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
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 .
Prosecution is Reopened
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-9, and 16-20 is considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
The indicated allowability of claims 1-9, and 16-20 are withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Ikenaga (US Patent No. 9,896,275), Ito (JP 2008-184298 A), Seo (KR 10-2017-0045834 A), and Luo (CN 110 758 423 A). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/17/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL filed on 03/17/2026, dated 12/25/2025 is not in the English language and has been placed in the file but is not considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “include” should be “includes”. Similar changes should be made to claim 16.
In claim 16, line 24, it appears that “and” should be after “travel direction,”.
In claim 17, line 5, is appears “is controller” should be “controller is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 7, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga et al (US Patent No. 9,896,275) in view of Ito Yasuhisa (JP 2008-184298 A). Relative to claims 1-3, and 7, Ikenaga discloses:
claim 1) An article transferring apparatus (“article transport facility”, Fig. 1), comprising:
a vehicle (3a, 3b) configured to travel along a travel rail (2) installed on a ceiling (see Fig. 1)(Col. 2, lines 52-59);
a hoist module (Col. 3, lines 6-11) connected to the vehicle (3a, 3b) and transferring an article (FOUP)(Col. 2, lines 63-67);
a step difference measurement unit (sensors S7) which is installed on the vehicle (3a) and configured to measure a step difference of the travel rail (Col. 7, lines 1-13)(Fig. 2); and
a controller (see inspection controller, Col. 7, lines 14-25),
the step difference measurement unit (S7) includes:
a first displacement sensor (S7b) configured to measure a first measurement value which is a distance value to a surface of the travel rail (see sensors, S7a,S7b, distance sensors measure the difference to travel surface along rail 2)(Col. 7, lines 7-20); and
a second displacement sensor (S7a) configured to measure a second measurement value which is a distance value to a surface of the travel rail (2)(Col. 7, lines 7-20);
the first displacement sensor (S7b) and the second displacement sensor (S7a) are arranged at a predetermined interval along a travel direction (Fig. 2)(Col. 7, lines 3-6);
the controller (inspection controller) determines whether there is a step difference of the travel rail (2) based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value (Col. 7, lines 14-25);
claim 3) the controller (inspection controller) is configured: to determine a height difference between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor (S7a) based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value (Col. 7, lines 8-10),
to calculate a first distance value at which the first displacement sensor (S7b) is orthogonal to the traveling surface and a second distance value at which the second displacement sensor (S7a) is orthogonal to the traveling surface (Col. 7, lines 8-10); and
claim 7) the controller (inspection controller) is configured to instruct maintenance of a corresponding point when the step difference of the travel rail (2) is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (Col. 9, lines 6-13).
Ikenaga does not expressly disclose:
claim 1) the controller determines whether there is a step difference of the travel rail based an inclination of the vehicle;
claim 2) an inclination sensor unit configured to detect an inclination angle of the vehicle and to provide the inclination angle to the controller;
claim 3) the controller is configured: to determine a height difference between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value by using the inclination angle, and to calculate a first distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface and a second distance value at which the second displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface.
Ito teaches:
claim 1) the controller determines whether there is a step difference of the travel rail based an inclination of the vehicle (controller is inherently included since the system detects the inclination of vehicle with respect to the rail, and the inclination of vehicle is corrected by an inclination correction unit - see English translation of Specification: laser sensor, 26 Para. 0006; 0014);
claim 2) an inclination sensor unit (26 which include sensors 38, 39) configured to detect an inclination angle of the vehicle (8, 2)(Fig. 1) and to provide the inclination angle to the controller (Para. 0012; 0014 of the English translation of the Specification);
claim 3) the controller is configured: to determine a height difference between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor (see two optical sensors 38, 39, Para. 0006; 0012 of the English translation of the specification) based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value by using the inclination angle (See English translation of Specification, Para. 0011; 0014, the height difference is based on difference between the vehicle with cover (2, 8) to rail 4 from a position that is not inclined, Fig. 1, and a position where the vehicle with the cover (2, 8) is inclined relative to the rail 4, Fig. 2), and to calculate a first distance value at which the displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface (Para. 0014).
Ito teaches: the controller determining whether there is a step difference of the travel rail based an inclination of the vehicle; an inclination sensor unit; and the controller determines a height difference based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value by using the inclination angle as described above, for the purpose of providing an overhead traveling vehicle and method of operating an overhead traveling vehicle that compensates for an inclination of the overhead traveling vehicle to enable the article to be stably and reliably transferred; See English translation of the Specification, “see Problem to be Solved, Para. 0003”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Ikenaga so that the controller determines whether there is a step difference of the travel rail based an inclination of the vehicle; an inclination sensor unit; the controller determines a height difference between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor by using the inclination angle described above, as taught in Ito, for the purpose of providing an overhead traveling vehicle and method of operating an overhead traveling vehicle that compensates for an inclination of the overhead traveling vehicle to enable the article to be stably and reliably transferred.
Relative to claims 16-17, Ikenaga discloses:
claim 16) A transferring system (Col. 2, lines 52-53), comprising:
a travel rail (2) including a first rail and a second rail disposed along a travel path; and an article transferring apparatus (see Ref. 3, 12, 14)(Fig. 2) configured to travel along the travel rail (2),
the travel rail (2) has a straight section and a curved section connected to the straight section (see curved portion near 1b, 5(1), and straight portions of rail, 2)(Fig. 1, 5), and
the article transferring apparatus includes:
a vehicle (3a, 3b) configured to travel along the travel rail (2)(Fig. 1);
a hoist module (not shown) connected to the vehicle (3a) and configured to transfer an article (FOUP)(Col. 2, lines 63-67);
a step difference measurement unit (S7a, S7b) which is installed on the vehicle (3a), and configured to measure a step difference of the travel rail (2); and
a controller (inspection controller)(Col. 7, lines 14-25),
the step difference measurement unit (Col. 7, lines 1-13)(Fig. 2) includes:
a first displacement sensor (S7b) configured to measure a first measurement value which is a distance value to a surface of the travel rail (2)(Fig. 2); and
a second displacement sensor (S7a) configured to measure a second measurement value which is a distance value to a surface of the travel rail (2)(Fig. 2);
the first displacement sensor (S7b) and the second displacement sensor (S7a) are arranged at a predetermined interval along a travel direction Col. 7, lines 3-6)(Fig. 2), and
determines the step difference of the travel rail (2) based on the first measurement value, the second measurement value (Col. 7, lines 14-25);
claim 17) the controller is configured to calculate a first distance value at which the first displacement sensor (S7b) is orthogonal to the traveling surface and a second distance value at which the second displacement sensor (S7a) is orthogonal to the traveling surface (Col. 7, lines 14-25).
Ikenaga does not expressly disclose:
claim 16) the controller determines the step difference of the travel rail based on an inclination of the vehicle; or
claim 17) an inclination sensor unit configured to detect an inclination angle of the vehicle and providing the inclination angle to the controller,
the controller is configured to calculate a height of a right-angled triangle based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value by using the inclination angle, and calculates a first distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface and a second distance value at which the second displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface.
Ito teaches:
claim 16) the controller determines the step difference of the travel rail based on an inclination of the vehicle (See English translation of the Specification, Para. 0006; 0014); and
claim 17) an inclination sensor unit (see Ref. 26, 38, 39) configured to detect an inclination angle of the vehicle and providing the inclination angle to the controller (Para. 0012; 0014 of the English translation of the Specification),
the controller is configured to calculate a height of a right-angled triangle based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value by using the inclination angle (See Para. 0006; 0012 of the English translation of the specification, and
calculates a first distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface and a second distance value at which the second displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface (See English translation of Specification, Para. 0011; 0014, the height difference is based on difference between the vehicle with cover (2, 8) to rail 4 from a position that is not inclined, Fig. 1, and a position where the vehicle with the cover (2, 8) is inclined relative to the rail 4, Fig. 2).
Ito teaches: the controller determining whether there is a step difference of the travel rail based an inclination of the vehicle; an inclination sensor unit; and the controller determines a height difference based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value by using the inclination angle as described above, for the purpose of providing an overhead traveling vehicle and method of operating an overhead traveling vehicle that compensates for an inclination of the overhead traveling vehicle to enable the article to be stably and reliably transferred (See English translation of the Specification, “see Problem to be Solved, Para. 0003”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Ikenaga so that the controller determines whether there is a step difference of the travel rail based an inclination of the vehicle; an inclination sensor unit; the controller determines a height difference between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor by using the inclination angle described above, as taught in Ito for the purpose of providing an overhead traveling vehicle and method of operating an overhead traveling vehicle that compensates for an inclination of the overhead traveling vehicle to enable the article to be stably and reliably transferred.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga in view of Ito as applied to claims 1 or 16 above, and further in view of Seo Sung (KR 10-2017-0045834 A). Relative to claims 9 and 20, Ikenaga in view of Ito discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
claim 9) the controller is configured to control the vehicle to bypass a corresponding point when the step difference of the travel rail is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value; or
claim 20) the controller is configured to determine whether or not there is a step difference of the travel rail only while the article transferring apparatus passes through the straight section of the travel rail, and when the step difference of the travel rail is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the article transferring apparatus is configured to operate at a reduced speed or bypasses a corresponding point when passing the corresponding point.
Seo teaches:
claim 9) the controller (not shown) is configured to control the vehicle (21) to bypass a corresponding point when the step difference of the travel rail (11) is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (English translation of Specification, Page 4, Para. 6-8, beginning with “The vehicle section 21 can pass between”; in this instance, vehicle may pass through an opening using rails 13 in the travel direction); and
claim 20) the controller (not shown) is configured to determine whether or not there is a step difference of the travel rail (11), and when the step difference of the travel rail is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the article transferring apparatus (OHT) is configured to operate at a reduced speed or bypasses a corresponding point when passing the corresponding point (Page 2, Para. 8, beginning with “However, since the..” and Page 4, Para. 6-8 of the English translation of the specification, when a part of the rail 93 is broken, there is a step difference between the distance of the vehicle and the rail, the step difference of the broken rail is inherently determined but is not shown, in this case when the rail 11 has an abnormality, such as a broken rail creating a step difference beyond a certain threshold, the vehicle passes through an opening 37 along rails 13 to bypass the abnormality).
Seo teaches: the controller is configured to control the vehicle to bypass a corresponding point when the step difference of the travel rail is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, and the controller is configured to determine whether or not there is a step difference of the travel rail as mentioned above, for the purpose of providing a conveying apparatus for manufacturing integrated circuit devices that can transfer articles continuously without interruption in emergency or abnormal conditions (Page 1, Abstract; Page 2, para. 4, 8 of the English translation of the Specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Ikenaga in view of Ito so that the controller is configured to control the vehicle to bypass a corresponding point; and the controller is configured to determine whether or not there is a step difference of the travel rail as taught in Seo for the purpose of providing a conveying apparatus for manufacturing integrated circuit devices that can transfer articles continuously without interruption in emergency or abnormal conditions.
Relative to claims 8 and 20, Ikenaga in view of Ito and Seo discloses all claim limitations described above, but does not expressly disclose:
the controller is configured to control the vehicle to operate at a reduced speed when passing a corresponding point when the step difference of the travel rail is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value; or
the controller determine whether or not there is a step difference of the travel rail only while the article transferring apparatus passes through the straight section of the travel rail.
Ikenaga in view of Ito and Seo teaches: the controller is configured to control the vehicle to operate at a reduced speed when passing a corresponding point when the step difference of the travel rail is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value as an obvious matter of design choice since reducing the speed of the vehicle at a point of an abnormality in the rail, such as a broken rail that creates a step difference, is known in the art (Page 2, Para. 3 of English translation of Specification, beginning with “However, since the rail portion”, vehicle decelerates at a portion where the rail is broken). See MPEP §2144.03
Moreover, providing the controller to determine whether or not there is a step difference of the travel rail only while the article transferring apparatus passes through the straight section of the travel rail is an obvious matter of design choice based on routine optimization. See MPEP §2144.05, §2144.03
The cited references already teach determining a step difference (i.e., a discontinuity or uneven portion) of a rail to facilitate proper operation of an overhead vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that performing such measurement along a straight portion of the rail presents a predictable and practical design choice to avoid additional positional variation introduced by curved segments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ikenaga in view of Ito and Seo with controlling the vehicle to operate at a reduced speed when passing a corresponding point when the step difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, and determining whether or not there is a step difference of the travel rail only while the article transferring apparatus passes through the straight section of the travel rail, as a matter of design choice since slowing the vehicle down during a detected abnormality in the rail is well-known in the art, and to avoid additional positional variation introduced by curved segments.
Claim(s) 4-6, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga in view of Ito as applied to claims 1, 16 above, and further in view of Luo Wen-cheng (CN 110 758 423 A). Relative to claims 4-6, and 18-19, Ikenaga in view of Ito discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
claim 4) the controller is configured to calculate the height difference by multiplying a sine value (sin Θ) of the inclination angle by a distance value between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor;
and to calculate an actual distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface in a non-inclined state by subtracting the height difference from the first distance value;
claim 5) the controller is configured to calculate the first distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the first measurement value;
claim 6) the controller is configured to calculate the second distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the second measurement value;
claim 18) the controller is configured to: calculate the first distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the first measurement value, and calculate an actual distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface in a non-inclined state by subtracting the height from the first distance value;
claim 19) the controller is configured to calculate the second distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the second measurement value.
Luo teaches:
claim 4) the controller is configured to calculate the height difference by multiplying a sine value (sin Θ) of the inclination angle by a distance value between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor (first and second sensors are the two laser displacement sensors, Fig. 2, See Page 6, Para. 4-5 of the English translation of the specification; height differences is calculated based on trigonometric function; see also Page 7, Para. 13-14; Page 3, Step S201-S202; See Fig. 3); and
claim 18) the controller calculates the height by multiplying a sine value (sin Θ) of the inclination angle by a distance value between the first displacement sensor and the second displacement sensor (Page 6, Para. 4-5 and Page 7, Para. 13-14 of English translation of the Specification; Page 3, S102-S202, Fig. 3), for the purpose of providing a vibration compensation method, system, and device for a rail vehicle that reduces error of detected measurement values caused by vehicle body vibration, improving the precision of the detection result (Page 1, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify Ikenaga in view of Ito with the controller calculating the height difference by multiplying a sine value of the inclination angle by a distance value between the first and second displacement sensors described above, as taught in Luo for the purpose of providing a vibration compensation method, system, and device for a rail vehicle that reduces error of detected measurement values caused by vehicle body vibration, improving the precision of the detection result.
Relative to claims 4-6, and 18-19, Ikenaga in view of Ito and Luo does not expressly disclose:
calculating an actual distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface in a non-inclined state by subtracting the height difference from the first distance value;
calculating the first distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the first measurement value; or
calculating the second distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the second measurement value.
Ikenaga in view of Ito and Luo teaches:
calculating an actual distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface in a non-inclined state by subtracting the height difference from the first distance value;
calculating the first distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the first measurement value; and
calculating the second distance value by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the second measurement value as an obvious matter of design choice as these are known mathematical concepts.
Luo teaches determining a change in height based on an inclination angle using a trigonometric relationship. This evidences that is was known in the art to apply trigonometric functions, such as sine to resolve measurements based on inclination. See MPEP §2144.02, §2144.03.
Also, using a cosine function to determine a vertical component of a measured distance is also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as cosine is a well-known complimentary trigonometric function used to resolve the adjacent component of a vector. The substitution of cosine for sine merely represents the predictable use of known mathematical relationships to obtain a desired component of a measurement. See MPEP §2144.02, §2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ikenaga in view of Ito and Luo with the calculating an actual distance value at which the first displacement sensor is orthogonal to the traveling surface in a non-inclined state by subtracting the height difference from the first distance value; calculating the first or second distance values by multiplying a cosine value (cos Θ) of the inclination angle by the first or second measurement values, as a matter of design choice as it was known in the art to apply trigonometric functions, such as sine to resolve measurements based on inclination.
Related Art:
Ikenaga et al (US PG. Pub. 2017/0057750): describes an overhead traveling vehicle system using distance sensors that are spaced apart to determine distances to the travel surface (Para. 0053). The controller determines a presence of a step (D) in the travel surfaces in the rails (2) by analyzing measured distances determined by the distance sensors to determine a depth of a step (Para. 0064). The controller does not determine whether there is a step difference of the travel rail based on the first and second measurement values along with an inclination of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights