DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to claim amendment filed on 07/21/2026 and wherein claim 11 being currently amended. In virtue of this communication, claims 11 - 20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2 paragraph 1 - 3, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dae (KR10-2022-0022623) and further in view of Tanaka (US 2019/0241415).
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.
Claims 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruki (JP 2018115062A) in view of Dae (KR10-2022-0022623)
Regarding claim 11, Haruki teaches, A transport vehicle system comprising:
a shelf (20) that includes a shelf board (20) on which an article is placed;
a plurality of transport vehicles (30 – Haruki teaches a single vehicle) each including a transferer (32) that travels on a track provided on a ceiling (R) and transfers an article onto the shelf board;
a detector (54) supported by the transferer and detects the shelf board;
a teaching information generator (50) that generates teaching information relating to a transfer position in the shelf, using a result of detecting the shelf board yielded by the detector;
and a structure (51) to measure machine differences for the plurality of transport vehicles,
wherein the structure includes an index (52) and can be detected by the detector (fig.5)
Haruki fails to teach,
The vehicles being provided in a plurality
The structure is suspended from the track or the ceiling and includes an index
However, Dae teaches,
The vehicles being provided in a plurality (Each of the vehicles 30 may include a transfer unit 31 and a transfer unit 33)
The structure is suspended from the track or the ceiling and includes an index (fig. 2 – structure (10) with teaching marker/index (17) is mounted from ceiling)
Both Haruki and Dae are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of article transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified
Haruki’s transport vehicle and teaching device to include the ceiling mounted structure and index taught by Dae. As disclosed by Dae, securing the indexing structure to the ceiling or structures which reach ceiling allows for the gathering of more precise teaching information as the index shifts with the ceiling or may begin to sag after long periods of disuse.
Regarding claim 13, Haruki teaches, the transport vehicle system according to claim 11,
wherein the shelf (20) is provided on a floor ([0018]).
Regarding claim 17, Haruki teaches, the transport vehicle system according to claim 1,
wherein the teaching information generator generates the teaching information by correcting a result of detecting the shelf board yielded by the detector in one transport vehicle, using the machine difference of the one transport vehicle ([0002] – teaching information generator is used to correct transport vehicle location).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruki (JP 2018115062A) in view of Dae (KR10-2022-0022623) and further in view of Hellenbrand (EP 4015415 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Neither Haruki or Dae teaches, the transport vehicle system according to claim 11,
wherein the detector is detachably supported by the transferer
However, Hellenbrand teaches, The transport vehicle system according to claim 11,
wherein the detector is detachably supported by the transferer ([0016] – sensor devices can be detached from storage/transport means).
Haruki, Dae and Hellenbrand are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of article transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified
Haruki and Yoshinari’s transport vehicle and teaching device to include the detachable sensor taught by Hellenbrand. As disclosed by Hellenbrand, doing so would limit maintenance downtime and increase system efficiency by allowing malfunctioned sensors to be replaced quicker than fixed assemblies.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruki (JP 2018115062A) in view of Dae (KR10-2022-0022623) and further in view of Tanaka (US 2019/0241415)
Regarding claim 14, The Haruki fails to teach transport vehicle system according to claim 11,
comprising an anti-sway mechanism to prevent horizontal swaying of a lower part of the structure
However, Tanaka teaches,
an anti-sway mechanism (15) to prevent horizontal swaying of a lower part of the structure (fig. 1A – shows stoppers (15) extending to prevent swaying of structure).
Both Haruki, Dae and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of article transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified
Haruki and Dae’s transport vehicle and teaching device to include the anti-sway mechanism taught by Tanaka. Doing so provides increased stability and more accurate measurements for the teaching information generator.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruki (JP 2018115062A) in view of Dae (KR10-2022-0022623) and further in view of Shiwaku (US 7558645 B2)
Regarding claim 16, The transport vehicle system according to claim 11,
wherein the detector includes a plurality of imagers ((38), Col 4 – lines 15-25 – discloses a pair of cameras for a teaching apparatus),
and the plurality of imagers capture images of the index from positions different from each other (pair of cameras capture images from separate positions).
Haruki, Dae and Shiwaku are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of article transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified
Haruki and Yoshinari’s transport vehicle and teaching device to include the plurality of imagers taught by Shiwaku. As disclosed by Shiwaku, while one camera is sufficient for a teaching mechanism, the use of a pair of cameras allows for the gathering of more precise teaching data improving control and efficiency of transport systems.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruki (JP 2018115062A) in view of Dae (KR10-2022-0022623) and further in view of Mimamura (US PUB 2020/0156880 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Haruki teaches, the transport vehicle system according to claim 11,
wherein the track (R) includes a transport route along which the transport vehicle transports an article (transport vehicle travels along rail)
Both Haruki and Dae fail to teach,
an extension route extending away from the transport route,
and wherein the structure is provided at a position corresponding to a part of the extension route.
However, Miramura teaches,
an extension route extending away from the transport route (fig. 4),
and wherein the structure is provided at a position corresponding to a part of the extension route (fig. 4 – indexing structures (MST1) are provided separately from transfer destinations (LP3/LP4) in the extension route).
Regarding claim 20, Neither Haruki or Dae teaches, the transport vehicle system according to claim 19,
wherein a specific region for performing maintenance on the transport vehicle is provided in a region including a part of the extension route, and the structure is provided in the specific region
However, Mimamura teaches, a specific region for performing maintenance on the transport vehicle is provided in a region including a part of the extension route, and the structure is provided in the specific region. (fig. 4 – extension route is defined as area with learning structures (MST1/MST2), if maintenance on a transport vehicle is necessary it can be performed within this area.
Haruki, Dae and Miramura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of article transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified
Haruki and Yoshinari’s transport vehicle and teaching device to include the specific region where the indexing structure is located and maintenance is performed. Doing so allows for maintenance to be performed without disruption of service in other portions of the rail system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 18 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
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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights