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
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. JP2022-195566, filed on 12/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 and 12/06/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHINTAMANI et al (US 20220063085A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chintamani et al teaches a transport facility comprising:
a carriage (500) configured to support an object to be transported; and an automated guided vehicle (10) configured to be coupled to the carriage and self-propelled to move the carriage on a floor surface and wherein:
the automated guided vehicle comprises:
a coupler (320) configured to be coupled to the carriage;
a drive wheel (see Fig. 1) configured to roll on the floor surface; and
a drive source (see [0008]) configured to drive the drive wheel,
the carriage comprises:
a supporter (base of 500) configured to support the object to be transported;
a plurality of wheels (wheels of 500) configured to roll on the floor surface;
and a body (cage of 500) to which the supporter and the plurality of wheels are attached, a travel direction is a direction in which the carriage travels, and a width direction is a direction orthogonal to the travel direction as viewed in an up- down direction, the coupler is configured to be coupled to the body in such a manner that the coupler is restricted from rotating about an up-down axis relative to the body (320, Fig. 3) , the automated guided vehicle drives the drive wheel with the drive source to move the carriage, while the coupler is coupled to the body at a position outward of the supporter in the width direction(Fig 20, see [0007]).
Regarding Claim 2, Chintamani et al teaches the transport facility according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of wheels of the carriage comprise a plurality of support wheels disposed in an area overlapping the object to be transported as viewed in the up-down direction (See Figs. 3 and 20, fully capable, carriage support wheel depicted in Figure 20 are beneath the platform/support surface of the carriage(500) which is intended to support/carry/transport an object therefore Chintamani is capable of performing the claimed function), and
wherein the coupler is coupled to the body at a position outward of the plurality of support wheels in the width direction (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHINTAMANI et al (US 20220063085A1) in view of SEIJI et al (JP 2016150692 A).
Regarding Claim 5 Chintamani et al teaches the transport facility according to claim 1, further comprising: a control device configured to control the automated guided vehicle ([0008]).
Chintamani et al does not teach the control device executes a reversing operation to reverse an orientation of the automated guided vehicle in a front-rear direction, each time a predetermined reversal condition is satisfied.
Seiji et al teaches the control device executes a reversing operation to reverse an orientation of the automated guided vehicle in a front-rear direction, each time a predetermined reversal condition is satisfied ([0003], [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to execute the reversing operation to reverse an orientation of the automated guided vehicle in a front-rear direction, each time a predetermined reversal condition is satisfied of Seiji et al to the robot taught by Chintamani et al, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that reversing a robot is a well-known technique in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because enabling the robot of Chintamani et al to reverse improves its maneuverability allowing it to better complete its purpose of moving carts.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHINTAMANI et al (US 20220063085A1) in view of FUMIHIRO (JP 2020155096A).
Regarding Claim 6, Chintamani teaches the transport facility according to claim 1.
Chintamani does not teach wherein the automated guided vehicle further comprises:
a steered wheel configured to serve as the drive wheel or provided separately from the drive wheel; and a steering controller configured to control the steered wheel and wherein the steering controller adjusts a steering angle to direct the automated guided vehicle more outward in the width direction while the coupler is coupled to the body than while the coupler is not coupled to the body, where the steering angle is an inclination angle of an orientation of the steering wheel with respect to the travel direction.
Fumihiro teaches a steering method that alters the steering characteristic of a robot connected to an object being moved based on the loading weight and loading method of the cargo loaded on the object being moved ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the control system of the robot taught by Chintamani et al with a steered wheel ([0020]) configured to serve as the drive wheel or provided separately from the drive wheel; and a steering controller ([0046]) configured to control the steered wheel and where the steering controller adjust a steering angle based on whether the coupler is coupled to the body(i.e. a load) as taught by Fumihiro in this case to direct the automated guided vehicle more outward in the width direction while the coupler is coupled to the body than while the coupler is not coupled to the body, to maintain control and stability of the turn while the robot is coupled to the body.
Regarding Claim 7, Chintamani in light of Fumihiro teaches the transport facility according to claim 6.
Chintamani does not teach the steering controller makes an adjustment to increase the steering angle to direct the automated guided vehicle more outward in the width direction as the carriage including the object to be transported increases in weight.
Fumihiro teaches a steering method that alters the steering characteristic of a robot connected to a load based on the loading weight and loading method ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the control of the robot taught by Chintamani et al with a steering controller that makes an adjust to increase the steering angle as the based on the load ([0051],[0053]) as taught by Fumihiro in this case to direct the automated guided vehicle more outward in the width direction as the carriage including the object to be transported increases in weight to maintain the control and stability of turn when attached to a heavier load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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 claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Paschall et al. (US 12122652B1) and Yamamoto et al. (US 20230348249A1) disclose similar automatically guided vehicles intended to move a payload carrier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADARSH NEUPANE whose telephone number is (571)272-8816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, ERNESTO SUAREZ can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3655