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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/28/202 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. Specifically, the Non Patent Literature filed on 1/28/2025 has not considered since it does not include an English translation of the content. The it has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein, specifically the Non Patent Literature submitted 1/28/2025 has not been considered.
The remaining references have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Several paragraphs are unclear.
Para. 0024: “the mobile robot autonomously drives on a path excluding from the obstacle information.”, is unclear and should be revised.
Para. 0050: In lines 3-4, “FIG. 3 is a block view in which the obstacle information is not formed on the map for the mobile robot of the mobile robot shown in FIG. 2.”, is not clear. It appears that the obstacle 1c is shown on the map in Fig. 3.
Para. 0056: The phrase, “a new obstacle information 1c is generated and the newly generated obstacle information 1c is transmitted to the OHT control system 20 together with a node information, which is a OHT 10 position information, at a generation time point.”, should be clarified. Does Applicant mean that the obstacle information is transmitted to the OHT control system together with a node along the rail 10a where the OHT 10 is positioned above the ground obstacle?
Para. 0059: a “.” is missing after “generated” in line 4.
Para. 0065: the word “obstacle” in line 1 should be capitalized.
Para. 0070: the phrase, “Therefore, since the mobile robot 30 can recognize new obstacles which cannot be detected by the proximity sensor for the mobile robot 36 in advance by the obstacle information 1c, a bottleneck phenomenon between mobile robots 30 at a new obstacle position is prevented.”, is unclear. Does Applicant mean that the mobile robot 30 avoids paths where the obstacle has been detected?
The term “obstacle information” is unclear. Is Applicant referring to the actual obstacle being detected by the sensors? It appears obstacle information 1c refers to an actual obstacle that has been detected.
Above are several examples of unclear terminology in the specification. Applicant is encouraged to review and revise any instances of unclear terminology.
Appropriate correction is required
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5, 7 and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Relative to claim 2, Examiner suggests revising “and each of the plurality generate a distance information of below.” To “and each of the plurality of OHT’s generate distance information below the OHT’s.”?
Relative to claim 3, does Applicant mean: “The transfer robot system of claim 1, wherein the OHT generates an obstacle information as a result of the distance detected by the bottom side distance detection sensor is closer than a distance determined by factory ground distance information.”? Or does Applicant mean, “The transfer robot system of claim 1, wherein the OHT generates an obstacle information as a result of the distance detected by the bottom side distance detection sensor is closer than a distance between the bottom side detection sensor and the factory ground.”? Examiner has interpreted the phrase “generates an obstacle information” to “detects an obstacle”.
Relative to claim 5, “wherein a position information is further generated at the obstacle information” can be revised for clarity. Does Applicant mean, “wherein the position of the obstacle is detected”?
Relative to claim 7, several terms are unclear. Is the “article” in line 3 referring an article to be carried or being carried by the OHT? Does Applicant mean: “The transfer robot system of claim 1, further comprising an OHT control system for setting a driving path of the OHTs by performing a communication with the OHTs, monitoring a driving and a state information of the OHT and an article, and generating the obstacle information based on the distance detected by the bottom side distance detection sensors of each of the OHTs.”?
Relative to claim 9, Examiner recommends removing “information” after “map” in line 2.
Relative to claim 10, does Applicant mean: wherein the mobile robot autonomously drives on a path that excludes the detected obstacle.”?
Relative to claim 11, does Applicant mean:” wherein the mobile robot further includes a proximity sensor that generates an impact alert upon detecting an obstacle existing on an autonomous driving path, and
the mobile robot corrects a driving path by a set distance to avoid the obstacle upon the impact alert being generated.”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Relative to claim 1, the phrase “the autonomously driving while avoiding an obstacle information generated through the distance information.”, is unclear. What does “while avoiding obstacle information” mean?
Relative to claim 4, the phrase, “and the mobile robot autonomously drives in a bottom space of the OHT, and the OHT and the mobile robot autonomously drive in a state in which a driving path do not overlap with each other.”, is not clear.
Relative to claims 5 and 10, the terms “generated at the obstacle information” and “excluding from the obstacle information”, are unclear.
Relative to claim 6, does Applicant mean: “wherein the position information is a node information of the OHT.”, is not clear. Is the “node” a position of the OHT, or is the “node” referring to a position of the obstacle at a position directly underneath the OHT position along a railway?
Any claims not mentioned above are rejected because of their dependency from claim 1.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 (as understood by the Examiner) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Relative to claim 1, the closest available prior art does not disclose:
A transfer robot system comprising:
an OHT for transferring an article that drives autonomously along a rail, the OHT has a bottom side distance detection sensor that generates a distance below the OHT, between the bottom side distance detection sensor and the ground; and
an autonomous mobile robot driving on the ground for transferring an article, the mobile robot drives along a path that avoids an obstacle generated through the distance information, as claimed and as understood by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chu (US Patent No. 2021/0249297): is drawn to a method of operating a transport system that includes detecting an anomalous condition of a wafer transfer vehicle, and sends the wafer transfer vehicle along a rail to a diagnosis station. The system includes a wafer transfer vehicle 200 that has a traffic sensor 203 in the front for detecting distances between the vehicle and obstacles, so as to identify other vehicle along the overhead rail 100 to avoid collision. Para. 0035. Does not include detecting a distance between the ceiling and the ground to determine if an obstacle is located on the ground, beneath a wafer transfer vehicle, or a mobile robot traveling along the ground.
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 9-5.
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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655