Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/201,372

PACKAGE TRANSPORT DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 24, 2023
Examiner
BUFFINGTON, HEAVEN RICHELLE
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation Of America
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
71 granted / 85 resolved
+31.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
121
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 85 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 2-11 and 15 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. Claim 2 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“package transport device”) while then claiming a process (“portion extends…after the turntable rotates”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p). Claim 3 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“package transport device”) while then claiming a process (“the turntable rotates the main body until…”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Claim 4 recites the limitation “an other end of the first slider portion”. Please replace the indefinite pronoun to positive recite the component claimed. This rejection likewise applies to claims 6 and 8. Claim 6 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“package transport device”) while then claiming a process (“extends so as to…”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Claim 10 recites the limitations “a second slider portion that is disposed between the first rail holder and the main body and extends with respect to the main body; and a third slider portion that is disposed between the second rail holder and the main body and extends with respect to the main body, wherein the turntable is disposed between the third rail holder and the main body, and the turntable rotates the main body after the second slider portion and the third slider portion extend”. It is unclear to Examiner how the components cooperate in light of previously recited limitations. In earlier claims, the first rail holder, second rail holder, and third rail holder are located on the frame (claim 8), and the turntable rotates the main body and is provided between the main body and the rail holder (claim 1). If the turntable is disposed between the main body and the rail holder (which includes the first, second and third rail holders) as claimed within claim 8, it is unclear how the second slider portion is disposed between the first rail holder and the main body and the third slider portion is disposed between the second rail holder and the main body. This rejection likewise applies to claim 15. Claims 5, 7, 9 and 11 are likewise rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogo et al. (WO 2020090288 A1). Regarding claim 1: Ogo discloses a package transport device (100; Fig.1) comprising: a main body (12; Fig.1); a rail holder (31; Fig.2) held by a rail (R; Fig.1) located above the main body (Fig.1); a turntable (15; Fig.1) that is provided between the main body and the rail holder and rotates the main body (apparent from Fig.1); a first slider portion that extends with respect to the main body (11; Fig.1); and a package holder (13; Fig.1) that holds a package attached to the first slider portion (Fig.1). Regarding claim 2: Ogo further discloses the package transport device according to claim 1, wherein the first slider portion extends with respect to the main body after the turntable rotates the main body (Fig.1 and 4). Regarding claim 3: Ogo further discloses the package transport device according to claim 1, wherein the main body (12; Fig.1) includes a frame having a first length in a first direction that is longer than a second length in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (dimensions of W; Fig.2), and the turntable rotates the main body until a lengthwise direction of the frame approximately perpendicularly intersects an extending direction of the rail (apparent from Fig.2 dependent upon preferred transfer direction). Regarding claim 4: Ogo further discloses the package transport device according to claim 3, wherein the first slider portion: includes the package holder at one end of the first slider portion (M; Fig.1), and a counterweight of a predetermined weight at an other end of the first slider portion (connection of 11 to 12; Fig.1); and extends so as to maintain balance between a weight of the package (FIg.1) and a weight of the counterweight. Regarding claim 12: Ogo further discloses the package transport device according to claim 1, further comprising: a motor (35; Fig.2) that rotates the rail holder (31; Fig.1) so as to release a hold of the rail holder by the rail so as to avoid contact between a rail support portion that supports the rail and the rail holder when the package transport device is traveling on the rail (rotation of rail holders 31 when traveling from R2 to R1; Fig.3). Regarding claim 13: Ogo discloses a control method of controlling a package transport device, the package transport device including: a main body (12; Fig.1); a rail holder (31; Fig.1) held by a rail located above the main body (R; Fig.1); a turntable that is provided between the main body and the rail holder and rotates the main body (15; Fig.1); a first slider portion that extends with respect to the main body (11; Fig.1); and a package holder that holds a package attached to the first slider portion (13; Fig.1), the method comprising: rotating the main body by the turntable; and extending the first slider portion with respect to the main body after the turntable rotates the main body (Fig.1). Regarding claim 14: Ogo further discloses the control method according to claim 13, wherein the main body (12; Fig.1) includes a frame having a first length in a first direction that is longer than a second length in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (dimensions of W; Fig.2), the first slider portion includes the package holder at one end of the first slider portion (13; Fig.1), and a counterweight of a predetermined weight at an other end of the first slider portion (connection of 11 to 12; Fig.1), in the rotating, the main body is rotated until a lengthwise direction of the frame approximately perpendicularly intersects an extending direction of the rail, and in the extending, the first slider portion is extended from both ends of the frame in the lengthwise direction of the frame so as to maintain balance between a weight of the package and a weight of the counterweight (apparent from extension in desired direction; Fig.4). 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogo in view of Stahlschmidt (WO 2008031859 A1). Regarding claim 5: Ogo fails to teach wherein the counterweight is a battery. However, Stahlschmidt teaches the use of a battery as a counterweight in an overhead transport device (202; Fig.18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ogo to include a battery as a counterweight as in Stahlschmidt to provide an efficient counterweight of the transport device to lower stress on the rail holders when the first slider portion is extended with a reasonable expectation of success. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-11 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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: The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations within 6-11 and 15. More specifically, Ogo fails to teach a rotary wing at an other end of the first slider portion; and the first slider portion extends so as to maintain balance between a weight of the package and a buoyancy of the rotary wing as claimed within claim 6. There is no suggestion to modify the device of Ogo with a rotary wing and doing so would require an improper amount of hindsight. Ogo also fails to teach a second holder held by the rail so as to push up on the rail from below as claimed within claim 7. It would require an improper level of hindsight to modify Ogo to include this feature since doing so would modify the principle of operation of the reference. Further, Ogo fails to teach a third rail holder located in a central region of the frame as claimed within claim 8. It would require an improper level of hindsight to modify Ogo to include this feature since doing so would modify the principle of operation of the reference. The above reasons likewise apply to the reasoning regarding claim 15. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET. 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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. /HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594975
Carrier Assembly for a Chassis of a Rail Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12565244
Article Transport Facility
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558974
Disconnection Assembly For Tethered Electric Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559146
PNEUMATIC COUPLER CONTROL ARRANGEMENT AND METHOD FOR UNCOUPLING A COUPLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552421
RAIL VEHICLE WITH DILATION PROFILE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A RAIL VEHICLE AND DILATION PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 85 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month