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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 11 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 11 were amended, and claims 2, 5-8, 10, and 13-16 were canceled.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed December 31, 2025, with respect to an objection to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed December 31, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 4 and 11 have been withdrawn. While reference Yamaguchi teaches changing its belt length during constant speed sections, this is only one aspect of the claims; Yamaguchi teaches away from the claimed method with its flowchart figure 10 in which lowering may occur along with acceleration and deceleration.
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the constant speed section of reference Yamaguchi cannot be regarded as a section included in a shaking damping operation as recited in claim 1. However, claim 1 recites, “wherein the controller is configured to control the traveling driver such that a shaking damping operation of damping shaking of the article gripped by the grip member is performed in an acceleration section in which a traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail increases, or in a deceleration section in which the traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail decreases” (emphasis added). Thus, applicant’s shaking damping operation does not occur during a constant speed section either and so their argument has no force. In other words, Yamaguchi, in not disclosing a shaking damping operation in a constant speed section, is consistent with applicant’s claim. In fact, Yamaguchi’s method has to do with controlling shaking during acceleration as claimed, per Yamaguchi’s paragraph [0012].
We note as an aside that primary reference Murakami discloses control of shaking and swaying based on velocity (as opposed to acceleration per Yamaguchi) and so even if applicant did claim damping shaking during constant speed sections, Murakami would cover that aspect of the method.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami Ryuya, US 2018/0122656 (hereinafter Murakami) in view of Yamaguchi Osamu, JP H07257876 (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and further in view of Tsuda, et al., JP H06305686 (hereinafter Tsuda).
Regarding claim 1,
Murakami discloses:
A transferring unit (fig. 2: 1) traveling on a rail (fig. 2: 99) provided along a ceiling,
the transferring unit comprising: a body with a traveling driver (fig. 2: 2);
a traveling wheel (fig. 2: 21) configured to be rotated by receiving power from the traveling driver;
a grip member (fig. 3: 41) configured to grip an article;
a lifting member (fig. 2: 51) between the body and the grip member, the lifting member configured to move the grip member in a vertical direction;
and a controller (fig. 7: HT, HM), wherein the lifting member includes a belt (Murakami, 52: fig. 2, [0036]) connected with the grip member (Murakami 41: fig. 3);
and a lifting driver (Murakami 5: fig. 2) configured to wind and unwind the belt, wherein the controller is configured to control the lifting member and the traveling driver to lower or raise the grip member while the transferring unit travels on the railMurakami discloses in [0040] that the controller HM controls all aspects of the operation of the transferring unit 1, including in [0043] and [0048] control of the lift motor that raises and lowers the grip member 41, and that the master controller HT controls the overall operation of the facility in communication with individual HM controllers, as per [0040]. Murakami discloses in [0037] that the grip member and the container it carries can be raised or lowered while the traveling unit is moving.
and the controller controls the lifting member and the traveling driver so that the lowering or raising of the grip member is performed in a constant speed section in which the transferring unit travels at a constant speed.Murakami discloses in [0037] that it raises and lowers its lifting member and hence its grip member when its transfer unit is moving at speed VR, which is a fixed speed per container carried; i.e. the speed VR is constant over the course of a particular rail transit. Two examples of this speed VR are shown in fig. 12; VR1 and VR2 are both seen to be constant-speed sections with different speeds for different loads.
However, Murakami does not disclose all aspects of:
wherein the controller is configured to control the traveling driver such that a shaking damping operation of damping shaking of the article gripped by the grip member is performed in an acceleration section in which a traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail increases, or in a deceleration section in which the traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail decreasesWhile Murakami discloses a method of mitigating potential damage due to shaking of its carried container, its damping method is concerned with velocity rather than acceleration.
to reduce a shaking that causes a longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from a direction perpendicular to ground,Murakami does not explicitly disclose the claimed deviation in length caused by shaking.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing a traveling acceleration of the transferring unit along the rail in a half period of a shaking period of the article,Murakami does not disclose the half period.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling acceleration of the transferring unit from a first acceleration to a second acceleration that is smaller than the first acceleration,Murakami does not disclose the claimed acceleration change.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling of the transferring unit from first acceleration traveling at the first acceleration to constant speed traveling and changing the traveling of the transferring unit from the constant speed traveling to second acceleration traveling at the second acceleration,Murakami does not disclose this acceleration sequence change.
and wherein a first time period during which the transferring unit performs the constant speed traveling is shorter than a second time period during which the transferring unit performs the first acceleration traveling or the second acceleration traveling.Murakami does not disclose the claimed periods.
Yamaguchi, an invention in the field of crane load swing control, teaches the limitations:
wherein the controller (control devices 11-15, [0015]) is configured to control the traveling driver (trolley 1: fig. 2) such that a shaking damping operation of damping shaking of the article (load 3: fig. 2) gripped by the grip member is performed in an acceleration section in which a traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail (rail 2: fig. 2) increases, or in a deceleration section in which the traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail decreasesYamaguchi teaches in [0012] acceleration control of in order to reduce sway (“shaking”) of a traveling driver, in this case a trolley 1 traveling on an overhead rail 2. As Yamaguchi’s method uses acceleration control to reduce shaking, it must therefore occur in an “acceleration section” or a “deceleration section” because acceleration cannot be changed while an object moves at a constant speed. While Yamaguchi lacks a “grip member”, in the combination of Murakami and Yamaguchi we rely on Murakami’s structures including its grip member and Yamaguchi’s acceleration control method, which will work equally well with or without a grip member.
to reduce a shaking that causes a longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from a direction perpendicular to ground,This limitation is a logical consequence of the system and method taught by Murakami and Yamaguchi. Any shaking or swaying of a pendulum load must necessarily cause a deviation of the longitudinal component of the length of the pendulum in some direction(s) from the perpendicular. Thus the control method taught by Yamaguchi to reduce shaking due to acceleration reduces shaking that causes a longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from the perpendicular.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing a traveling acceleration of the transferring unit along the rail in a half period of a shaking period of the article,Yamaguchi teaches in [0010] and [0032] the damping of sway (shaking) according to half of the period of the oscillation frequency.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling acceleration of the transferring unit from a first acceleration to a second acceleration that is smaller than the first acceleration,Yamaguchi teaches this second smaller acceleration in [0032] with respect to a deceleration section. Of course, deceleration is simply acceleration in a “reverse” or negative vector direction of a first direction, and so the magnitudes are comparable regardless of vector direction.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling of the transferring unit from first acceleration traveling at the first acceleration to constant speed traveling and changing the traveling of the transferring unit from the constant speed traveling to second acceleration traveling at the second acceleration,Murakami discloses acceleration followed by constant speed motion followed by a second acceleration (deceleration) in its fig. 12. In this figure, the horizontal line segments of VR1 and VR2 are constant speed sections and the diagonal line segments are acceleration and deceleration sections. Of course, many other references disclose similar patterns in moving vehicles, which naturally have to accelerate from a stop, move no faster than a constant maximum speed, and then decelerate when they come to a destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Murakami, (i) wherein the controller is configured to control the traveling driver such that a shaking damping operation of damping shaking of the article gripped by the grip member is performed in an acceleration section in which a traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail increases, or in a deceleration section in which the traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail decreases, (ii) to reduce a shaking that causes a longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from a direction perpendicular to ground, (iii) wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing a traveling acceleration of the transferring unit along the rail in a half period of a shaking period of the article, (iv) wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling acceleration of the transferring unit from a first acceleration to a second acceleration that is smaller than the first acceleration, as taught by Yamaguchi. Limitation (i) would have been obvious because firstly, shaking (and its consequent harmful effects) can be expected to be most intense during acceleration or deceleration as compared to during constant-speed movement, secondly, it is impossible to avoid acceleration and deceleration during movement, and thirdly, Yamaguchi states in [0001] its method is well-suited to damping shaking in a case where the rope or cable length changes during operation, which is the case for applicant’s invention as well. Limitation (ii) would have been obvious because this reduction is a logical consequence of the reduction of shaking of limitation (i). Limitation (iii) would have been obvious because the method of reducing oscillation according to the half period of the oscillation is well known in the mechanical arts and is of long standing, taught by many references apart from Yamaguchi. Limitation (iv) would have been obvious because a substantial aspect of shaking is due to acceleration, and so reducing acceleration will naturally lead to reduced shaking.
Tsuda, an invention in the field of overheard crane automation, teaches the missing aspects of the limitation:
and wherein a first time period during which the transferring unit performs the constant speed traveling is shorter than a second time period during which the transferring unit performs the first acceleration traveling or the second acceleration traveling.Tsuda teaches in [0040] that the constant speed section of a crane’s motion can vary with the distance it must travel and can even be of zero duration, and also teaches in [0002] that it is an objective of crane operation to minimize the length of a constant speed section, reducing it to be shorter than acceleration sections. In fig. 5 Tsuda teaches several standard time-acceleration graphs that depict their constant speed sections as being shorter than their acceleration sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Murakami and Yamaguchi, wherein a time during which the transferring unit performs the constant speed traveling is shorter than a time during which the transferring unit performs the first acceleration traveling or the second acceleration traveling, as taught by Tsuda because as Tsuda indicates in [0002] it is desirable to shorten the overall cycle time of a crane’s movement. A combination of acceleration and constant speed sections that minimizes the length of the constant speed section will minimize total cycle time assuming that acceleration is performed at a maximum safe level, an advantage that would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9,
Murakami discloses:
An article transferring system for transferring a container in which an article is accommodated along a ceiling of a manufacturing line in which semiconductor process devices are continuously disposed,Murakami’s invention, focusing largely on the transfer vehicle just as the applicant’s does, constitutes an article transfer system inasmuch as it discloses all the structural limitations below.
