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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 6/5/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: operation schedule management unit in claim 12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see control device or controller with a processor in P [0037] as well as FIG. 8 which shows the operation schedule management unit is part of the control device
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 3 and 15 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 3 and 15 recite the limitation "obtaining information about...the smart logistics vehicle performing the operation in the at least one process zone" in regards to collecting information about the smart logistics vehicle needed for at least on process zone. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The metes and bounds of this claim limitation are highly unclear in view of the Specification, as “the operation” is not well defined in the context of the claim, and the claim language suggests only one smart logistics vehicle is needed for performing the logistics operation.
In the interest of compact prosecution, this additional piece of information collected will be treated as though deleted from the claim, and instead the claim will be interpreted as only “obtaining information about the smart logistics vehicle performing the circling operation; and selecting the at least one smart logistics vehicle based on the obtained information”.
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 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki (Document ID: US 20210179153 A) in view of Fujiwara (Document ID: US 20220161833 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harasaki teaches a smart logistics vehicle control method, the method comprising:
controlling a smart logistics vehicle not performing an operation among a plurality of smart logistics vehicles to perform a circling operation along a preset patrol path (see at least P [0005]: “a plurality of transport vehicles that are able to travel in one direction along the track,”, wherein the track is the preset patrol path that the vehicles control a circling operation around. In P [0043]-[0045] steps S6-S7 allow for the receipt of a “status report from each transport vehicle 6”, and the then when “an empty transport vehicle 6 is present in the first jurisdiction area A1, the area controller 50A transmits to this empty transport vehicle 6 a movement instruction to move toward the area A2 (step S8)”, in other words an empty transport vehicle is one that is not performing an operation);
determining whether the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for each of a plurality of process zones (see at least P [0041] wherein the original necessity is determined as “a loading instruction”);
selecting at least one smart logistics vehicle among the smart logistics vehicles performing the circling operation when the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for at least one process zone among the plurality of process zones (see at least P [0047]: “The area controller 50B, after confirming that the empty transport vehicle 6 has entered the first jurisdiction area A2, transmits an instruction to be loaded with the article 10 placed on the special placement unit 80C to the transport vehicle 6 that has entered the area A2 (step S15)”); and
Harasaki further teaches that the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle is controlled to move to the at least one process zone and perform a logistics operation in at least P [0047]: “The transport vehicle 6 that has reached the special placement unit 80C is loaded with the article 10 placed on the special placement unit 80C, and conveys the article 10 to a predetermined location (step S20)”. But Harasaki does not explicitly teach that the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle is controlled to stop performing the circling operation.
Instead, Fujiwara, whose invention pertains to a traveling vehicle that moves along a circular path on a track, teaches in at least P [0026] “a retreat section 4B to guide the traveling vehicle 6 to the working track 41”. Here, the traveling vehicle 6 stops performing its circling operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveying traveling vehicles with specified stops of Harasaki with the ability to move a traveling vehicle off of its circulation path of Fujiwara in order to allow a special task to be performed by or on the traveling vehicle, such as maintenance in P [0026] of Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 3, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 1, and Harasaki further teaches that when the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for at least one process zone among the plurality of process zones, the selecting comprises:
obtaining information about the smart logistics vehicle performing the circling operation (see at least P [0043] “a status report from each transport vehicle 6”); and
selecting the at least one smart logistics vehicle based on the obtained information (see at least P [0043] “determines the states of all the transport vehicles 6 based on such status reports, and thus is able to determine whether an empty transport vehicle 6 is present in the first jurisdiction area A1.”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 1, and Harasaki further teaches that the controlling the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle comprises:
collecting location information with respect to each smart logistics vehicle performing the circling operation (see at least P [0039] wherein it is possible to “whether an empty transport vehicle 6 is present in the first jurisdiction area A2 (A3) and upstream of the one special placement unit 80C before transmitting the movement instruction to the other area controller 50A.” The system is therefore aware of the location of each smart logistics vehicle);
determining a movement path between the smart logistics vehicle performing the circling operation and the at least one process zone when the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for at least one process zone among the plurality of process zones based on the location information (see at least P [0040] wherein it is detected that “an empty transport vehicle 6 has become available in the first jurisdiction area”. The subsequent paragraphs detail conditions wherein the transport vehicle is not as conveniently located and a “movement instruction” is used to determine a path between the vehicle and process zone); and
controlling the smart logistics vehicle having a shortest movement path among the movement paths to finish performing the circling operation and to move to the at least one process zone and perform the logistics operation (see again P [0040] wherein preferentially the closest robot is used to “execute the conveyance instruction”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 4, and in view of the modification, Harasaki further teaches that the controlling the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle comprises:
controlling the smart logistics vehicle selected based on an additional status condition to finish performing the circling operation and to move to the at least one process zone and perform the logistics operation when there are a plurality of smart logistics vehicles having the shortest movement path among the movement paths (see at least P [0063] wherein a jurisdiction based priority system is used as an additional status condition for selecting the best smart logistics vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 4, and Harasaki further teaches that the controlling the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle comprises:
controlling the smart logistics vehicle having the shortest movement path among the movement paths to finish performing the circling operation and to move to the at least one process zone and perform a logistics transfer operation (see at least P [0063] wherein when an empty vehicle is found with the shortest distance it is selected and controlled to perform the logistics transfer operation).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Kim (Document ID: KR101836867B1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 1, and Harasaki further teaches that the determining comprises collecting process information of each of the plurality of process zones from a plurality of production devices, as collecting information on the “placement unit 8” that each process zone has as a production device for determining when to send conveyance instructions in P [0032] and FIG. 1. But Harasaki and Fujiwara do not explicitly teach that the production devices control each of the plurality of process zones, nor explicitly
determining whether the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for each of the plurality of process zones based on the process information collected from each of the plurality of process zones.
Instead, Kim, whose invention pertains to automating a work process by using robotic work, teaches in at least P [0009] a “set of production lines” that use “a control device (20) that
performs the function of managing and controlling the state of each production line”. The need for a multi-joint robot to actively work on the production device is determined based on the collected information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circulating transport robots with area controllers and placement units of Harasaki and Fujiwara with the production lines that perform additional tasks and control of Kim in order to handle the demands of a maintenance request or error raised by an automated work system comprised of numerous stations, as in P [0009] of Kim.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Qi et al., hereinafter Qi (Document ID: US2021312359A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 6, but Harasaki and Fujiwara do not explicitly teach that the controlling the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle further comprises:
controlling the smart logistics vehicle having the shortest movement path among the movement paths to finish performing the circling operation and to move to a waiting zone for waiting in advance and perform a logistics waiting operation before moving to the at least one process zone to perform the logistics transfer operation.
Instead, Qi, whose invention pertains to a method for scheduling automated guided vehicles, teaches in at least P [0036] “a temporary parking point”, defined as “a position where the AGV vehicles (i.e., automated guided vehicles, which are referred to as AGV vehicles hereinafter for the convenience of description) are waiting to convey the task boxes.” The system is used to group and cluster multiple AGVs and determine which to use based on ranking one particular AGV as first in the queue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shortest distance AGV being picked of Harasaki and Fujiwara with the waiting temporary parking point of Qi in order to fully allocate tasks to the AGVs and create an efficiency distribution of AGVs for performing conveying tasks.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Fukui et al., hereinafter Fukui (Document ID: US 20150258908 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 1, and Harasaki teaches tracking when a transport vehicle becomes available in at least P [0040], that is to say when each vehicle completes its task. But Harasaki and Fujiwara do not explicitly teach that after the controlling the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle, the method further comprises:
determining whether the logistics operation of the smart logistics vehicle moved to the at least one process zone is completed; and
controlling the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation by determining whether there is another process zone needing the smart logistics vehicle or a charging amount (SOC: state of charge) of the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation when the logistics operation of the smart logistics vehicle is completed.
Instead, Fukui, whose invention pertains to a battery charging management system for automated guided vehicles, teaches in at least P [0024]-[0025] determining “whether or not a charging operation is necessary”, and controlling an automated picking vehicle accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the logistics operation completion monitoring of Harasaki and Fujiwara with the charging state monitoring of Fukui in order to ensure that an automated vehicle can continue to perform circulation motions and conveyance tasks, as in Fukui wherein the vehicle's charge is monitoring over time.
Regarding claim 9, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 8, and Harasaki further teaches that the controlling the smart logistics vehicle comprises:
controlling the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation to move to the process zone and perform a new logistics operation when there is another process zone needing the smart logistics vehicle (see at least P [0050] wherein a “newly” available transport vehicle 6 is immediately controlled to service another process zone when it is needed).
Regarding claim 10, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 8, but Harasaki does not explicitly teach that the controlling the smart logistics vehicle further comprises:
controlling the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation to perform the circling operation along the preset patrol path when there is no other process zone needing the smart logistics vehicle.
Instead, Fujiwara teaches in FIG. 1 and P [0026] that the vehicles move around the track in a circular motion along one direction when there is no need to deviate into the working area 160.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveying traveling vehicles with specified tasks of Harasaki with the consistent circulating path of Fujiwara in order to allow a conveying vehicle to operate in a consistent and predictable manner when not needed in a different area.
Regarding claim 11, modified Harasaki teaches the method of claim 8, but Harasaki and Fujiwara do not explicitly teach that the controlling the smart logistics vehicle further comprises:
controlling the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation to move to a charging zone and perform a charging operation when there is no other process zone needing the smart logistics vehicle and the charging amount (SOC: state of charge) of the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation is less than a predetermined value.
Instead, Fukui teaches in at least P [0024]-[0025] determining “whether or not a charging operation is necessary”, and controlling an automated picking vehicle accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the logistics operation completion monitoring of Harasaki and Fujiwara with the charging state monitoring of Fukui in order to ensure that an automated vehicle can continue to perform circulation motions and conveyance tasks, as in Fukui wherein the vehicle's charge is monitoring over time.
Claim(s) 12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki in view of Kim, and further in view of Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 12, Harasaki teaches a smart logistics vehicle control system, the system comprising:
a plurality of smart logistics vehicles (see at least P [0005]: “a plurality of transport vehicles);
Harasaki teaches collecting and providing process information from a plurality of production devices in a plurality of process zones, as collecting information on the “placement unit 8” that each process zone has as a production device for determining when to send conveyance instructions in P [0032] and FIG. 1. See also P [0041] wherein the process zones are defined and their needs. But Harasaki does not explicitly teach that the production devices are for controlling each process zone,
Instead, Kim teaches in at least P [0009] a “set of production lines” that use “a control device (20) that performs the function of managing and controlling the state of each production line”. The need for a multi-joint robot to actively work on the production device is determined based on the collected information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circulating transport robots with area controllers and placement units of Harasaki with the production lines that perform additional tasks and control of Kim in order to handle the demands of a maintenance request or error raised by an automated work system comprised of numerous stations, as in P [0009] of Kim.
In view of the modification, Harasaki further teaches an operation schedule management unit (host controller 60) for controlling the smart logistics vehicle not performing an operation among the plurality of smart logistics vehicles to perform a circling operation along a preset patrol path (see at least P [0005]: “a plurality of transport vehicles that are able to travel in one direction along the track,”, wherein the track is the preset patrol path that the vehicles control a circling operation around. In P [0043]-[0045] steps S6-S7 allow for the receipt of a “status report from each transport vehicle 6”, and the then when “an empty transport vehicle 6 is present in the first jurisdiction area A1, the area controller 50A transmits to this empty transport vehicle 6 a movement instruction to move toward the area A2 (step S8)”, in other words an empty transport vehicle is one that is not performing an operation), selecting at least one smart logistics vehicle among the smart logistics vehicles performing the circling operation when the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for at least one process zone among the plurality of process zones by determining whether the smart logistics vehicle is required based on the process information (see at least P [0041] wherein the original necessity is determined as “a loading instruction”. See also P [0047]: “The area controller 50B, after confirming that the empty transport vehicle 6 has entered the first jurisdiction area A2, transmits an instruction to be loaded with the article 10 placed on the special placement unit 80C to the transport vehicle 6 that has entered the area A2 (step S15)”), and Harasaki further teaches that the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle is controlled to move to the at least one process zone and perform a logistics operation in at least P [0047]: “The transport vehicle 6 that has reached the special placement unit 80C is loaded with the article 10 placed on the special placement unit 80C, and conveys the article 10 to a predetermined location (step S20)”. But Harasaki and Kim do not explicitly teach that the at least one selected smart logistics vehicle is controlled to finish performing the circling operation.
Instead, Fujiwara teaches in at least P [0026] “a retreat section 4B to guide the traveling vehicle 6 to the working track 41”. Here, the traveling vehicle 6 stops performing its circling operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveying traveling vehicles with specified stops of Harasaki and Kim with the ability to move a traveling vehicle off of its circulation path of Fujiwara in order to allow a special task to be performed by or on the traveling vehicle, such as maintenance in P [0026] of Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 15, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 12, and Harasaki further teaches that
the operation schedule management unit obtains information about the smart logistics vehicle performing the circling operation (see at least P [0043] “determines the states of all the transport vehicles 6 based on such status reports, and thus is able to determine whether an empty transport vehicle 6 is present in the first jurisdiction area A1.”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 12, and in view of the modification, Harasaki further teaches that
the operation schedule management unit collects location information with respect to each smart logistics vehicle performing the circling operation, determines a movement path between the smart logistics vehicle performing the circling operation and the at least one process zone based on the location information when the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for at least one process zone among the plurality of process zones, and controls the smart logistics vehicle having a shortest movement path among the movement paths to finish performing the circling operation and to move to the at least one process zone and perform the logistics operation (see at least P [0039] wherein it is possible to “whether an empty transport vehicle 6 is present in the first jurisdiction area A2 (A3) and upstream of the one special placement unit 80C before transmitting the movement instruction to the other area controller 50A.” The system is therefore aware of the location of each smart logistics vehicle. See also P [0040] wherein it is detected that “an empty transport vehicle 6 has become available in the first jurisdiction area”. The subsequent paragraphs detail conditions wherein the transport vehicle is not as conveniently located and a “movement instruction” is used to determine a path between the vehicle and process zone, wherein preferentially the closest robot is used to “execute the conveyance instruction”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 16, and Harasaki further teaches that
the operation schedule management unit controls the smart logistics vehicle having the shortest movement path among the movement paths to finish performing the circling operation and to move to the at least one process zone and perform a logistics transfer operation (see at least P [0063] wherein when an empty vehicle is found with the shortest distance it is selected and controlled to perform the logistics transfer operation).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki in view of Kim and Fujiwara, and further in view of Fukui.
