Automated System Coordination via Status Message Intermediary

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional automated systems require extensive programming and synchronization efforts when multiple systems cooperate for a common operation, leading to increased complexity, downtime, and production delays, especially when one system fails or requires programming changes.

Innovation Solution

A method where a first automated system is programmed with explicit instructions, and a second system automatically generates complementary actions based on the operational status of the first system, allowing them to cooperate without pre-scripted motion plans or explicit programming, using status messages for synchronization and adaptation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a supervisory controller is used to coordinate multiple automated systems, then synchronization between systems is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovesynchronizationVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses status messages as an intermediary mechanism between automated systems. Instead of a centralized supervisory controller, each system publishes its operational status and receives status messages from others, enabling decentralized synchronization through information exchange

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous feedback loops where each automated system monitors its own operational status and the status of other systems, automatically adjusting its operations based on received status messages to maintain synchronization

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If detailed programs are written for each automated system to synchronize operations, then coordination between systems is achieved, but programming effort increases

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovecoordinationVSAvoidprogramming time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Each automated system automatically determines its own actions based on received status messages without requiring external programming for coordination. The systems self-adjust their operations by interpreting status messages and autonomously deciding complementary actions

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of programming systems to explicitly coordinate with each other, the patent inverts the approach by having systems independently respond to status messages. The coordination emerges from individual system responses rather than from pre-programmed inter-system protocols

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

3Adaptability or versatility

If programming for one automated system is changed, then adaptability is improved, but reprogramming effort for other systems increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprogramming flexibilityVSAvoidreprogramming time

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

When programming for one system changes, that system's status messages automatically reflect the new behavior. Other systems continue to operate based on received status messages without requiring reprogramming, as they autonomously adapt to changes in system behavior through the status message interface

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentUS10268177B2Method and apparatus of coordinating independent automated systems

Publication Date: 2019.04.23 THE BOEING CO

AI summary

A method of coordinating automated systems, the method includes providing a first automated system that is programmed with a set of predetermined operating instructions that correspond with automated system processing requirements, monitoring an operational status of the first automated system with a second automated system, automatically generating a second system action, with the second automated system, that is complementary to a first system action of the first automated system, where the first system action corresponds to the set of predetermined operating instructions and the second system action depends on the operational status of the first automated system, and performing the second system action with the second automated system so that the second automated system cooperates with the first automated system to perform a predetermined operation.