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
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-111380, filed on 07/11/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2023 and 11/04/2024 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20220126699 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches (Fig. 1-6): A transport vehicle (transport vehicle 20) configured to travel in a travel direction along a travel rail (rail 110)(Fig. 1), comprising: a body (drive body 221) comprising a first wheel (front wheel 222A) and a second wheel (rear wheel 222B) disposed at different positions to each other in the travel direction and configured to roll on the travel rail (110)(Fig. 2-3); a first drive device (motor 2212A) configured to drive the first wheel (222A); a second drive device (motor 2212B) configured to drive the second wheel (222B)(para. 0050; Fig. 4); and a control device (control unit 230) configured to control the first drive device (2212A) and the second drive device (2212B)(Fig. 4; para. 0049), wherein the control device (230) controls the first drive device (2212A) and the second drive device (2212B) in such a manner that a torque ratio of a wheel with increased load, which is a ratio of a torque transmitted to the wheel with increased load to a sum of a first wheel torque (front-wheel torque) and a second wheel torque (rear-wheel torque), is higher while the body is accelerating and decelerating than while the body is traveling at constant velocity (when the vehicle accelerates or decelerates, the torque provided to a wheel is increased relative to the other wheel, thereby increasing the torque ratio; para. 0058), and wherein where the first wheel torque (front-wheel torque) is a torque transmitted from the first drive device to the first wheel (front wheel 222A), the second wheel torque (rear-wheel torque) is a torque transmitted from the second drive device to the second wheel (rear wheel 222B), and the wheel with increased load is one of the first wheel and the second wheel that is subjected to an increase in vertical downward load that increases in response to acceleration or deceleration of the body (torque is distributed differently to increase a rail-gripping force of the front wheel 222A or the rear wheel 222B; para. 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches (Fig. 1-6): the control device (230) controls the first drive device (2212A) and the second drive device (2212B) in such a manner that the torque ratio of the wheel with increased load is higher while the body is accelerating and decelerating than while the body is traveling at constant velocity (para. 0057-0058; Fig. 4), within a range in which slippage between the wheel with increased load and the travel rail is not greater than while the body is traveling at constant velocity (slipping can be efficiently prevented; para. 0024).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further teaches (Fig. 1-6): the control device (230) continuously or incrementally increases the torque ratio of the wheel with increased load (it is inherent for a motor to continuously increase the torque of a wheel), as an absolute value of acceleration of the body increases (on the basis of the gradient in speed signal as acceleration or deceleration occurs; para. 0061).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches (Fig. 1-6): the body (221) further comprises a holding section configured to hold an article (goods F) to be transported (Fig. 3), the body (221) has a center of gravity lower than the travel rail (110) while the holding section is holding the article (when the body carries an article F with a larger mass, its center of gravity is below the travel rail; Fig. 2-3), the wheel (one of wheels 222A and 222B) with increased load while the body is accelerating is one of the first wheel and the second wheel that is on a front side in the travel direction (Fig. 6 shows wheel 222A with increased load), and the wheel with increased load while the body is decelerating is one of the first wheel and the second wheel that is on a rear side in the travel direction (Fig. 7 shows wheel 222B with increased load; para. 0057-0059).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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 claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5 and its depending claim(s) 6-8, the prior art fails to teach the control device determines the second wheel torque based on multiplication of the determined first wheel torque by a setting coefficient, sets the setting coefficient to a predetermined reference value, while the body is traveling at constant velocity, and sets the setting coefficient to a value smaller than the reference value in response to the first wheel being the wheel with increased load, and to a value larger than the reference value in response to the second wheel being the wheel with increased load, while the body is accelerating or decelerating. While Lee further teaches (Fig. 1-6): the control device (230): determines the first wheel torque (front-wheel torque) based on at least either a target position or a target velocity of the body (221)(para. 0058), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Lee to set a second wheel torque based on multiplying the first wheel torque by a setting coefficient, wherein the setting coefficient value is increased or decreased from a predetermined reference value in response to the increased load on the first wheel or the second wheel. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
While another reference Lee (US 20140121870 A1) teaches (Fig. 1): a vehicle control unit (HCU 201) that analyzes the vertical load of each driving wheel, and determines a torque ratio between a front axle and a rear axle to distribute driving torque (para. 0051), Lee does not teach that the setting coefficient value for multiplying the first wheel torque is set to a predetermined reference value while the body is traveling at constant velocity, set to a value smaller than the reference value in response to the first wheel being the wheel with increased load, and set to a value larger than the reference value in response to the second wheel being the wheel with increased load, while the body is accelerating or decelerating. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and additional modifications to a modifying reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a transport vehicle having wheels and a torque distribution unit for the wheels: US-20070239340-A1, US-20080128191-A1, US-20140121870-A1, US-8849538-B2, US-20190389305-A1, US-10583824-B2, US-11634113-B2, US-12269478-B2, KR-20160132699-A, SG-10201605312X-A, JP-2018122700-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615