DETAILED ACTION
This application currently includes independent claims 1, 16, and 17 and dependent claims 2-15, and 18-20.
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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 2 and 17-20 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. Claim 2 recites the condition precedent, “when a failure occurs”. How does the claim further limit claim 1, from which it depends, when a failure does not occur? Does the claim require a failure? Independent claim 17 does not recite a clear preamble and transitional phrase. Since recitations contained in a preamble of a claim are given different patentable weight than recitations recited after the transitional phrase, the scope of the claim is not clear. For example, does claim 17 require a “semi-conductor plant”? Additionally, it is not clear whether the claims should be construed as open-ended or closed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kashi (JP 2020184567 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kashi discloses a logistics transport system comprising: a plurality of first transport devices (511) disposed in a semiconductor manufacturing plant (see para. 0029) and for transporting a transported object; a plurality of second transport devices (411) different in type from the plurality of first transport devices; and a transport control device (100, 210) for controlling the plurality of first transport devices and the plurality of second transport devices, wherein the transport control device integrates and operates different types of transport devices to transport the transported object (see at least para. 0032).
Regarding independent claim 16, Kashi discloses a logistics transport system comprising: a plurality of first transport devices (511) disposed in a semiconductor manufacturing plant (see para. 0029) and for transporting a transported object; a plurality of second transport devices (411) different in type from the plurality of first transport devices; and a transport control device (100, 210) for controlling the plurality of first transport devices and the plurality of second transport devices, wherein the transport control device transports the transported object by integrating and operating different types of transport devices (see at least para. 0032), wherein the transport control device dynamically assigns transport of the transported object to the different types of transport devices (see at least paras. 0062-0069), wherein the transport control device avoids an unmovable section or shortens a moving section by using the different types of transport devices (see at least paras. 0062-0069), wherein the transport control device monitors in real time whether it is possible to reduce a transport cost in relation to transport of the transported object when a specific transport device transports the transported object, wherein the transport control device modifies a transport path or replaces the transport device according to the transport cost when the specific transport device transports the transported object (see at least paras. 0062-0069).
Regarding independent claim 17, Kashi discloses a transport control device disposed in a semiconductor manufacturing plant (see para. 0029), wherein the transport control device, controls a plurality of first transport devices (511) for transporting a transported object and a plurality of second transport devices (411) different in type from the plurality of first transport devices, transports the transported object by integrating and operating different types of transport devices, and dynamically assigns transport of the transported object to the different type of transport devices (see at least paras 0062-0069).
Regarding dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20, Kashi discloses the transport control device transports the transported object using any one of the first transport device and the second transport device, and transports the transported object using another one when a failure occurs (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device dynamically assigns transport of the transported object to the different types of transport devices (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device avoids an unmovable section or shortens a moving section by using the different types of transport devices (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device searches for an optimal path in real time for a plurality of transport devices including a transport device transporting the transported object while the transported object is being transported; the transport control device searches for an optimal path in real time for a plurality of transport devices including a transport device transporting the transported object while the transported object is being transported (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device selects a transport device to transport the transported object based on a transport cost (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport cost is calculated based on at least one of a moving distance, a moving time, and idleness (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device monitors in real time whether it is possible to reduce a transport cost in relation to transport of the transported object when a specific transport device transports the transported object (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device considers a transport path or a transport target when monitoring whether it is possible to reduce the transport cost (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device sequentially considers the transport path and the transport target (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device modifies a transport path or replaces a transport device according to a transport cost when a specific transport device transports the transported object (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device compares an existing path with a new path and modifies a transport path to the new path if the new path is an optimal path considering the transport cost (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the transport control device compares the specific transport device with other transport device and replaces the transport device with the other transport device when the other transport device has an optimal path, in which the transport cost is considered (see at least paras. 0062-0069); the plurality of first transport devices (511) travel on a ceiling of the semiconductor manufacturing plant to transport the transported object, wherein the plurality of second transport devices (411) travel on a ground of the semiconductor manufacturing plant to transport the transported object; and the system includes a plurality of third transport devices (531) different in type from the plurality of first transport devices and the plurality of second transport devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chan (US 9,901,210) and Choo et al. (US 9,846,415) disclose a systems for operating different types of transport devices to improve the efficient movement of objects in a manufacturing plant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653