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 .
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 1-2,9, 13 and 15 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).
Regarding Claim 9, Chintamani et al. teaches the transport facility according to claim 1 wherein the automated guided vehicle moves the carriage while the coupler is coupled to only one outer side of the supporter of the body in the width direction (see Fig. 3, Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 13, Chintamani et al teaches the transport vehicle of claim 1 wherein the carriage is provided with a downward protrusion (mount for caster wheel; Fig. 20) that protrudes downward from the body (Fig. 20), and the automated guided vehicle moves the carriage by driving the drive wheel by the drive source while being coupled in such a manner that the coupler is coupled to the body at a position outward of the downward protrusion in the width direction (Fully capable; Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 15, Chintamani et al. teaches the transport facility according to claim 1, wherein the carriage is provided with a plurality of support wheels which are the wheels arranged in areas 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), the automated guided vehicle is provided with a plurality of the drive wheels (wheels of 100 see Fig. 1), and the automated guided vehicle moves the carriage by driving the plurality of drive wheels by the drive source while being coupled in such a manner that the coupler is coupled ([0105], [0106]) and the plurality of drive wheels are at a position outward of the plurality of support wheels in the width direction(Fig. 3, Fig. 17; fully capable).
Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SAWANAMI (WO 2024116332 A1), where the equivalent European patent of which (EP 4628428 A1) is used as the English translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Sawanami teaches a transport facility comprising:
a carriage (100) 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 ([0012]) and wherein:
the automated guided vehicle comprises:
a coupler (34) configured to be coupled to the carriage;
a drive wheel (21) configured to roll on the floor surface; and
a drive source (22) configured to drive the drive wheel,
the carriage comprises:
a supporter (base of 100) configured to support the object to be transported;
a plurality of wheels (110) configured to roll on the floor surface;
and a body (cage of 100) 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 (34, Fig. 4) , 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 10, see [0015]).
Regarding Claim 10, Sawanami teaches the transport vehicle of claim 1 wherein the automated guided vehicle moves the carriage by driving the drive wheel by the drive source while being coupled in such a manner that the automated guided vehicle falls inside the body as viewed in the up-down direction (Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Sawanami teaches the transport vehicle of claim 1 wherein the automated guided vehicle moves the carriage by driving the drive wheel by the drive source while being coupled in such a manner that 80% or more of a length of the automated guided vehicle in the width direction falls inside the body as viewed in the up-down direction (see Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 12, Sawanami teaches the transport vehicle of claim 1 wherein the supporter is a portion that comes into contact with the object to be transported (, and the automated guided vehicle moves the carriage by driving the drive wheel by the drive source while being coupled in such a manner that the coupler is coupled at a position below the supporter and overlapping the body as viewed in the up-down direction.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are 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) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nett et al. (US 20220410898 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chintamani et al. in view of Seiji et al. teaches the transport facility according to Claim 5,
Chintamani et al. in view of Seiji does not teach wherein the predetermined reversal condition includes at least one of: (i) a travel distance of the automated guided vehicle exceeds a predetermined distance or (ii) a predetermined time has elapsed.
Nett et al. teaches a vehicle (104) executes a reversing operation, each time a predetermined reversal condition is satisfied ([0064]) and wherein the predetermined reversal condition includes a travel distance of the automated guided vehicle exceeds a predetermined distance ([0064])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Chintamani does not appear to disclose that the coupler of the Autonomous or Automated Mobile Robots (AMR) is "coupled to the body at a position outward of the supporter in the width direction," as recited in claim 1. Instead, FIG. 20 of Chintamani appears to show the gripper hand (320) coupling to the wheeled cart (500) from the front of the wheeled cart (500) in the travel direction, rather than at a lateral position outward of the supporter in the width direction the gripper hand coupling to the wheeled car from the front of the cart instead.” on page 7 of applicant’s response.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the examiner’s position that while the coupling structure is coupled to the front of the cart, Chintamani et al. still teaches this limitation. “A position outward of the supporter in the width direction” is interpreted as not needing to be outside of the width of the supporter but away from the midline of the supporter body in a direction orthogonal (i.e., width) to the direction the supporter is traveling as seen in Fig. 3 of applicant’s drawings. Chintamani et al. teaches this limitation as seen in Fig. 3 of Chintamani et al. Chintamani et al. may move left or right therefore the coupler (320) is outward in the width direction (not on the center line of the width direction).
Applicant further argues “the coupling structure (200) and the gripper hand (320) are connected at a position on the inside in the width direction relative to the body of the wheeled cart (500). Thus, Chintamani fails to disclose wherein "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" on page 8 of Applicant’s response.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the examiners position that as seen in Fig. 3 of Chintamani it can be assumed that Chintamani may move left or right and the coupler would therefore be coupled to the body at a position outward of the supporter in a width direction not inside the width direction.
Applicant further argues “As shown at least in FIGS. 4, 13, and 16 of Chintamani, the gripper hands (320) are structured in such a way that they cannot be coupled to the coupling structure (200) from a direction parallel to the distance (D). Therefore, regardless of before or after the coupling, there is no need to align the direction of travel of the AMR (10) with the direction parallel to the distance (D). In other words, the coupling structure (200) can never be located outward in the width direction relative to the body of the wheeled cart (500). Accordingly, Chintamani fails to disclose at least wherein "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" as required by claim 1.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the examiners position that even if, the coupling structure could not be located outward in the width direction, which the examiner does not concede, that would not prevent the coupler from being coupled to the body at a position outward of the supporter in the width direction as seen in Fig. 3 of Chintamani et al.
Applicant argues “According to Seiji, the driving control is performed such that, by connecting the first connecting pin (31A) and pulling out only the second connecting pin (31B) to rotate the towing vehicle (2), the towing vehicle (2) can be rotated, allowing it to turn at right angles to the left or right or reverse direction while towing. However, if the connecting pins (31A, 31B) of Seiji are attached to the tip of the robot arm (310) of Chintamani, the wheels of the wheeled cart (500) of Chintamani and the robot arm (310) would interfere with each other, making it impossible to turn the wheeled cart (500) at right angles or reverse direction.
As such, one of skill in the art would not have arrived at the configuration of claim 5 of the present application by combining the teachings of Chintamani and Seiji unless they were to eliminate the interference between the wheels of wheeled cart (500) and the robot arm (310) and to change the arrangement of the connecting pins (31A, 31B) located in the center of transport trolley (10) of Seiji. However, neither Chintamani nor Seiji provide motivation to arrive at such a configuration. Accordingly, claim 5 is not rendered obvious by the combination of Chintamani and Seiji.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Seiji et al. is not used to teach connecting pins instead Seiji is only relied upon to teach executing a reversing operation each time a predetermined reversal condition is satisfied thus the connection pins have no bearing on the combination of references and does not overcome the rejection.
In view of foregoing all rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 14 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. Kozasa et al..
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights