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 .
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 1, 3, 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani (US 20230134204 A1) in view of Chambers (US 2018032168 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kuratani teaches, A transport facility,
comprising: at least one transport vehicle (1) configured to transport a transport article along a movement path ([0038] - vehicle (1) travels on track (4));
a wireless communicator (2 – access point) configured to perform wireless communication with the at least one transport vehicle (Abstract - access point (2) communicates with transport vehicle (1));
Kuratani fails to teach,
and a movable object movable separately from the at least one transport vehicle, and wherein the movable object comprises an information collector configured to collect communication state information indicating a state of wireless communication between the at least one transport vehicle and the wireless communicator.
However, Chambers teaches,
and a movable object (200) movable separately from the at least one transport vehicle ([0024] – mobile robot includes a drive configured to navigate an operating environment),
and wherein the movable object comprises an information collector (250) configured to collect communication state information indicating a state of wireless communication between the at least one transport vehicle and the wireless communicator ([0020] – system identifies if devices are beyond wireless communication range of each other based on respective signal strengths).
Kuratani and Chambers are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of AGV control and use. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuratani’s transport system to include the moveable object configured to collect communication state information taught by Chambers. As disclosed by Chambers, doing so allows for the mapping of signal strength and coverage data to create coverage maps for a predetermined area.
Regarding claim 3, Kuratani teaches, the transport facility according to claim 1,
further comprising: a rail (4) extending along the movement path, wherein the at least one transport vehicle (1) travels on the rail ([0038] – vehicle travels on a track),
Kuratani fails to teach
and wherein the movable object is movable on a path different from the movement path,
and collects the communication state information with the information collector while moving along the rail.
However, Chambers teaches,
and wherein the movable object is movable on a path different from the movement path ([0024] – mobile robot includes a drive configured to navigate an operating environment),
and collects the communication state information with the information collector while moving along the rail ([0020] – system identifies if devices are beyond wireless communication range of each other based on respective signal strengths).
Kuratani and Chambers are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of AGV control and use. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuratani’s transport system to include the moveable object configured to collect communication state information taught by Chambers for the reasons above disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kuratani teaches, the transport facility according to claim 1,
wherein: the at least one transport vehicle (1) comprises a plurality of transport vehicles (abstract- plurality of transport vehicles),
the transport facility further comprises a transport vehicle controller (3) configured to communicate with each of the plurality of transport vehicles through the wireless communicator to control the plurality of transport vehicles ([0009] - The communication system performs wireless polling communication between the controller and the plurality of traveling vehicles via the access point at each predetermined polling cycle),
the wireless communicator comprises a plurality of wireless transmitter-receivers (2) arranged in a distributed manner (fig. 1 – access points (2) distributed throughout facility),
and each of the plurality of transport vehicles (1) is connected to and communicates with a destination transmitter-receiver (2) selected from the plurality of wireless transmitter-receivers ([0043] – cart communication unit (11) performs wireless communication with access points),
and moves along the movement path while switching the destination transmitter-receiver ([0043] - the access point 2 with which the cart wireless communication unit (11) performs wireless communication may change according to the traveling position of the traveling cart (1) (roaming))
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani (US 2023/0134204 A1) in view of Chambers (US 2018/0321687 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Avinash (US 2016/0150427 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chambers teaches, the transport facility according to claim 1,
wherein: the movable object (200) further comprises a communication device (250) configured to perform wireless communication with a communication target ([0064] – wireless communication system communicates target),
and the communication target is at least one of the wireless communicator or the at least one transport vehicle ([moveable object (200) is configured to communicate with other wirelessly connected devices or with dock),
Both Kuratani and Chambers fail to teach,
the communication device performs a load applying process of communicating with the communication target to increase a communication load on the communication target,
and the information collector collects the communication state information during the load applying process.
However, Avinash teaches,
the communication device (218) performs a load applying process of communicating with the communication target (108) to increase a communication load on the communication target ([0030]/ [0031] – wireless traffic tests are performed to determine service coverage area of the various UAV’s),
and the information collector (214/216) collects the communication state information during the load applying process ([0017] – test data log module (214) and performance metrics module (216) collect information on wireless communication state during traffic tests).
Kuratani, Chambers and Avinash are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of AGV control and use. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuratani’s transport system and Chambers moveable object configured to collect communication state information to include the load applying process and information collector taught by Avinash. As disclosed by Avinash, this allows for more accurate mapping of coverage and data gathering for the connection state of devices by emulating a connected device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon in the application is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Shigetaka (US 20240132294 A1) – discloses a transport facility with multiple network node access points and controllers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights