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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it consists of more than one paragraph and exceeds the 150 words limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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)(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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fjeldheim et al. (US 20230415989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fjeldheim et al. discloses a self-propelled robot (301) transfer system (FIG. 1 and 4A-4E) comprising: a transfer robot (40) that can load and unload a self-propelled robot (301) that moves on a plurality of second reinforcing bars as tracks (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), which are laid across a plurality of first reinforcing bars arranged in parallel on a working surface (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B); and a pair of traverse rails arranged on the plurality of second reinforcing bars in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bars to move the transfer robot in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bars (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), wherein the transfer robot is integrally composed of a main body unit (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), which includes a main body driving wheel (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B) that rolls on the traverse rail (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), a main body frame that is moved on the traverse rail by the main body driving wheel (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B) and a traverse drive section (45) that drives the main body driving wheel, and a bogie unit (See attached annotated Fig. 6B), which is consist of bogie wheels (See attached annotated Fig. 6B) that roll on the traverse rail (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig. 6B), a bogie frame (See attached annotated Fig. 6B) that is moved on the traverse rail by the bogie wheels and a loading/unloading assist (53) frame (54 and 56) that can transfer the self-propelled robot between the second reinforcing bar and the bogie frame by loading/unloading the self-propelled robot (It can be seen in Fig. 4A-4E).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
935
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fjeldheim et al. discloses a transfer robot (40) that can load and unload a self-propelled robot (301) which moves on a plurality of second reinforcing bars as tracks (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), which are laid across a plurality of first reinforcing bars arranged in parallel on a working surface (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), and that is for a self-propelled robot transfer system (Fig. 1and 4A-4E) that moves the self-propelled robot (301) along a pair of traverse rails arranged on the plurality of second reinforcing bars in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bars (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), wherein the transfer robot is integrally composed of a main body unit (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), which includes a main body driving wheel (See attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B) that rolls on the traverse rail (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B), a main body frame that is moved on the traverse rail by rolling of the main body driving wheel (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig. 5A and 5B) and a traverse drive section (45) that drives the main body driving wheel, and a bogie unit (See attached annotated Fig. 6B), which is consist of bogie wheels (See attached annotated Fig. 6B) that roll on the traverse rail (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig. 6B), a bogie frame (See attached annotated Fig. 6B) that is moved on the traverse rail by the bogie wheels and a loading/unloading assist (53) frame (54 and 56) that can transfer the self-propelled robot between the second reinforcing bar and the bogie frame by loading/unloading the self-propelled robot (It can be seen in Fig. 4A-4E).
Regarding claim 3, Fjeldheim et al. discloses all the limitation of the claim 2.
It also discloses the main body unit includes an operation communication section that communicates with the self-propelled robot (¶0068), and a traverse control section that controls the traverse drive section in accordance with content of communication with the self- propelled robot (40 and 301 communicate with each other via the ASRS control system. This allows the control system to coordinate their movements, avoid collisions, and manage tasks, see ¶0030).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjeldheim et al. (US 20230415989 A1) in view of Manabe et. al. (US 11035136 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Fjeldheim et al. discloses all the limitation of the claim 2.
It does not disclose the main body unit includes a second reinforcing bar detection sensor that detects a position of the second reinforcing bar on which the self-propelled robot moves, and an operation control section that drives the traverse drive section in response to a signal from the second reinforcing bar detection sensor.
Manabe et al. teaches the main body unit (200) includes a second reinforcing bar detection sensor (700) that detects a position of the second reinforcing bar on which the self-propelled robot moves (Column 10, lines 17-19, the rebar detecting unit 700 provided in front of the rebar binding self-propelled robot 100 detects the rebar terminal portions RG, it teaches that 700 is capable of detecting the position of reinforcing bars), and an operation control section (400) that drives the traverse drive section in response to a signal from the second reinforcing bar detection sensor Then, (Column 10, lines 19-20, the rebar detecting unit 700 transmits a detection signal to the control unit 400, It teaches the senser and controller which some ordinary skill person in the art can incorporate in the transfer robot and modify to sense traverse rail control the movement in response to the signal which is not innovative concept).
It would have been obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify Fjeldheim et al. by incorporating the second reinforcing bar detection sensor that detects a position of the second reinforcing bar on which the self-propelled robot moves, and an operation control section that drives the traverse drive section in response to a signal from the second reinforcing bar detection sensor in view of Manabe et. al in order to achieve automatic transfer of the transfer robot and reduce the transfer time.
Regarding claim 5, Fjeldheim et al. discloses all the limitation of the claim 2.
It does not disclose the main body unit includes a rail end detection sensor that detects an end of the traverse rail, and wherein the traverse control section controls the traverse drive section in response to a signal from the rail end detection sensor.
Manabe et al. teaches the main body unit (200) includes a rail end detection sensor that detects (700) an end of the traverse rail (column 10, lines 17-19, the rebar detecting unit 700 provided in front of the rebar binding self-propelled robot 100 detects the rebar terminal portions RG rail end) and wherein the traverse control section (400) controls the traverse drive section in response to a signal from the rail end detection sensor (Column 10, lines 19-20, detecting unit 700 transmits a detection signal to the control unit 400, It teaches the senser and controller which can be modify by ordinary skill person in the art to sense the end of the traverse rail and control the movement in response to the signal which is not innovative concept, See rejection of claim 4 for reasoning regarding the combination and motivation to combine).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited prior art shows other transfer robot system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652