the article transferring system comprising: a rail provided along the ceiling (fig. 2: 99);
a port (fig. 1: 92, [0024]) configured to allow the container (fig. 2: 80) to be seated;The applicant’s “port” P is equivalent to Murakami’s “placement location” 92.
a transferring unit (fig. 2: 1) configured to travel along the rail and configured to transfer the container to the port,
wherein the transferring unit includes: a body with a traveling driver (fig. 2: 2);
a traveling wheel (fig. 2: 21) configured to rotate by receiving power from the traveling driver;
a grip member (fig. 3: 41) configured to grip the container;
a lifting member (fig. 2: 51) between the body and the grip member and configured to move the grip member in a vertical direction;
and a controller (fig. 7: HT, HM),
wherein the lifting member includes a belt (Murakami, 52: fig. 2, [0036]) connected with the grip member (Murakami 41: fig. 3); and a lifting driver (Murakami 5: fig. 2) configured to change an extended length of the belt by winding or unwinding the belt
and wherein the controller configured to control the lifting member and the traveling driver to lower or raise the grip member while the transferring unit travels on the railMurakami discloses in [0040] that the controller HM controls all aspects of the operation of the transferring unit 1, including in [0043] and [0048] control of the lift motor that raises and lowers the grip member 41, and that the master controller HT controls the overall operation of the facility in communication with individual HM controllers, as per [0040]. Murakami discloses in [0037] that the grip member and the container it carries can be raised or lowered while the traveling unit is moving.
and the controller controls the lifting member and the traveling driver so that the lowering or raising of the grip member is performed in a constant speed section in which the transferring unit travels with a traveling speed that is a constant speed.Murakami discloses in [0037] that it raises and lowers its lifting member and hence its grip member when its transfer unit is moving at speed VR, which is a fixed speed per container carried; i.e. the speed VR is constant over the course of a particular rail transit. Two examples of this speed VR are shown in fig. 12; VR1 and VR2 are both seen to be constant-speed sections with different speeds for different loads.
However, Murakami does not disclose all aspects of:
wherein the controller is configured to control the traveling driver such that a shaking damping operation of damping shaking of the article gripped by the grip member is performed in an acceleration section in which a traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail increases, or in a deceleration section in which the traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail decreasesWhile Murakami discloses a method of mitigating potential damage due to shaking of its carried container, its damping method is concerned with velocity rather than acceleration.
to reduce a shaking that causes a longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from a direction perpendicular to ground,Murakami does not explicitly disclose the claimed deviation in length caused by shaking.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing a traveling acceleration of the transferring unit along the rail in a half period of a shaking period of the article,Murakami does not disclose the half period.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling acceleration of the transferring unit from a first acceleration to a second acceleration that is smaller than the first acceleration,Murakami does not disclose the claimed acceleration change.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling of the transferring unit from first acceleration traveling at the first acceleration to constant speed traveling and changing the traveling of the transferring unit from the constant speed traveling to second acceleration traveling at the second acceleration,Murakami does not disclose this acceleration sequence change.
and wherein a first time period during which the transferring unit performs the constant speed traveling is shorter than a second time period during which the transferring unit performs the first acceleration traveling or the second acceleration traveling.Murakami does not disclose the claimed periods.
Yamaguchi, an invention in the field of crane load swing control, teaches the limitations:
wherein the controller (control devices 11-15, [0015]) is configured to control the traveling driver (trolley 1: fig. 2) such that a shaking damping operation of damping shaking of the article (load 3: fig. 2) gripped by the grip member is performed in an acceleration section in which a traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail (rail 2: fig. 2) increases, or in a deceleration section in which the traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail decreasesYamaguchi teaches in [0012] acceleration control of in order to reduce sway (“shaking”) of a traveling driver, in this case a trolley 1 traveling on an overhead rail 2. As Yamaguchi’s method uses acceleration control to reduce shaking, it must therefore occur in an “acceleration section” or a “deceleration section” because acceleration cannot be changed while an object moves at a constant speed. While Yamaguchi lacks a “grip member”, in the combination of Murakami and Yamaguchi we rely on Murakami’s structures including its grip member and Yamaguchi’s acceleration control method, which will work equally well with or without a grip member.
to reduce a shaking that causes a longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from a direction perpendicular to ground,This limitation is a logical consequence of the system and method taught by Murakami and Yamaguchi. Any shaking or swaying of a pendulum load must necessarily cause a deviation of the longitudinal component of the length of the pendulum in some direction(s) from the perpendicular. Thus the control method taught by Yamaguchi to reduce shaking due to acceleration reduces shaking that causes the longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from the perpendicular.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing a traveling acceleration of the transferring unit along the rail in a half period of a shaking period of the article,Yamaguchi teaches in [0010] and [0032] the damping of sway (shaking) according to half of the period of the oscillation frequency.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling acceleration of the transferring unit from a first acceleration to a second acceleration that is smaller than the first acceleration,Yamaguchi teaches this second smaller acceleration in [0032] with respect to a deceleration section. Of course, deceleration is simply acceleration in a “reverse” or negative vector direction of a first direction, and so the magnitudes are comparable regardless of vector direction.
wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling of the transferring unit from first acceleration traveling at the first acceleration to constant speed traveling and changing the traveling of the transferring unit from the constant speed traveling to second acceleration traveling at the second acceleration,Murakami discloses acceleration followed by constant speed motion followed by a second acceleration (deceleration) in its fig. 12. In this figure, the horizontal line segments of VR1 and VR2 are constant speed sections and the diagonal line segments are acceleration and deceleration sections. Of course, many other references disclose similar patterns in moving vehicles, which naturally have to accelerate from a stop, move no faster than a constant maximum speed, and then decelerate when they come to a destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Murakami, (i) wherein the controller is configured to control the traveling driver such that a shaking damping operation of damping shaking of the article gripped by the grip member is performed in an acceleration section in which a traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail increases, or in a deceleration section in which the traveling speed of the transferring unit along the rail decreases, (ii) to reduce a shaking that causes a longitudinal length of the belt to deviate in any direction from a direction perpendicular to ground, (iii) wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing a traveling acceleration of the transferring unit along the rail in a half period of a shaking period of the article, (iv) wherein the shaking damping operation is an operation that includes changing the traveling acceleration of the transferring unit from a first acceleration to a second acceleration that is smaller than the first acceleration, as taught by Yamaguchi. Limitation (i) would have been obvious because firstly, shaking (and its consequent harmful effects) can be expected to be most intense during acceleration or deceleration as compared to during constant-speed movement, secondly, it is impossible to avoid acceleration and deceleration during movement, and thirdly, Yamaguchi states in [0001] its method is well-suited to damping shaking in a case where the rope or cable length changes during operation, which is the case for applicant’s invention as well. Limitation (ii) would have been obvious because this reduction is a logical consequence of the reduction of shaking of limitation (i). Limitation (iii) would have been obvious because the method of reducing oscillation according to the half period of the oscillation is well known in the mechanical arts and is of long standing, taught by many references apart from Yamaguchi. Limitation (iv) would have been obvious because a substantial aspect of shaking is due to acceleration, and so reducing acceleration will naturally lead to reduced shaking.
Tsuda, an invention in the field of overheard crane automation, teaches the missing aspects of the limitation:
and wherein a first time period during which the transferring unit performs the constant speed traveling is shorter than a second time period during which the transferring unit performs the first acceleration traveling or the second acceleration traveling.Tsuda teaches in [0040] that the constant speed section of a crane’s motion can vary with the distance it must travel and can even be of zero duration, and also teaches in [0002] that it is an objective of crane operation to minimize the length of a constant speed section, reducing it to be shorter than acceleration sections. In fig. 5 Tsuda teaches several standard time-acceleration graphs that depict their constant speed sections as being shorter than their acceleration sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Murakami and Yamaguchi, wherein a time during which the transferring unit performs the constant speed traveling is shorter than a time during which the transferring unit performs the first acceleration traveling or the second acceleration traveling, as taught by Tsuda because as Tsuda indicates in [0002] it is desirable to shorten the overall cycle time of a crane’s movement. A combination of acceleration and constant speed sections that minimizes the length of the constant speed section will minimize total cycle time assuming that acceleration is performed at a maximum safe level, an advantage that would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claims 4 and 11, while prior art that teaches raising and lowering loads solely while a carrier is moving at a constant speed (and thus not raising and lowering while accelerating or decelerating) is well known, in order to show that the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, we were forced to cite reference Yamaguchi, which teaches away from claims 4 and 11 by explicitly enabling the raising and lowering of loads during acceleration and deceleration sections. It would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make use of Yamaguchi’s teachings for one purpose and then to override Yamaguchi’s teaching with yet another reference contradicting Yamaguchi. For this reason, in the context of the manifold limitations of the independent claims, the matter of claims 4 and 11 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655