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 .
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant filed information disclosure statement.
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.
Claims 5 and 13 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.
Claims 5 and 13 recite the limitation "the self-driving material transport vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-20 are directed to a method and system.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 9 and 17 recite the limitations of
receiving an assembly-line layout associated with the assembly line; operating…with respect to the assembly-line layout to deliver one or more parts according to a mission; receiving a layout update to the assembly-line layout; and in response to receiving the layout update to the assembly-line layout, adapting… to operate with respect to the updated assembly-line layout for the mission.
Claim 17 recites additional limitations of implementing and replacing…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, implementing, operating, replacing and adapting data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a processor and self-driving vehicle system, the claim language encompasses simply receiving layout data, receiving layout update data, and operating/adapting to a mission of delivering parts based on the layout data. The claim limitations are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, user is able to receive layout data and then receive updated layout data to carry out a mission of delivering parts to an assembly line. A user is also capable of implementing and replacing data. The claimed invention is merely a manual process that is automated.
The claims also recite the business aspects of an assembly line and the tasks of delivering parts with respect to a layout. The Applicant’s specification also states optimizing paths for the mission to be complete in para 0068. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of self-driving vehicle system, fleet management system, self-driving vehicle, processor, and self-driving material transport vehicle.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further recite what happens to the initial layout such as being replaced or updated by the updated layout data. In addition, the dependent claims recite how the layout data is represented such as by a map.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 and 17 recite
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further recites self-driving vehicle system
Claim 5 recites self-driving material transport vehicle.
Claim 6 recites fleet of self-driving vehicles
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 recite fleet management system
Claim 9 recites system, self-driving vehicle, processor
Claim 13 recites self-driving material transport vehicle
Claim 14 recites and fleet of self-driving vehicles
Claim 17 recites self-driving vehicle system
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0041.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0041. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahara (US20160253611A1) in further view of Ames (US8010220B1) in further view of Nusser (US9733646B1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 9, Nagahara teaches
A method (See para 0003-An example of a conventional method of the component-shelf-layout design that aims to improve the efficiency of the picking operation is a method described in Patent Literature 1 in which the arrangement of the component shelves is determined in accordance with a delivery frequency of each component.) (See fig. 12) This shows a method.
A system (See fig. 2) This shows a system.
the method comprising: receiving an …layout…(See fig. 7 and para 0047-In Step S200, a current component-shelf layout L0 is acquired from the component-shelf-layout information table in FIG. 7.) This shows a layout is received. This is with respect to shelf layout in a production/distribution warehouse.
Operating…with respect to the…layout to deliver one or more parts according to a mission (See fig. 3 and para 0024- A picking operator starts from a picking-start point and travels the picking area to collect a plurality of components. Upon completing collecting all the instructed components, the picking operator moves to a picking-end point. ) This shows a picking operator operates with respect to the layout to fulfill a mission of picking parts. The operator is picking parts for delivery (See para 0002-A typical example of an operation for delivering a desired component from warehouse is a picking operation. )
receiving a layout update to…layout (See para 0050-The processes in Step S400 and S500 are repeated from a value 1 of a counter n to a value N. Step S400 is a process by the new component-shelf layout creation unit 121 of the control unit 120 and creates a new component-shelf layout. More specifically, a component-shelf layout Ln is created by changing a portion of the component-shelf layouts L0 to Ln-1. The following two methods may be used as a changing method, for example. Either one of them may be used, or both may be applied alternately.) This shows that the system receives a layout update by way of generating a new layout by the creating unit 121.
And in response to receiving the layout update to the assembly-line layout, adapting…to operate with respect to the updated…layout for the mission. (See para 0003-hanging the component-shelf layout in accordance with the above-described method enables a picking operator to perform the picking operation in a shorter movement distance, so that the efficiency of the picking operation can be improved.) (See para 0008-According to the present invention, a user of this device can determine a component-shelf layout that can improve the efficiency of a picking operation and suppress an occurrence of a replenishment operation simultaneously.) This shows the operator is enabled to use the layout update to work more efficiently. In another interpretation, the operator is adapted/enabled to adjust to multiple layouts since the art teaches results data (See para 0027-The picking-operation-results information storage area 111 stores information specifying a result of a past picking operation therein. In the present embodiment, for example, a picking-operation-results information table shown in FIG. 4 is stored.)(See para 0057- As the picking-operation-results data, not only past results data but also future prediction data can be imported).
However Nagahara doesn’t teach that the layout is an assembly line, however Ames teaches an assembly-line…associated with the assembly line (See fig. 2 and 5 which show an assembly line.) (See col. 11-12-The parts delivery management system and method of the present invention meets the goals described above and allows an associate to continue concentrating on his or work while the manufactured products pass on the assembly line.)
Nagahara and Ames are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Ames because Nagahara can also use the limitation of Ames when determining packaging for parts. Determining packaging for parts would add another layer of analysis in addition to the placement of parts on the shelves. Having this analysis would also help the art of Nagahara be more efficient in delivering parts since the operator would travel less if all the parts would be packaged together in one location on the shelf. Both arts are teaching efficiency in picking and delivering parts.
In addition, even though Nagahara teaches operator to pick and replenish parts, it doesn’t teach that the operator is a self-driving vehicle system, however Nusser teaches the self-driving vehicle system (See fig. 2A and 2C which shows an autonomous vehicle). (See col. 9-10- FIG. 2A illustrates a robotic truck unloader, according to an example embodiment. In some examples, a robotic truck unloader may include one or more sensors, one or more computers, and one or more robotic arms. ) This shows a self-driving vehicle system which corresponds to the vehicle.
a self-driving vehicle having a processor configured to (See fig. 2A and 2C which shows an autonomous vehicle). (See col. 9-10- FIG. 2A illustrates a robotic truck unloader, according to an example embodiment. In some examples, a robotic truck unloader may include one or more sensors, one or more computers, and one or more robotic arms. ) A computer includes a processor.
Nagahara and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Nagahara’s can also use autonomous vehicles. This would help the art of Nusser efficiently pick and deliver items without the use of human intervention. This would make the art of Nagahara more efficient.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9, however Nagahara further teaches
wherein receiving the layout update to the assembly-line layout comprises: receiving a new assembly-line layout associated with a new assembly-line layout; and replacing the assembly-line layout with the new assembly-line layout. The art teaches that the first layout is replaced with a second layout as seem here (See para 0056-In Step S700, a layout change is extracted when the current component-shelf layout L0 is changed to the optimal component-shelf layout LOpt. )
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9, however Nagahara further teaches
wherein receiving the layout update to the assembly-line layout comprises:receiving a layout update to the assembly-line layout; and updating the assembly-line layout with the layout update. The art teaches that the first layout is replaced with a second layout (See para 0056-In Step S700, a layout change is extracted when the current component-shelf layout L0 is changed to the optimal component-shelf layout LOpt. ) The current layout is updated to the optimal layout.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9, however even though Nagahara teaches layout and layout update and Ames teaches an assembly line, Nagahara and Nusser do not teach a map, however Nusser teaches
wherein receiving the layout update comprises receiving a map…(See col. 8- In further examples, a central planning system may dynamically update a map of the physical environment containing robotic fleet 100 and objects undergoing processing by the robotic devices.) This shows a map is made.
Nagahara, Ames, Nusser are analogous art because they are all from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and all belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s and Ame’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Nagahara and Ames could also use autonomous vehicles and provide a map. This would help the art of Nagahara and Ames efficiently pick and deliver items without the use of human intervention. Nagahara and Ames would also be able to use the map to track the operator and carts as they traverse the environment. This would make the art of Nagahara and Ames more efficient and sophisticated.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9, however even though Nagahara teaches receiving a layout update, it doesn’t teach that is received from a fleet management system, however Nusser teaches
from a fleet- management system in communication with the self-driving material transport vehicle (See col. 6-7- In some examples, global control system 150 may include a central planning system that assigns tasks to different robotic devices within fleet 100. ) This teaches that the global system 150 (i.e. fleet management system) is in communication with the AGV’s and other vehicles to give them instructions (See fig. 1B).
Nagahara and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Nagahara’s can also use autonomous vehicles. This would help the art of Nusser efficiently pick and deliver items without the use of human intervention. This would make the art of Nagahara more efficient.
Regarding claim 17, Nagahara teaches
Method (See para 0003-An example of a conventional method of the component-shelf-layout design that aims to improve the efficiency of the picking operation is a method described in Patent Literature 1 in which the arrangement of the component shelves is determined in accordance with a delivery frequency of each component.) (See fig. 12) This shows a method.
comprising: implementing a first…line having a first…layout; The system implements a first layout that the operator traverses and data about the traversal is recorded in the databases as seen in fig. 4 and figure 9. This is the first layout since this layout is not optimized.
Using…system in coordination with the first…layout: The art teaches that it uses the system of an operator with respect to the layout to do the picking and replenishing activities for the parts.
replacing the first…with a second…having a second…layout The art teaches that the first layout is replaced with a second layout (See para 0056-In Step S700, a layout change is extracted when the current component-shelf layout L0 is changed to the optimal component-shelf layout LOpt. )
and using the…system in coordination with the second…layout The art teaches the operator is used for the optimized layout as seen here (See para 0003-hanging the component-shelf layout in accordance with the above-described method enables a picking operator to perform the picking operation in a shorter movement distance, so that the efficiency of the picking operation can be improved.) (See para 0008-According to the present invention, a user of this device can determine a component-shelf layout that can improve the efficiency of a picking operation and suppress an occurrence of a replenishment operation simultaneously.) This shows the operator is enabled to use the optimized layout to work more efficiently. In another interpretation, the operator is adapted/enabled to adjust to multiple layouts since the art teaches results data (See para 0027-The picking-operation-results information storage area 111 stores information specifying a result of a past picking operation therein. In the present embodiment, for example, a picking-operation-results information table shown in FIG. 4 is stored.)(See para 0057- As the picking-operation-results data, not only past results data but also future prediction data can be imported).
wherein the… capable… navigating the first…layout and the second…layout without any changes to…system. The art teaches the operator system is used for the optimized layout as seen here (See para 0003-hanging the component-shelf layout in accordance with the above-described method enables a picking operator to perform the picking operation in a shorter movement distance, so that the efficiency of the picking operation can be improved.) (See para 0008-According to the present invention, a user of this device can determine a component-shelf layout that can improve the efficiency of a picking operation and suppress an occurrence of a replenishment operation simultaneously.) This shows the operator is enabled to use the optimized layout to work more efficiently. In another interpretation, the operator system is adapted/enabled to adjust and navigate multiple layouts since the art teaches results data (See para 0027-The picking-operation-results information storage area 111 stores information specifying a result of a past picking operation therein. In the present embodiment, for example, a picking-operation-results information table shown in FIG. 4 is stored.)(See para 0057- As the picking-operation-results data, not only past results data but also future prediction data can be imported). (Fig. 3 shows the navigation). The only thing changed here is the layout and not the actual operator system.
However Nagahara doesn’t teach that the layout is an assembly line, however Ames teaches first and second assembly-line… (See fig. 2 and 5 which show an assembly line.) (See col. 11-12-The parts delivery management system and method of the present invention meets the goals described above and allows an associate to continue concentrating on his or work while the manufactured products pass on the assembly line.) (See col. 7-8- The terminal may be configured with directional information 408, 410 (e.g., signage or displays) to assist the transporter drivers in finding the various production lines) This teaches plurality of lines that includes first and second assembly lines.
Nagahara and Ames are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Ames because Nagahara’s can also use the limitation of Ames when determining packaging for parts. Determining packaging for parts would add another layer of analysis in addition to the placement of parts on the shelves. Having this analysis would also help the art of Nagahara be more efficient in delivering parts since the operator would travel less if all the parts would be packaged together in one location on the shelf. Both arts are teaching efficiency in picking and delivering parts.
In addition, even though Nagahara teaches an operator system to pick and replenish parts, it doesn’t teach that the operator is a self-driving vehicle system, however Nusser teaches using a self-driving vehicle system (See fig. 2A and 2C which shows an autonomous vehicle). (See col. 9-10- FIG. 2A illustrates a robotic truck unloader, according to an example embodiment. In some examples, a robotic truck unloader may include one or more sensors, one or more computers, and one or more robotic arms. ) This teaches a self-driving vehicle system that is used to pick up and deliver parts.
wherein the self-driving vehicle system has at least one self-driving vehicle capable of autonomously navigating…(See fig. 2A and 2C which shows an autonomous vehicle). (See col. 9-10- FIG. 2A illustrates a robotic truck unloader, according to an example embodiment. In some examples, a robotic truck unloader may include one or more sensors, one or more computers, and one or more robotic arms. ) This teaches a self-driving vehicle system that is used to pick up and deliver parts. It teaches that they can navigate autonomously as seen in fig. 3A and 3B.
Nagahara and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Nagahara’s can also use autonomous vehicles. This would help the art of Nusser efficiently pick and deliver items without the use of human intervention. This would make the art of Nagahara more efficient and sophisticated.
Regarding claim 18, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser teach the limitations of claim 17, however Nusser further teaches
obtaining an updated map… for use by the self-driving vehicle (See col 8-9- In further examples, a central planning system may dynamically update a map of the physical environment containing robotic fleet 100 and objects undergoing processing by the robotic devices. In some examples, the map may be continuously updated with information about dynamic objects (e.g., moving robots and packages moved by robots). In additional examples, a dynamic map could contain information on both the current configuration or placement of components within a warehouse (or across multiple warehouses) as well as information about what is anticipated in the near term. For instance, the map could show current locations of moving robots and anticipated locations of the robots in the future, which may be used to coordinate activity between robots. The map could also show current locations of items undergoing processing as well as anticipated future locations of the items (e.g., where an item is now and when the item is anticipated to be shipped out).) (See col. 15-16 For instance, in one example, a global control system may transmit general instructions such as a destination for an AGV relative to a digital map.) This shows a map is updated and instructions are sent to the AGV based on the map.
Nagahara and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Nagahara’s can also use autonomous vehicles. This would help the art of Nusser efficiently pick and deliver items without the use of human intervention. This would make the art of Nagahara more efficient and sophisticated.
Nagahara further teaches responsive to replacing the first assembly line with the second assembly line…corresponding to the second assembly-line layout, The art teaches that the first layout is replaced with a second layout (See para 0056-In Step S700, a layout change is extracted when the current component-shelf layout L0 is changed to the optimal component-shelf layout LOpt. ).
Regarding claim 19, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser teach the limitations of claim 17, however Nusser further teaches
wherein obtaining the updated map comprises retrieving the updated map from the fleet management system. (See col 8-9- In further examples, a central planning system may dynamically update a map of the physical environment containing robotic fleet 100 and objects undergoing processing by the robotic devices. In some examples, the map may be continuously updated with information about dynamic objects (e.g., moving robots and packages moved by robots). In additional examples, a dynamic map could contain information on both the current configuration or placement of components within a warehouse (or across multiple warehouses) as well as information about what is anticipated in the near term. For instance, the map could show current locations of moving robots and anticipated locations of the robots in the future, which may be used to coordinate activity between robots. The map could also show current locations of items undergoing processing as well as anticipated future locations of the items (e.g., where an item is now and when the item is anticipated to be shipped out).) This shows the fleet management system/central planning system updates the map and information about the map is received from the central planning system.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahara (US20160253611A1) in further view of Ames (US8010220B1) in further view of Nusser (US9733646B1) in further view of Schoonmaker (US20150074013A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9, Nagahara teaches layout update and Ames teaches assembly lines, however neither teach altering a fleet, however Schoonmaker teaches
in response to receiving the layout update to the assembly-line layout, evaluating, at a fleet management system, whether to alter a current fleet of self-driving vehicles assigned to the assembly-line based on the layout update. (See fig. 4 and para 0048- In various embodiments, a vehicle system whose performance is being simulated and evaluated may be configured as (or form a portion of) a consist including additional powered vehicles, fuel cars, and/or other non-powered vehicles. FIG. 4 illustrates a few examples of general vehicle configurations that may be evaluated.) (See para 0047- For example, different vehicle configurations may be compared. By way of example, the number and/or capacity of powered vehicles may be varied among the evaluated configurations. As another example, one configuration may include all units in a single vehicle system, while another configuration may break the units into separate vehicle systems. For instance, one configuration may include a vehicle system having 100 cargo cars, while a second configuration may break the cargo cars up, for example, into groups of 50 cargo cars each traveling a short distance apart. Thus, various configurations of vehicle may be altered and simulated around the route.) This shows that a fleet is altered based around a route. A route can also correspond to a layout since a different layout can mean a vehicle operator will have to take a different route.
Nagahara and Schoonmaker are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of traveling along pathways and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Schoonmaker because Nagahara’s would also be able to implement different fleet configurations. This would help the art of Nagahara adapt to different layout proposed for the system. For example, if a layout called for more parts to be picked up, a bigger vehicle would be needed. This makes the art of Nagahara more sophisticated.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Nagahara, Ames, Nusser, Schoonmaker teach the limitations of claims 6 and 14, Nagahara teaches layout update and Ames teaches assembly lines, however neither teach altering a fleet, however Schoonmaker teaches
determining a different sized fleet of self-driving vehicles is appropriate for the updated assembly-line layout (See fig. 4 and para 0048- In various embodiments, a vehicle system whose performance is being simulated and evaluated may be configured as (or form a portion of) a consist including additional powered vehicles, fuel cars, and/or other non-powered vehicles. FIG. 4 illustrates a few examples of general vehicle configurations that may be evaluated.) (See para 0047- For example, different vehicle configurations may be compared. By way of example, the number and/or capacity of powered vehicles may be varied among the evaluated configurations. As another example, one configuration may include all units in a single vehicle system, while another configuration may break the units into separate vehicle systems. For instance, one configuration may include a vehicle system having 100 cargo cars, while a second configuration may break the cargo cars up, for example, into groups of 50 cargo cars each traveling a short distance apart. Thus, various configurations of vehicle may be altered and simulated around the route.) This shows that a fleet is altered based around a route. A route can also correspond to a layout since a different layout can mean a vehicle operator will have to take a different route.
Nagahara and Schoonmaker are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of traveling along pathways and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Schoonmaker because Nagahara’s would also be able to implement different fleet configurations. This would help the art of Nagahara adapt to different layout proposed for the system. For example, if a layout called for more parts to be picked up, a bigger vehicle would be needed. This makes the art of Nagahara more sophisticated.
Regarding claim 20, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser, teach the limitations of claim 17, however Nusser further teaches
at a fleet management system in communication with the self-driving vehicle system (See col. 6-7- In some examples, global control system 150 may include a central planning system that assigns tasks to different robotic devices within fleet 100. ) This teaches that the global system 150/fleet management system is in communication with the AGV’s and other vehicles to give them instructions (See fig. 1B).
Nagahara and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of picking and delivery with respect to parts and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Nagahara’s can also use autonomous vehicles. This would help the art of Nusser efficiently pick and deliver items without the use of human intervention. This would make the art of Nagahara more efficient and sophisticated.
In addition, Nagahara teaches layout update and Ames teaches assembly lines, however neither teach altering a fleet, however Schoonmaker teaches
evaluating…whether to alter a current fleet of self-driving vehicles assigned to the first assembly-line to account for the second assembly-line layout. (See fig. 4 and para 0048- In various embodiments, a vehicle system whose performance is being simulated and evaluated may be configured as (or form a portion of) a consist including additional powered vehicles, fuel cars, and/or other non-powered vehicles. FIG. 4 illustrates a few examples of general vehicle configurations that may be evaluated.) (See para 0047- For example, different vehicle configurations may be compared. By way of example, the number and/or capacity of powered vehicles may be varied among the evaluated configurations. As another example, one configuration may include all units in a single vehicle system, while another configuration may break the units into separate vehicle systems. For instance, one configuration may include a vehicle system having 100 cargo cars, while a second configuration may break the cargo cars up, for example, into groups of 50 cargo cars each traveling a short distance apart. Thus, various configurations of vehicle may be altered and simulated around the route.) This shows that a fleet is altered based around a route. A route can also correspond to a layout since a different layout can mean a vehicle operator will have to take a different route.
Nagahara and Schoonmaker are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of traveling along pathways and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Schoonmaker because Nagahara’s would also be able to implement different fleet configurations. This would help the art of Nagahara adapt to different layout proposed for the system. For example, if a layout called for more parts to be picked up, a bigger vehicle would be needed. This makes the art of Nagahara more sophisticated.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahara (US20160253611A1) in further view of Ames (US8010220B1) in further view of Nusser (US9733646B1) in further view of Montemerlo (US20120083964A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Nagahara, Ames, and Nusser, teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9, however they do not teach
Continuing…when the layout update is received during the mission.
However Montemerlo teaches Continuing…when the…update is received during the mission. (See para 0007- The method may also include receiving instructions from the driver to avoid the at least one zone; generating a new route to the destination which does not pass through the at least one zone; and maneuvering the vehicle along the new route.) This shows the cars continues its journey/mission even when data is updated such as a new route.
Nagahara already teaches completing a mission as seen in fig. 3 and updated layout as seen in fig. 14.
Nagahara and Montemerlo are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of traveling along pathways and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagahara’s invention by incorporating the method of Montemerlo because Nagahara would be able to send updated instructions to the operator as they are picking parts to adapt to a new layout of different parts on the shelves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Park (US20140135971A1) Discloses producing sewing designs, and more particularly, to a sewing design manufacturing management apparatus and method, which enable a user to easily setup and modify information regarding a sewing process. This includes altering factory line layouts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights