DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The priority documents have been filed on 05/07/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG.'s 5 and 6 are very blurry and hard to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 9-10, 13, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0264611 A1) in view of Paschall et al. (US 11,994,874 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches
A split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device see at least FIG. 1, comprising:
one or more smart transport vehicles configured to transport objects in an unmanned manner see at least FIG. 1 and [0044]-[0045] robot 100 and at least one other robot 200. Further, see at least [0078]-[0080] where a plurality of robots are provided in which one robot may include a serving type robot configured to perform a task of carrying an object [in an industrial system] *examiner notes that [brackets] have been added around limitations not expressly disclosed by Kim; and
one or more control servers configured to control the one or more smart transport vehicles see at least FIG. 2; processor 130, wherein:
the one or more control servers comprise:
a master control server configured to control a first smart transport vehicle see at least [0051] where robot 100 may operate as a master robot and see at least FIG. 9 and [0059] & [0135] where the robot 100 includes a processor 130 configured to control the overall operations of the robot 100; and
one or more slave control servers configured to control second smart transport vehicles Kim does not explicitly disclose that the one or more slave robots comprise a slave control server, however, it is a well-understood, routine and conventional concept in the art of vehicle controls that each robot comprises a controller/processor configured to control the respective individual robot. This is explained in detail below, and
the master control server is configured to collectively control traffic between the first smart transport vehicle and the one or more second smart transport vehicles see at least [0051] where robot 100 may operate as a master robot for controlling the plurality of robots 100, 200, and control at least one other robot 200. Further, see at least [0070] and [0131] where the master robot plans movement routes of each of the slave robots.
Kim teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except wherein the one or more smart transport vehicles are configured to transport objects in an unmanned manner in an industrial system and wherein one or more slave control servers are configured to control second smart transport vehicles.
It is well-understood, routine and conventional for one or more smart transport vehicles to be configured to transport objects in an unmanned manner in an industrial system. For example, Paschall et al. (US 11,994,874 B1) teaches that it is known to provide the one or more smart transport vehicles are configured to transport objects in an unmanned manner in an industrial system. See at least Col. 2 lines 11-12 where autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) may transport various types of objects or items within a material handling facility (e.g., industrial system).
Paschall further teaches wherein one or more slave control servers are configured to control second smart transport vehicles. See at least FIG. 2 and Col. 6 lines 36-42 where a schematic diagram of the plurality of AMRs is described. Each AMR comprises a controller or processor 222 and drive mechanism controllers 224 configured to control movement of the AMRs (Col. 8, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Paschall and provide the one or more smart transport vehicles are configured to transport objects in an unmanned manner in an industrial system and wherein one or more slave control servers are configured to control second smart transport vehicles. This is because utilizing the robots in an industrial system as opposed to a restaurant is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., different environment) for another to obtain predictable results. In other words, it is well-understood, routine and conventional that robots are frequently used in industrial settings to perform tasks because smart transport vehicles are commonly known to be used in different settings to complete a variety of tasks.
Regarding claim 2 and similarly claim 13, Kim in view of Paschall teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the one or more slave control servers are configured to:
monitor the one or more second smart transport vehicles assigned thereto, respectively see at least Paschall Col. 9 lines 8-13 where safety system controller 233 may receive data from a plurality of sensors related to the AMRs including a speed of the AMR, and transmit current locations, driving speeds, and driving routes of the one or more second smart transport vehicles to the master control server see at least Kim [0071]-[0072] where the processor 130 may request state information, environment information and driving information about a planned movement route of at least one other robot (i.e., slave robot). The environment information may include a location of the at least one other robot. Also see at least Paschall Col. 9 lines 8-13 where safety system controller 233 may receive data from a plurality of sensors related to the AMRs including a speed of the AMR.
Regarding claim 9, and similarly claim 18, Kim in view of Paschall teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the master control server is connected to a plurality of databases of the one or more slave control servers to acquire data about the second smart transport vehicles in a black box manner from the plurality of databases see at least Kim [0130]-[0131] where the master robot may establish a communication channel with slave robots such as a peer to peer (P2P) communication channel between the master robot and the slave robots. Further, see at least [0155] where the master robot requests state information, environment information, and driving information about the planned movement route of the at least one other robot in order to generate a corrected planned movement route.
Regarding claim 10, and similarly claim 20, Kim in view of Paschall teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more smart transport vehicles comprise automated guided vehicles (AGVs) or autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) see at least Pachall the abstract where a plurality of autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) 205 are provided, and the one or more control servers comprise AGV/AMR control systems (ACSs) see at least Paschall FIG. 2 and Col. 6 lines 36-50 where each AMR 205 comprises a controller or processor 222, navigation system controller 234 for controlling movement of the respective AMR 205.
Claim(s) 3-7, 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Paschall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haban (US 6,779,125 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Paschall does not expressly disclose
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the master control server is configured to:
receive process status information including a process speed from a process line, and
set a traffic section based on the received process status information.
However, Haban teaches that it is known to provide:
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the master control server is configured to:
receive process status information including a process speed from a process line, and
set a traffic section based on the received process status information see at least FIG. 5C (reproduced below) and Col. 9 lines 41-50:
PNG
media_image1.png
595
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“When a two part deferral is selected, a 6.4 μsec delay corresponding to 2/3 of one full IFG period is initiated at Step 5203. If CRS returns to a logic 1 during this 6.4 μsec delay, (i.e. the line becomes busy) the process returns to the line busy status (Step 5202); otherwise the procedure proceeds to Step 5204 where a second fixed 3.2 μsec delay, corresponding to 1/3 of one IFG period, is inserted. When the 3.2 μsec timer completes at Step 5204, the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201.”
In this scenario, the master control server receives notice of a line busy status (i.e., processing status information including a process speed from a process line). When the timer completes the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201 (i.e., set a traffic section based on the received process status information).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Paschall to incorporate the teachings of Haban and provide the split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the master control server is configured to: receive process status information including a process speed from a process line, and set a traffic section based on the received process status information. In doing so, the method is improved by enabling the processor of a control server to recognize when a line is busy and implementing a timer/delay before re-checking the line status and proceeding with the desired data transmission.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 3,
wherein the master control server comprises a traffic management unit configured to detect traffic data between the first smart transport vehicle and the one or more second smart transport vehicles based on the process status information, the traffic section, and the current locations, driving speeds, and driving routes of the one or more second smart transport vehicles see at least Kim [0051] where robot 100 may operate as a master robot for controlling the plurality of robots 100, 200, and control at least one other robot 200. Further, see at least [0070] and [0131] where the master robot plans movement routes of each of the slave robots.
Further, see at least Kim [0071]-[0072] where the processor 130 may request state information, environment information and driving information about a planned movement route of at least one other robot (i.e., slave robot). The environment information may include a location of the at least one other robot and the processor 130 may correct a planned movement route related to the plurality of robots based on the received information. Also see at least Paschall Col. 9 lines 8-13 where safety system controller 233 may receive data from a plurality of sensors related to the AMRs including a speed of the AMR.
Lastly, see at least Haban FIG. 5C and Col. 9 lines 34-40 and Col. 9 lines 41-50:
“When a two part deferral is selected, a 6.4 μsec delay corresponding to 2/3 of one full IFG period is initiated at Step 5203. If CRS returns to a logic 1 during this 6.4 μsec delay, (i.e. the line becomes busy) the process returns to the line busy status (Step 5202); otherwise the procedure proceeds to Step 5204 where a second fixed 3.2 μsec delay, corresponding to 1/3 of one IFG period, is inserted. When the 3.2 μsec timer completes at Step 5204, the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201.”
In this scenario, the master control server senses a line busy status (i.e., processing status information including a process speed from a process line). The procedure must then wait until the line is free and then initiates either a one part or two part deferral as selected by a corresponding bit in register. When a two part deferral is selected, after the timer completes in Step 5204, the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201 (i.e., set a traffic section based on the received process status information).
Regarding claim 5, and similarly claim 14, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 4, wherein the traffic management unit is configured to:
detect one or more priorities between the first smart transport vehicle and the one or more second smart transport vehicles based on the detected traffic data, and control the one or more smart transport vehicles based on the one or more priorities see at least Kim FIG. 6B, [0114] and [0116]-[0118] where master robot 601 may receive state information from a plurality of serving type robots including state information instructing that second service type robot 602 may need to perform the task swiftly. “The master robot 601 may correct the previously planned movement routes to new movement routes for making the second serving type robot 603 performing a task corresponding to an urgent job pass preferentially, and stopping the first serving type robot 602...”
Regarding claim 6, and similarly claim 15, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 5, wherein the traffic management unit is configured to:
request the first smart transport vehicle or one of the one or more second smart transport vehicles to accelerate, and request another one of the one or more second smart transport vehicles to decelerate based on the priorities see at least Kim FIG. 6B, [0114] and [0116]-[0118] where master robot 601 may receive state information from a plurality of serving type robots including state information instructing that second service type robot 602 may need to perform the task swiftly. “The master robot 601 may correct the previously planned movement routes to new movement routes for making the second serving type robot 603 performing a task corresponding to an urgent job pass preferentially (i.e., accelerate), and stopping the first serving type robot 602 (i.e., decelerating)...”
Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 16, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 4, wherein the traffic management unit is configured to command each of the one or more second smart transport vehicles to stop, slow down, accelerate, or cancel a task, based on the current locations, driving speeds, and driving routes of the second smart transport vehicles, to avoid a collision between the one or more second smart transport vehicles see at least Kim FIG. 6B, [0107] and [0111]-[0118] where the master robot corrects a planned movement route of a plurality of slave robots based on received state information, environment information, and driving information about the planned movement route in order to prevent collision among the robots.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban teaches
A split processing-based smart transport vehicle control method, comprising:
receiving, by a master control server configured to control a first smart transport vehicle see at least Kim [0051] where robot 100 may operate as a master robot and see at least FIG. 9 and [0059] & [0135] where the robot 100 includes a processor 130 configured to control the overall operations of the robot 100, process status information from a process line;
setting, by the master control server, a traffic section based on the process status information see at least Haban FIG. 5C (reproduced below) and Col. 9 lines 41-50:
PNG
media_image1.png
595
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“When a two part deferral is selected, a 6.4 μsec delay corresponding to 2/3 of one full IFG period is initiated at Step 5203. If CRS returns to a logic 1 during this 6.4 μsec delay, (i.e. the line becomes busy) the process returns to the line busy status (Step 5202); otherwise the procedure proceeds to Step 5204 where a second fixed 3.2 μsec delay, corresponding to 1/3 of one IFG period, is inserted. When the 3.2 μsec timer completes at Step 5204, the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201.”
In this scenario, the master control server receives notice of a line busy status (i.e., processing status information including a process speed from a process line). When the timer completes the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201 (i.e., set a traffic section based on the received process status information);
receiving, by the master control server, current locations, driving speeds, and driving routes of one or more second smart transport vehicles controlled by one or more slave control servers see at least Kim [0071]-[0072] where the processor 130 may request state information, environment information and driving information about a planned movement route of at least one other robot (i.e., slave robot). The environment information may include a location of the at least one other robot. Also see at least Paschall Col. 9 lines 8-13 where safety system controller 233 may receive data from a plurality of sensors related to the AMRs including a speed of the AMR;
detecting, by the master control server, traffic data based on the process status information and the current locations, driving speeds, and driving routes of the one or more second smart transport vehicles see at least Kim FIG. 6B, FIG. 8, [0114] and [0116]-[0118] where master robot 601 may receive state information from a plurality of serving type robots including state information instructing that second service type robot 602 may need to perform the task swiftly. “The master robot 601 may correct the previously planned movement routes to new movement routes for making the second serving type robot 603 performing a task corresponding to an urgent job pass preferentially (i.e., accelerate), and stopping the first serving type robot 602 (i.e., decelerating)...”
Further, see at least Kim [0071]-[0072] where the processor 130 may request state information, environment information and driving information about a planned movement route of at least one other robot (i.e., slave robot). The environment information may include a location of the at least one other robot and the processor 130 may correct a planned movement route related to the plurality of robots based on the received information. Also see at least Paschall Col. 9 lines 8-13 where safety system controller 233 may receive data from a plurality of sensors related to the AMRs including a speed of the AMR.
Lastly, see at least Haban FIG. 5C and Col. 9 lines 34-40 and Col. 9 lines 41-50:
“When a two part deferral is selected, a 6.4 μsec delay corresponding to 2/3 of one full IFG period is initiated at Step 5203. If CRS returns to a logic 1 during this 6.4 μsec delay, (i.e. the line becomes busy) the process returns to the line busy status (Step 5202); otherwise the procedure proceeds to Step 5204 where a second fixed 3.2 μsec delay, corresponding to 1/3 of one IFG period, is inserted. When the 3.2 μsec timer completes at Step 5204, the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201.”
In this scenario, the master control server senses a line busy status (i.e., processing status information including a process speed from a process line). The procedure must then wait until the line is free and then initiates either a one part or two part deferral as selected by a corresponding bit in register. When a two part deferral is selected, after the timer completes in Step 5204, the process loops back to the IFG Complete state 5201 (i.e., set a traffic section based on the received process status information); and
collectively controlling, by the master control server, traffic between the first smart transport vehicle and the one or more second smart transport vehicles based on the traffic data see at least Kim FIG. 6B, [0114] and [0116]-[0118] where master robot 601 may receive state information from a plurality of serving type robots including state information instructing that second service type robot 602 may need to perform the task swiftly. “The master robot 601 may correct the previously planned movement routes to new movement routes for making the second serving type robot 603 performing a task corresponding to an urgent job pass preferentially (i.e., accelerate), and stopping the first serving type robot 602 (i.e., decelerating)...”
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Paschall and Haban as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rosencrance (US 2025/0298417 A1).
Regarding claim 8, and similarly claim 17, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban does not expressly disclose
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 4, wherein the traffic management unit is configured to collectively command the one or more second smart transport vehicles to operate in a power saving mode or wake up from the power saving mode.
However, Rosencrance teaches that it is known to provide:
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 4, wherein the traffic management unit is configured to collectively command the one or more second smart transport vehicles to operate in a power saving mode or wake up from the power saving mode see at least the abstract, FIG. 1 and [0031]-[0033] where an autonomous guided vehicle (AGV) system 100 comprises a mobile vehicle (e.g., ground module 101) which may be part of a fleet of a plurality of ground modules 101. Further, see at least [0050]-[0053] where the AGV system 100 may have a plurality of modes including a standby mode. The master controller PLC (e.g., the master controller taught by prior art Kim) may place the AGV system 100 into standby mode in which the ground module 101 enters a low power mode.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Paschall and Haban to incorporate the teachings of Rosencrance and provide the split processing-based smart transport vehicle control device of claim 4, wherein the traffic management unit is configured to collectively command the one or more second smart transport vehicles to operate in a power saving mode or wake up from the power saving mode. In doing so, the method is improved by saving battery power of a smart transport vehicle when parked or docked, when charging at charging stations, and during periods where production is not active [0052].
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Paschall and Haban as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lia et al., "Lia" ("Why interoperability is critical to the warehouse of the future").
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban does not expressly disclose
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control method of claim 11, further comprising confirming, by the master control server, whether the one or more slave control servers are in an active state.
However, Lia teaches that it is known to provide:
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control method of claim 11, further comprising confirming, by the master control server, whether the one or more slave control servers are in an active state see at least 2.5 Robot Status where the AMR will send robot status messages periodically which include fields listed in Table 2. The AMR status message may comprise a current operational state and/or error codes which include “disabled” (not available to perform a mission) and “offline” (no current messages).
Therefore, Kim in view of Paschall and Haban teaches the master control server configured to receive status information from a plurality of slave robots (see at least Kim [0112]) and determining whether the plurality of slave robots meets a minimum remaining battery amount of 60% (see at least Kim [0090]) and Kim in view of Paschall and Haban is further modified by Lia in order to teach that it is known to confirm whether the one or more slave control servers are in an active state.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Paschall and Haban to incorporate the teachings of Lia and provide the split processing-based smart transport vehicle control method of claim 11, further comprising confirming, by the master control server, whether the one or more slave control servers are in an active state. In doing so, the method is improved by enabling the master control server to be aware of the robot operational status at all times and, further, “the visibility of these basic identity and status information of the IMRs already provides significant improvement to the management of a multi-vendor fleet of IMRs (3 Real World Applications).
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Paschall, Haban and Lia teaches
The split processing-based smart transport vehicle control method of claim 11, further comprising excluding a slave control server of which the active state is not confirmed, among the one or more slave control servers, from a traffic management target see at least Kim [0090]-[0091] where “each robot may identify that the candidate robot 413 having a battery remaining amount smaller than the threshold value (60%) does not operate as the master robot. Since the characteristic of the master robot consumes a lot of power for controlling the plurality of robots (as discussed in [0091] of Kim), any robot having a remaining battery amount smaller than the threshold value is excluded as a master robot.
Lia teaches receiving robot status messages from the AMR including a current status of “disabled” and “offline” and it is well-understood, routine and conventional that a slave control server that is offline would not be chosen to be a traffic management target because it is non-operational and therefore not available to perform the mission. Therefore, Kim teaches that it is known to exclude a robot having a remaining battery capacity of less than 60% from becoming a master robot and Kim in view of Paschall and Haban is further modified by Lia to confirm that a robot is disabled or in an offline state and therefore a remaining battery capacity cannot be detected and that robot cannot be chosen as a master robot (i.e., traffic management target).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (KR20210113901 A) discloses a control method of a robot system including a plurality of moving robots wherein a master moving robot generates a cleaning plan for a cleaning area based on map information and state information.
Park (KR20220070736 A) discloses a system and method for managing network of control robot which allows a master robot to be dynamically set.
Peng et al. (CN115167381 A) discloses an AGV cooperative working group implementation method based on a temporary multi-group small wireless network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brittany Renee Peko whose telephone number is (408)918-7506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:30 PT.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/B.R.P./06/24/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights