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 § 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 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 20200286220 A1) in view of Yamazaki et al. (JP 2019049447 A) and Shimamura (US 20070169659 A1).
Regarding claim 8: Ogawa teaches a rail-guided vehicle system (Fig.1) comprising:
a plurality of carriers (2; Fig.1) each being movable along a track (98; Fig.1) and including an obstacle detector (3; Fig.4) to detect a carrier located forward in a traveling direction (Para.[0033], lines 1-3) ;
a detectable portion in front of each carrier positioned at a predetermined position and detectable by the obstacle detector (5F; Fig.4); and
a controller to determine a state of the obstacle detector based on a detection result of the detectable portion (Para.[0037], lines 9-11); wherein the detectable portion is movable into a travel space of the carrier at a time of inspection to check operation of the obstacle detector and to retreat from the travel space of the carrier at a time of passage when the carrier passes through an advance position of the detectable portion (Para.[0062], lines 6-12); the carrier includes a traveling unit to travel in the internal space (Fig.3); the obstacle detector is attached to the traveling unit (3; Fig.4); and the detectable portion is movable between the internal space and the external space and to advance into the internal space at the time of inspection and to retreat into the external space at the time of passage (travel envelope of traveling unit and Para.[0062], lines 6-12). Ogawa does not teach wherein the detection result is completed by the obstacle detector, an internal space and a notch that are provided, the internal space being separated from an external space and located along an extending direction of the track or the use of a lid.
However, Yamazaki teaches wherein the detection result is completed by the obstacle detector (3B; Fig.2 and see attached EPO translation Para.[0035]). 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 Ogawa with the detector completing the detection result for an increased system efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Shimamura teaches a track with an internal space separated from an external space and located along an extending direction of the track (Fig.1) and the use of a lid to cover sensors (covers 13; Fig.1). 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 Ogawa with the separated internal and external space and use of a lid to cover sensors as in Shimamura to prevent the addition of outside obstacles from entering the travel route and prevent sensor disruptions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ogawa in view of Yamazaki and Shimamura teaches the claimed invention except for the use of a notch opening into the internal space for the entrance and retreat of the detectable portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a notch into the internal space for the detectable portion to travel into and out of the internal space, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 9: Ogawa teaches the use of obstacle detectors having light emitters (31A; Fig.3) and light receiver (31B; Fig.3) and the controller that is configured or programmed to detect a presence or absence of another carrier in the forward direction (Para.[0033]). Ogawa does not specifically teach the use of a light emitter attached to a plate or the placement of a rear light emitter provided to a forward carrier located forward in the traveling direction, or the carrier detection being based on a detection result of the light from the light emitter provided to the forward carrier by the light receiver, and determine a state of the light receiver, based on a detection result of the light from the light emitter provided to the plate by the light receiver.
Ogawa in view of Yamazaki and Shimamura teaches the claimed invention except for the placement of light emitters and receivers at additional locations for additional sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize additional light emitters and receivers to detect obstacles in multiple directions for an increased system efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 10: Ogawa teaches the rail-guided vehicle system according to claim 8, wherein the carrier includes a light emitter to cause a carrier located on the track to detect a presence of the carrier (31A; Fig.2); the rail-guided vehicle system further includes a light-emitter detector provided near the carrier positioned at the predetermined position to detect light emitted from the light emitter (5F,C; Fig.4); the light-emitter detector is movable to advance into the travel space of the carrier at a time of inspection to check operation of the rear light emitter and to retreat from the travel space of the carrier at a time of passage when the carrier passes through an advance position of the light-emitter detector (Para.[0062], lines 6-12); and the controller is configured or programmed to determine a state of the light emitter based on a detection result by the light-emitter detector (Para.[0037], lines 9-11). Ogawa does not teach the light emitter being on the rear of the carrier to interact with a carrier located behind on the track or the light-emitter detector being provided behind the carrier.
Ogawa in view of Yamazaki and Shimamura teaches the claimed invention except for the placement of light emitters and receivers at additional locations for additional sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize additional light emitters and receivers to detect obstacles in multiple directions for an increased system efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 11: Ogawa teaches the rail-guided vehicle system according to claim 8, wherein the obstacle detector (3; Fig.3) includes a light receiver (31B; Fig.3) and a light emitter (31A; Fig.3). Ogawa does not teach wherein the detectable portion includes a reflector capable of reflecting light emitted from the light emitter.
However, Yamazaki teaches wherein the detectable portion includes a reflector capable of reflecting light emitted from the light emitter (5R; Fig.5). 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 Ogawa to utilize reflectors for reflecting light from the light emitter to provide additional optical data to obstacle detectors from passive sources with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13: Ogawa teaches the rail-guided vehicle system according to claim 9, wherein the carrier includes a light emitter to cause a carrier located on the track to detect a presence of the carrier (31A; Fig.2); the rail-guided vehicle system further includes a light-emitter detector provided near the carrier positioned at the predetermined position to detect light emitted from the light emitter (5F,C; Fig.4); the light-emitter detector is movable to advance into the travel space of the carrier at a time of inspection to check operation of the rear light emitter and to retreat from the travel space of the carrier at a time of passage when the carrier passes through an advance position of the light-emitter detector (Para.[0062], lines 6-12); and the controller is configured or programmed to determine a state of the light emitter based on a detection result by the light-emitter detector (Para.[0037], lines 9-11). Ogawa does not teach the light emitter being on the rear of the carrier to interact with a carrier located behind on the track or the light-emitter detector being provided behind the carrier.
Ogawa in view of Yamazaki and Shimamura teaches the claimed invention except for the placement of light emitters and receivers at additional locations for additional sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize additional light emitters and receivers to detect obstacles in multiple directions for an increased system efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claim 12.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach wherein the reflector is movably attached to a frame-shaped body surrounding the travel space of the carrier so as to allow the carrier to pass therethrough in the traveling direction; and the reflector is movable to advance into the travel space of the carrier at the time of inspection and to retreat from the travel space of the carrier at the time of passage. There is no motivation to provide the frame-shaped body surrounding the travel space of the carrier so as to allow the carrier to pass therethrough in the traveling direction; and the reflector being moveable to advance in the travel space of the carrier at the time of inspection and to retreat from the travel space of the carrier at the time of passage. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine these features with the prior art above.
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