Regarding claim 18, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 12, and Harasaki further teaches tracking when a transport vehicle becomes available in at least P [0040], that is to say when each vehicle completes its task. But Harasaki, Kim, and Fujiwara do not explicitly teach that
the operation schedule management unit determines whether the logistics operation of the smart logistics vehicle moved to the at least one process zone is completed, determines whether there is another process zone needing the smart logistics vehicle when the logistics operation of the smart logistics vehicle is completed or a charging amount (SOC: state of charge) of the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation and controls the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation.
Instead, Fukui teaches in at least P [0024]-[0025] determining “whether or not a charging operation is necessary”, and controlling an automated picking vehicle accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the logistics operation completion monitoring of Harasaki, Kim, and Fujiwara with the charging state monitoring of Fukui in order to ensure that an automated vehicle can continue to perform circulation motions and conveyance tasks, as in Fukui wherein the vehicle's charge is monitoring over time.
Regarding claim 19, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 18, and Harasaki further teaches that
the operation schedule management unit controls the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation to move to the process zone and perform a new logistics operation when there is another process zone needing the smart logistics vehicle (see at least P [0050] wherein a “newly” available transport vehicle 6 is immediately controlled to service another process zone when it is needed).
Regarding claim 20, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 18, but Harasaki, Kim, and Fujiwara do not explicitly teach that
the operation schedule management unit controls the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation to move to a charging zone and perform a charging operation when there is no other process zone needing the smart logistics vehicle and a charging amount (SOC: state of charge) of the smart logistics vehicle completing the logistics operation is less than a predetermined value.
Instead, Fukui teaches in at least P [0024]-[0025] determining “whether or not a charging operation is necessary”, and controlling an automated picking vehicle accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the logistics operation completion monitoring of Harasaki and Fujiwara with the charging state monitoring of Fukui in order to ensure that an automated vehicle can continue to perform circulation motions and conveyance tasks, as in Fukui wherein the vehicle's charge is monitoring over time.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki in view of Kim and Fujiwara, and further in view of Lee et al., hereinafter Lee (Document ID: US 20220019237 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 12, and Harasaki teaches a patrol operation for performing a circling operation along the track in P [0022].
But Harasaki, Kim, and Fujiwara do not explicitly that
the operation schedule management unit manages the plurality of smart logistics vehicles into a plurality of groups, and the plurality of groups are composed of a patrol group for performing the circling operation along the patrol path, an operation group for performing the logistics operation in each of the plurality of process zones, and a charging group for performing a charging operation when a charging amount of the plurality of smart logistics vehicles is less than a predetermined value.
Instead, Lee, whose invention pertains to a plurality of mobile robots used for transporting items, teaches in P [0011] the ability to configure a plurality of mobile robots as a group, or “a platoon of the mobile robots required for processing a work”. FIG. 4A shows the ability to have a group to perform the logistics operation. Lee also teaches in P [0057] that the robots are battery operated, and keeping track to measure the operation of the motor which relies on the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transport vehicles that move along a track to perform logistics operations of Harasaki, Kim, and Fujiwara with the group control operation ability of Lee in order to establish a cooperative method of controlling mobile robots as needed, and to easily replace any malfunctioning robots as in P [0026] of Lee.
Regarding claim 14, modified Harasaki teaches the system of claim 13, and in view of the modification, Harasaki teaches that
the operation schedule management unit manages the smart logistics vehicle not performing the operation as the patrol group, and manages at least one smart logistics vehicle among the smart logistics vehicles included in the patrol group as the operation group when the smart logistics vehicle is necessary for the at least one process zone (see at least P [0050] wherein a “newly” available transport vehicle 6 is immediately controlled to service another process zone when it is needed. Otherwise, as in P [0022] the group of transport vehicles move along the track as the patrol group, waiting for a task).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 11056016 B2
Invention pertains to resolving errors in automated robotic work systems.
Document ID: US 20210312367 A1
Invention pertains to a schedule management system for managing operations of a plurality of vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, and F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights