetermined positions among a front, middle, or rear position of the entire data set, is integrated with command data located at remaining positions.Arnold teaches appending time stamps to sensor data in C24/L43-56. This amounts to setting the timestamp (serial data) to a predetermined position at the rear position of the data set as part of integrating the data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Hayashi and Ryle, wherein the first integrated data is a data set in which first serial data, located at one or more predetermined positions among a front, middle, or rear position of the entire data set, is integrated with command data located at remaining positions, as taught by Arnold, because given data integration in the form of appending data elements, the appended data must necessarily be placed in the front, middle, or rear of a data set as no other options are possible. Of course, appending time stamps to other data is well known and commonplace in all data processing arts.
Regarding claim 5,
Hayashi in view of Ryle teaches the limitations of claim 3, but not:
wherein the vehicle control unit further comprises a synchronization determination unit configured to periodically determine real-time synchronization under same conditions between the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data of the first integrated data.Neither reference teaches data synchronization.
Arnold, an invention in the field of data stream synchronization, teaches:
wherein the vehicle control unit further comprises a synchronization determination unit configured to periodically determine real-time synchronization under same conditions between the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data of the first integrated data.Arnold teaches data stream synchronization throughout its lengthy disclosure, but introduces its method in C2/L25-44, using timestamps (a form of serial data also employed by Hayashi) to support the determination of synchronization. In combination with references Hayashi and Ryle, Arnold’s method would be used to determine synchronization of Hayashi’s serial data and area detection command data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Hayashi and Ryle, wherein the vehicle control unit further comprises a synchronization determination unit configured to periodically determine real-time synchronization under same conditions between the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data of the first integrated data, as taught by Arnold, because given two data elements which it is desirable to integrate such as serial data and area command detection data, integration by synchronization is a common method for timestamped or otherwise temporally ordered data.
Regarding claim 6,
Hayashi in view of Ryle and Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 5, and also:
wherein the vehicle control unit further comprises a consistency determination unit configured to periodically determine consistency between the first serial data of the first integrated data, determined as synchronized, and first serial data generated by the vehicle control unit or an external server.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret this claim as requiring a consistency check on the integrated synchronized data of the parent claim. Arnold teaches this check in C24/L19-42, referring to the consistency of timestamps from different data sources as part of synchronization with a 100-ms rounding method to achieve this consistency.
Regarding claim 7,
Hayashi in view of Ryle and Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 6, and also:
wherein the vehicle control unit further comprises an error signal output unit configured to output an error signal to stop driving or enable taking follow-up actions when synchronization or consistency is determined to be inadequate.Hayashi discloses in [0007] the reporting of abnormal sensor data, which reporting constitutes the claimed follow-up action. In combination with Arnold, which determines synchronization and consistency, Hayashi’s reporting would be triggered by an abnormality in the form of a failure of synchronization or consistency.
Regarding claim 10,
Hayashi in view of Ryle teaches the limitations of claim 9 but not all aspects of:
wherein the second integrated data is a data set in which second serial data, located at one or more predetermined positions among a front, middle, or rear position of the entire data set, is integrated with detection level data located at remaining positions.While Hayashi teaches integration via timestamping, neither reference explicitly teaches applicant’s method of appending the elements of data as claimed. However, Hayashi’s integration method is compatible with the claimed method.
Arnold, an invention in the field of data stream synchronization, teaches:
wherein the second integrated data is a data set in which second serial data, located at one or more predetermined positions among a front, middle, or rear position of the entire data set, is integrated with detection level data located at remaining positions..Arnold teaches appending time stamps to sensor data in C24/L43-56. This amounts to setting the timestamp (serial data) to a predetermined position at the rear position of the data set as part of integrating the data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Hayashi and Ryle, wherein the second integrated data is a data set in which second serial data, located at one or more predetermined positions among a front, middle, or rear position of the entire data set, is integrated with detection level data located at remaining positions, as taught by Arnold, because given data integration in the form of appending data elements, the appended data must necessarily be placed in the front, middle, or rear of a data set as no other options are possible. Of course, appending time stamps to other data is well known and commonplace in all data processing arts.
Regarding claim 11,
Hayashi in view of Ryle and Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the vehicle control unit further comprises a synchronization determination unit configured to periodically determine real-time synchronization under same conditions between the detection level data and the second serial data of the second integrated data.Arnold teaches data stream synchronization throughout its lengthy disclosure, but introduces its method in C2/L25-44, using timestamps (a form of serial data also employed by Hayashi) to support the determination of synchronization. In combination with references Hayashi and Ryle, Arnold’s method would be used to determine synchronization of Hayashi’s serial data and detection level data.
Regarding claim 12,
Hayashi in view of Ryle and Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 11 and also:
wherein the vehicle control unit further comprises a consistency determination unit configured to periodically determine consistency between the second serial data of the second integrated data, determined as synchronized, and second serial data generated by the vehicle control unit.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret this claim as requiring a consistency check on the integrated synchronized data of the parent claim. Arnold teaches this check in C24/L19-42, referring to the consistency of timestamps from different data sources as part of synchronization with a 100-ms rounding method to achieve this consistency.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Arnold.
Regarding claim 15,
Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 14 but not:
further comprising, after step (c):
(d) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining real-time synchronization under same conditions between the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data of the first integrated data;Hayashi does not disclose this data synchronization step.
(e) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining consistency between the first serial data of the first integrated data, determined as synchronized, and first serial data generated by the vehicle control unit;Hayashi does not disclose this data consistency and synchronization step.
and (f) at the vehicle control unit, outputting an error signal to stop driving or enable taking follow-up actions if synchronization or consistency is determined to be inadequate.While Hayashi discloses taking follow-up action in an abnormal condition, it does not do so explicitly in response to data synchronization or consistency problems.
Arnold, an invention in the field of data stream synchronization, teaches:
(d) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining real-time synchronization under same conditions between the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data of the first integrated data;Arnold teaches data stream synchronization throughout its lengthy disclosure, but introduces its method in C2/L25-44, using timestamps (a form of serial data also employed by Hayashi) to support the determination of synchronization. In combination with references Hayashi and Ryle, Arnold’s method would be used to determine synchronization of Hayashi’s serial data and area detection command data.
(e) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining consistency between the first serial data of the first integrated data, determined as synchronized, and first serial data generated by the vehicle control unit;Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret this limitation as requiring a consistency check on the integrated synchronized data of the parent claim. Arnold teaches this check in C24/L19-42, referring to the consistency of timestamps from different data sources as part of synchronization with a 100-ms rounding method to achieve this consistency.
and (f) at the vehicle control unit, outputting an error signal to stop driving or enable taking follow-up actions if synchronization or consistency is determined to be inadequate.As Hayashi discloses in [0007] taking follow-up action in the form of a notification when an abnormal condition is detected, in combination with Arnold’s determination of synchronization and consistency, Hayashi would issue the notification in the claimed situation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Hayashi, further comprising, after step (c): (d) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining real-time synchronization under same conditions between the area detection command data or command input/output data and the first serial data of the first integrated data; (e) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining consistency between the first serial data of the first integrated data, determined as synchronized, and first serial data generated by the vehicle control unit; and (f) at the vehicle control unit, outputting an error signal to stop driving or enable taking follow-up actions if synchronization or consistency is determined to be inadequate, as taught by Arnold, because when data is transmitted from sensors and integrated sequentially with timestamps, synchronization and consistency of the integrated data are determining factors for abnormality of the data and hence either abnormality of the vehicle and the AMHS in which the vehicle operates or abnormality of the sensors themselves, and in either case, follow-up action should plainly be taken to avoid expensive damage to the vehicle, the system, or to their carried substrates.
Regarding claim 16,
Hayashi in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 15 and also:
further comprising, after step (f):
(g) at the driving direction detection unit, transmitting detection level data detected by a sensor to the vehicle control unit;Hayashi discloses the generation and transmission of detection level data in [0034] in the form of recognition of expected position marks by the linear sensor.
(h) at the driving direction detection unit, generating second serial data and integrating the detection level data and the second serial data;Per [0034], linear sensor data is integrated with timestamp information representing serial data.
and (i) at the vehicle control unit, receiving second integrated data in which the detection level data and the second serial data are integrated or sequentially linked.The claimed integration step is disclosed in [0034] and per [0034] the controller processes this integrated information.
Regarding claim 17,
Hayashi in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 16 and also:
further comprising, after step (i):
(j) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining real-time synchronization under same conditions between the detection level data and the second serial data of the second integrated data;Arnold teaches data stream synchronization throughout its lengthy disclosure, but introduces its method in C2/L25-44, using timestamps (a form of serial data also employed by Hayashi) to support the determination of synchronization. In combination with references Hayashi and Ryle, Arnold’s method would be used to determine synchronization of Hayashi’s serial data and detection level data.
(k) at the vehicle control unit, periodically determining consistency between the second serial data of the second integrated data, determined as synchronized, and second serial data generated by the vehicle control unit;Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret this claim as requiring a consistency check on the integrated synchronized data of the parent claim. Arnold teaches this check in C24/L19-42, referring to the consistency of timestamps from different data sources as part of synchronization with a 100-ms rounding method to achieve this consistency.
and (l) at the vehicle control unit, outputting an error signal to stop driving or enable taking follow-up actions if synchronization or consistency is determined to be inadequate.Hayashi discloses in [0007] the reporting of abnormal sensor data, which reporting constitutes the claimed follow-up action. In combination with Arnold, which determines synchronization and consistency, Hayashi’s reporting would be triggered by an abnormality in the form of a failure of synchronization or consistency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: we first generally observe that while extensive art teaches the detection of anomalies and abnormalities in AMHS and OHT systems and vehicles, relatively little art teaches the detection of anomalies and abnormalities specifically in a “driving direction detection unit” or similar sensor device of an AMHS vehicle as disclosed in applicant’s claim 1, and this scarcity reduces the number of references capable of teaching the claims, either separately or in combination.
Regarding independent claim 20 and dependent claims 13 and 18, the key point of novelty we observe is the use of so-called “stop levels” in the context of applicant’s “detection level” data which is integrated with serial data to enable synchronization and consistency checks which in turn may determine the normal operation of applicant’s driving direction detection unit. While the term “stop level” is identified as indefinite in this application, our best guess as to its proper interpretation pertains to a signal to stop applicant’s carriage that must be detected by the carriage’s driving direction detection unit and which must be synchronized and checked for consistency with its commands to reflect normal operation. While primary reference Hayashi teaches detection level information in general, it does not teach the “stop level” in any recognizable form. Claim 19 inherits the potential allowability of claim 18.
We note that the apparent novelty and hence the potential allowability of applicant’s claims cited above may at least in part be due to their indefiniteness. If the objections to the specification and the rejections of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) noted above are overcome through amendment, including providing a clear, concise, and exact definition of “stop level” for the potentially allowable claims, new grounds for prior art rejection may be found based on a better understanding of the actual operation of applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2023032636 teaches time-series (“serial”) data used to analyze abnormalities in sensor data, but not for the purpose of identifying an abnormality in a sensing unit but rather to identify an abnormality in a learning model. US 2007/0069892 also teaches time-stamped sensor data for MEMS sensors associated with an AMHS, but not in connection with determining the normal function of a vehicle’s control or sensor systems. WO 2017199593 teaches the determination of an abnormal or erroneous detection which may be suppressed if determined, but not as an indicator for the abnormal function of a sensing unit. KR 20110112771 teaches the use of time series data to detect abnormality of a vehicle or a system in real time using an abnormality sensor, but again not the abnormality of the sensor unit itself.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights