DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 of this title, 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 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“Lee”)(US 2021/0242057) in view of Kumavat et al. (“Kumavat”)(US 2023/0176573).
Lee teaches a carriage system control apparatus comprising:
(re: certain elements of claims 11, 20) an upper-level communicator for performing upper-level communication to receive bidirectional information by using wireless communication in a normal state from a carriage moving along rails of a track and supplied with power through the track or power supply cables (fig. 1 showing carriage 200 moving along track 302 and connected to power rail 304 and including a control circuit 210; para. 16-22, 27-31 teaching that that control circuit includes a communication circuit 214 linked wired and/or wirelessly to system controller configured to receive bidirectional information, e.g., power status);
a current application determiner for determining whether current continues to be applied to the track or the power supply cables while the upper-level communication remains disabled (fig. 4 and para. 19, 56-67 teaching that control circuit is configured to continuously monitor power supply/power rail 304, e.g., abnormal state such as a power outage, based on measurement, such as a voltage and current, thus a current application determiner module is inherent); and
a lane maintainer for maintaining operation of the carriage or the track controller without closing a corresponding lane to prevent a transportation delay, when the current is determined to continue be being applied to the track or the power supply cables (para. 57-62 teaching maintaining operation of the carriage by switching to backup power/controller, or determining that there is sufficient power to move carriage, when there is a power outage—thus lane maintainer module is inherent);
(re: claim 13) wherein the bidirectional information comprises feedback information indicating a current status of the carriage or the track controller (para. 57-62 teaching determining power status of carriage and outputting “out of power” signal);
(re: claim 15 and certain elements of claim 20) wherein the current application determiner determines whether power is being applied, by using the bidirectional information of a power supply unit or another adjacent carriage, which applies current to the track or the power supply cables (para. 57-62, 67-68 teaching determining power status of carriage via measuring power source/supply, i.e., power rails);
(re: claim 16 and certain elements of claim 20) a notification signal outputter for outputting a notification signal or a follow-up command signal while maintaining operation of the carriage or the track controller (fig. 3 showing indicator 216; para. 28, 41, 62 teaching processing circuit configured to output message, such as “out of power”, via priority indicator 216 thus outputter module is inherent).
(re: claims 1, 3-7 and 10) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Lee also teaches-
(re: certain elements of claim 9) wherein the carriage is an overhead hoist transport (OHT) for transporting semiconductor substrates or display boards (fig. 1 and para. 15-17).
Lee as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 11, 20) a communication disablement determiner for determining whether an abnormal state in which the upper-level communication is disabled has occurred;
(re: claim 14 and certain elements of claim 20) wherein the communication disablement determiner determines the normal or abnormal state by using whether the bidirectional information is present;
(re: claim 17 and certain elements of claim 20) wherein the notification signal outputter determines an error of communication and transmits a return command or a communication check command to the carriage when current is being applied to the track or the power supply cables and the carriage is moving;
(re: claims 19 and certain elements of claim 20) a lane closer for closing the corresponding lane to prevent a transportation accident, when
Kumavat, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated vehicle arts:
(re: claims 11, 14 and certain elements of 20)
-to determine an abnormal state based on disabled communications, such as interruption of sensor data streams and/or missing sensor data (para. 63 teaching communication subsystem 130 for transmitting sensor data streams and that “sensor data further preferably functions to provide information for use in decision-making”, wherein said information “can include potential failures associated with the vehicle” and surroundings, e.g., “missing sensor data due to power loss, etc.” and that additional sensor data from sensors fixed to static objects, moving objects or other vehicles also provides useful information); and
(re: claims 17, 19 and certain elements of 20)
-to transmit a return command or a stop in lane/reroute command when an error of communication is identified in order to resolve said error (fig. 4 and para. 71-81 teaching diagnostic sub-system to identify anomalies and to provide scores relating to health, failure, communicating, “not communicating” as well as options to resolve said anomalies--including contacting an operator and “Return to Base”, “Stop in Lane” or “Reroute to Alternate Route”).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lee for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 2, 8-9, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kumavat (“Lee et al.”) in view of as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Min et al. (“Min”)(KR 20210107297)(with text citations to English translation attached herewith); Huang et al. (“Huang”)(US 2023/041193) and Ashraf et al. (“Ashraf”)(US 2008/0169385).
Lee et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 2, 12 and certain elements of claim 20) wherein the carriage is supplied with power in a wireless power transmission manner through the power supply cables by using a resonance frequency value;
(re: claims 8, 18 and certain elements of claim 20) wherein the notification signal outputter determines an error of motion and transmits a tow command to an operator or a tow vehicle when current is being applied to the track or the power supply cables and the carriage is disabled to move;
(re: certain elements of claim 9) wherein the track controller is a traffic light mounted at a curved section, a split section, or a combined section of rails.
Min, however, teaches that it is well-known in the semiconductor manufacturing arts
(re: claims 2, 12 and certain elements of 20)
- to supply power wirelessly to an overhead hoist transfer (OHT) track in addition to using a battery to allow parallel power sources to drive a carriage (fig. 3 showing carriage including motor, wireless power receiver, controller and battery; p. 3-4 teaching configuring track sections with wireless power supply element 100 comprising a coupler, high-frequency converter and resonant element for producing a specific resonance frequency value and wired/wireless communication elements).
Huang also teaches that it is well-known in the wafer manufacturing arts
(re: claims 8, 18 and certain elements of 20)
-to send a tow vehicle to recover a malfunctioning OHT (para. 36-37 teaching that a rescue vehicle can be utilized to tow “a stranded or malfunctioning overhead transport vehicle”).
Ashraf further teaches that it is well-known in the well-known in the on-track vehicle arts
(re: claim 9)
-to utilize a traffic light as a traffic controller to manage traffic (para. 3-5, 29-31 teaching use of warning lights as a traffic controller when anomalies, such as track circuit failures or potential collisions, are detected, wherein system uses fail-safe of detecting lack of data within preset parameters to activate traffic signals).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lee et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach claim features are unpersuasive. In particular, Applicant first argues that Lee fails to teach “determining…whether current continues to be applied to the track of the power supply cables while the upper-level communication remains disabled” (claim 1). Lee, however, as cited teaches it is well-known in the carriage system control arts to integrate a power control circuit that “continuously or regularly” monitors power (i.e., current type, current and voltage) (para. 19) and Kumavat further teaches that it is also well-known to determine an abnormal state based on disabled communications by monitoring sensor data streams and attempt to resolve said abnormalities (supra teaching monitoring “missing sensor data due to power loss, etc.” and a diagnostic sub-system to identify anomalies and to provide scores relating to health, failure, communicating and “not communicating”), thus it is not unreasonable to regard Lee as teaching determining whether current is being applied at all times—including abnormal states involving communication issues. Applicant is essentially arguing one with ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to check a system status due to sensor data flow/communication issues when it is already known to continuously and regularly check system status by monitoring power levels and communication. Examiner disagrees with this argument and with Applicant’s characterization of Kumavat’s monitoring of sensor data feeds as not relating to upper-level communication when Kumavat expressly teaches a diagnostic element related to “communicating”. Indeed, as Kumavat teaches that it is well-known to integrate a diagnostic sub-system to identify anomalies and to provide scores relating to health, failure, communicating, “not communicating” as well as options to resolve said anomalies, it is not clear how Applicant can now argue that the combination of Lee and Kumavat is based on improper hindsight. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
October 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights