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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 5-6, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a)/(b) rejections of claims 10-18 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendment in claim 10 to “a lateral transfer mechanism comprising a moving shaft” obviates the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of “a lateral transfer mechanism” by further defining the lateral transfer mechanism as including a moving shaft. Support for such a moving shaft is found in at least paragraphs [0012] and [0054]. Applicant’s arguments include reference to the lateral transfer mechanism including “a carriage/guide assembly”, but such features are not found in amended claim 10, nor does the specification specifically refer to “a carriage/guide assembly”; as such, these arguments are not persuasive.
Nevertheless, as interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been obviated, the associated 35 USC 112(a)/(b) rejections of claims 10-18 have been withdrawn. The Examiner notes, however, that Applicant’s arguments do not address the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 13; this rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 6-7, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 10 and its respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wada fails to teach or suggest the claimed laser rangefinder. The Examiner is in partial agreement with Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments make reference to “a software/data driven change of the active angular sub-range within a continuous scan area”; however, the claim as presented merely requires that “the controller changes the monitoring range included in a range of the area scan by changing set input wherein the monitoring sensor emits the laser beam toward the reflector and detects return light reflected by the reflector”. As discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(f) interpretation below, the controller has been mapped to transport vehicle controller 8, which is defined in [0028] as “an electronic control unit constituted of a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM) and the like… The transport vehicle controller 8 may be configured with a plurality of electronic control units.” Applicant’s arguments directed toward “software/data driven change” are not supported by the claim. While [0059] does disclose “a data table indicating a correspondence relation between a plurality of pieces of tilt information and a plurality of monitoring ranges A may be stored in a storage unit (not illustrated) by teaching in advance, for example, and the monitoring range A may be changed based on the tilt information by referring to this data table”, the Examiner notes that such a data table has not been claimed; that is to say, these arguments are directed to features which have not been claimed and are therefore unpersuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement, however, that Wada fails to teach or suggest “wherein the holding unit is provided with a reflector;”, and that swinging is detected based on whether return light is received within the set monitoring range. While Wada does disclose a reflective plate 49 provided on an upper surface of the up-and-down stage 42 (see at least [0038]), this reflective plate is associated with laser light L1 rather than laser light L2. Features associated with laser light L1 of Wada fail to provide other claimed features associated with laser light L2 (e.g., performing an area scan of a laser beam such that a light point moves along a first horizontal direction corresponding to a direction in which the lifting drive section is able to be moved by the lateral transfer mechanism).
Accordingly, the 35 USC 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 10 and its respective dependent claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Wada in view of Tamura.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 7-8, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 13, as amended, “specifies that the first, second, and third monitoring ranges are oriented directions relative to the rangefinder's scanning geometry in a reference attitude and that the second and third ranges are formed by tilting the first direction at first and second angles, with the second angle larger than the first”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that claim 13 has not been amended.
In particular, Applicant argues that the rejection over Wada “does not address the amended claim’s software/data-centric approach, which stores and selects among defined scan sub-ranges and monitors a holding-unit reflector for return/no-return within those sub-ranges, without mechanical steering”. The Examiner respectfully notes that, as discussed above with respect to claim 10, a “software/data driven approach” is not supported by the claim. Claim 13 makes no reference to storing and selecting among defined scan sub-ranges, nor monitoring a holding-unit reflector for return/no-return, nor performing the above without mechanical steering. Applicant’s arguments similarly refer to the “choice and use of distinct scan windows A0/A11/A12 for differing lifting patterns and tilt states”, but these specific features are likewise absent in claim 13. In other words, Applicant’s arguments are directed toward features which have not been claimed, and are therefore unpersuasive.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, a comma should be inserted following the limitation “the controller changes the monitoring range included in a range of the area scan by changing set input”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 10, “a holding unit adapted to be lifted and lowered and configured to hold an article,”
Paragraph [0027] discloses “The holding unit 7 is disposed on a lower side of the lifting drive unit 6. The holding unit 7 is provided to be able to be lifted and lowered by the lifting drive unit 6. The holding unit 7 includes a pair of grippers 12 that can open and close along a horizontal direction. The holding unit 7 holds a flange 201 of the FOUP 200 with the pair of grippers 12.” Therefore, the holding unit is being interpreted as including a pair of grippers. The Examiner notes that claim 10 also recites “wherein the holding unit is provided with a reflector”; however, this feature does not amount to sufficient structure to perform lifting and lowering and holding an article.
In claim 10, “a lifting drive section configured to lift and lower the holding unit”
Paragraph [0027] discloses “The lifting drive unit 6 is disposed on a lower side of the theta unit 5. The lifting drive unit 6 lifts and lowers the holding unit 7 by winding or paying out a plurality of belts (suspending members) B connected to the holding unit 7.” Therefore, the lifting drive section is being interpreted as a component for winding or paying out a plurality of belts to raise or lower the holding unit.
In claim 10, “a controller configured to change the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor in accordance with information on tilt of the lifting drive section with respect to a horizontal plane,”
Paragraph [0028] discloses “The transport vehicle controller 8 is an electronic control unit constituted of a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM) and the like. The transport vehicle controller 8 controls respective parts of the overhead transport vehicle 1. The transport vehicle controller 8 may be configured with a plurality of electronic control units.” Therefore, the controller is being interpreted as one or more electronic control units.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13-14 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.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the first monitoring range is a range oriented in a first direction along a vertical direction in the monitoring sensor in a reference attitude, the second monitoring range is a range oriented in a second direction formed by tilting the first direction at a first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude, and the third monitoring range is a range oriented in a third direction formed by tilting the first direction at a second angle that is larger than the first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude.” However, the claim language renders the claim indefinite by making it unclear what each of the first, second, and third directions represent. More specifically, the first direction is defined as being “along a vertical direction in the monitoring sensor in a reference attitude”. It is unclear what is meant by “a vertical direction in the monitoring sensor in a reference attitude”. Is this vertical direction required to be inside the monitoring sensor? Or is the claim intending the vertical direction to merely pass through or be projected from the monitoring sensor? For the purposes of this examination, the vertical direction is being interpreted as “a first direction along the vertical direction from the monitoring sensor in a reference attitude,”, as disclosed in [0009] of the written description. The definitions of the second and third directions are each dependent upon the definition of the first direction; therefore, the second and third directions are also indefinite. In particular, it is unclear what is meant by “tilting the first direction at a first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude”. Is the first angle an angle within the monitoring sensor, or does the first angle refer to an angle made by the monitoring sensor with respect to the reference attitude? Or does being “in the reference attitude” merely mean to require that the first angle is wholly encompassed by the reference attitude? For the purpose of this examination, the first and second angles are being interpreted as angles between vertical direction and the orientation monitoring sensor.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the holding unit is provided with a reflector, and the monitoring sensor emits light toward the reflector and also detects return light when the light has been reflected by the reflector.” However, claim 10, upon which claim 14 depends, already recites “wherein the holding unit is provided with a reflector;” Therefore, it is unclear whether the reflector of claim 14 is required to be the same (or a different) reflector as claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites “the holding unit is provided with a reflector, and the monitoring sensor emits light toward the reflector and also detects return light when the light has been reflected by the reflector.” However, claim 10, upon which claim 14 depends, already recites “wherein the holding unit is provided with a reflector;” and “wherein the monitoring sensor emits the laser beam toward the reflector and detects return light reflected by the reflector,” Therefore, as claim 14 merely repeats limitations already claimed in claim 10, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US 2022/0059380 A1) in view of Tamura (JP2000255975A).
Regarding claim 10, Wada teaches an overhead transport vehicle comprising:
a holding unit adapted to be lifted and lowered and configured to hold an article,
Wada teaches ([0033]): "As illustrated in FIG. 1, the conveyance vehicle 100 includes a traveling driver (traveler) 10, a coupler 30, a main body 40, and a controller 80." Wada further teaches ([0034]): "The main body 40 includes a transfer apparatus 41. The transfer apparatus 41 includes an up-and-down stage 42, an up-and-down driver 43, a sensor 44, a lateral mover 45, and a corrector 46." Wada even further teaches ([0035]): " The up-and-down stage 42 can move up and down (can move in the Z direction) with respect to the main body 40. The up-and-down stage 42 includes a gripper 42a defining and functioning as a holder to hold the article FP."
a lifting drive section configured to lift and lower the holding unit;
Wada teaches ([0036]): "The up-and-down driver 43 causes the up-and-down stage 42 to move up and down (move in the Z direction)."
a lateral transfer mechanism comprising a moving shaft configured to move the lifting drive section laterally with respect to a body section;
Wada teaches ([0039]): "The lateral mover 45 causes the up-and-down driver 43 being cantilevered to protrude laterally of the main body 40 (the X direction). The lateral mover 45 includes an upper tier portion 51, a middle tier portion 52, a lower tier portion 53, and a drive apparatus 54."
a monitoring sensor provided to the lifting drive section and configured to monitor an area below the lifting drive section and be able to change a monitoring range;
Wada teaches ([0038]): "The look-down sensor 48 applies laser light L2 toward the vicinity of a lowering destination of the up-and-down stage 42. The look-down sensor 48 applies the laser light L2 and from reflected light thereof detects whether there is a foreign object near the transfer destination S being the lowering destination of the up-and-down stage 42." Wada further teaches ([0056]): "In accordance with the protruding amount by the lateral mover 45, the inclination of the up-and-down driver in the θY direction changes. Consequently, in the present preferred embodiment, when the up-and-down driver 43 is caused to protrude by the lateral mover 45, the controller 80 determines whether the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed in accordance with the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43 in the θY direction. When the controller 80 determines that the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed, the second correction driver 76 is driven by the adjuster 81 described below to rotate the movable portion 73 as described above, and thus the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 can be corrected."
and a controller configured to change the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor in accordance with information on tilt of the lifting drive section with respect to a horizontal plane,
Wada teaches ([0056]): "As described above, the protruding amount in the X direction by the lateral mover 45 changes by the position of the transfer destination S. In accordance with the protruding amount by the lateral mover 45, the inclination of the up-and-down driver in the θY direction changes. Consequently, in the present preferred embodiment, when the up-and-down driver 43 is caused to protrude by the lateral mover 45, the controller 80 determines whether the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed in accordance with the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43 in the θY direction. When the controller 80 determines that the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed, the second correction driver 76 is driven by the adjuster 81 described below to rotate the movable portion 73 as described above, and thus the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 can be corrected." FIG. 1, included below, demonstrates that the lifting drive section (i.e., the up-and-down driver 43) is tilted with respect to the horizontal plane. As a result of this tilt, the application direction of the laser light L2 is changed, thereby changing the monitoring range of the look-down sensor 48.
PNG
media_image1.png
824
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the monitoring sensor is... configured to perform an area scan of a laser beam such that a light point moves along a first horizontal direction corresponding to a direction in which the lifting drive section is able to be moved by the lateral transfer mechanism,
Wada teaches ([0056]): "As described above, the protruding amount in the X direction by the lateral mover 45 changes by the position of the transfer destination S. In accordance with the protruding amount by the lateral mover 45, the inclination of the up-and-down driver in the θY direction changes. Consequently, in the present preferred embodiment, when the up-and-down driver 43 is caused to protrude by the lateral mover 45, the controller 80 determines whether the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed in accordance with the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43 in the θY direction. When the controller 80 determines that the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed, the second correction driver 76 is driven by the adjuster 81 described below to rotate the movable portion 73 as described above, and thus the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 can be corrected." FIG. 1, included above, demonstrates that the up-and-down driver 43 (i.e., the lifting drive section) has been moved by the lateral mover 45 (i.e., the lateral transfer mechanism) in the +X direction. FIG. 1 further illustrates that the light beam L2 of the look-down sensor 48 is also adjusted in the +X direction. As acknowledged in [0013] and [0037]-[0038], the light beam L2 of the look-down sensor 48 is directed towards "a certain lower position" (i.e., a light point). Therefore, FIG. 1 illustrates an area scan of the light beam L2 in which the light point of the light beam L2 moves in the +X direction.
and the controller changes the monitoring range included in a range of the area scan by changing set input
Wada teaches ([0056]): "As described above, the protruding amount in the X direction by the lateral mover 45 changes by the position of the transfer destination S. In accordance with the protruding amount by the lateral mover 45, the inclination of the up-and-down driver in the θY direction changes. Consequently, in the present preferred embodiment, when the up-and-down driver 43 is caused to protrude by the lateral mover 45, the controller 80 determines whether the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed in accordance with the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43 in the θY direction. When the controller 80 determines that the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed, the second correction driver 76 is driven by the adjuster 81 described below to rotate the movable portion 73 as described above, and thus the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 can be corrected." Here, application direction of the laser light L2 is changed by driving the adjuster 81 to rotate the movable portion 73. Therefore, the monitoring range is changed by changing the settings of the movable portion 73 (i.e., changing a set input).
wherein the monitoring sensor emits the laser beam... and detects return light reflected…
Wada teaches ([0038]): "The look-down sensor 48 applies laser light L2 toward the vicinity of a lowering destination of the up-and-down stage 42. The look-down sensor 48 applies the laser light L2 and from reflected light thereof detects whether there is a foreign object near the transfer destination S being the lowering destination of the up-and-down stage 42."
However, while Wada does teach a monitoring system which emits a laser beam and detects return light reflected, Wada does not outright teach that the monitoring sensor is a laser rangefinder, wherein the monitoring sensor emits the laser beam toward the reflector and detects return light reflected by the reflector, and the controller determines occurrence or non- occurrence of swinging of the holding unit based on whether the return light is received within the set monitoring range. Tamura teaches a hoisting accessory swing detecting device for an automatic crane, comprising:
wherein the holding unit is provided with a reflector;
Tamura teaches ([0005]): "As an example, the photoelectric switch 21 provided in the crane body 10 shown in FIG. 1 is provided with a light beam irradiating means 21A, while the upper surface of the suspender 11 suspended from the crane body 10 has a light beam emitting means 21A. A reflecting plate 22 is provided as a reflecting means, and is adapted to receive and reflect the light beam emitted from the light beam emitting means 21A." FIG. 1, included below, demonstrates that the holding unit is provided with reflecting plate 22.
PNG
media_image2.png
540
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the monitoring sensor is a laser rangefinder…
Tamura teaches ([0006]): "In the stationary state of the suspending tool, for example, when the suspending tool is fixed at the upper limit of winding, the light beam emitted from the light beam irradiation means 21A is reflected by the reflecting plate 22 provided on the upper surface of of the suspending tool 22, and then the light receiving device. It is supposed to return to 21B. When the range of the shake w is shown in FIG. 2, the light receiving device 21B can capture the reflected light beam, but if the range is exceeded, the intensity of the reflected light beam sharply decreases, so it is determined that there is excessive shake. Measures are taken such as stopping the winding."
wherein the monitoring sensor emits the laser beam toward the reflector and detects return light reflected by the reflector,
Tamura teaches ([0005]): "As an example, the photoelectric switch 21 provided in the crane body 10 shown in FIG. 1 is provided with a light beam irradiating means 21A, while the upper surface of the suspender 11 suspended from the crane body 10 has a light beam emitting means 21A. A reflecting plate 22 is provided as a reflecting means, and is adapted to receive and reflect the light beam emitted from the light beam emitting means 21A." Tamura further teaches ([0006]): "In the stationary state of the suspending tool, for example, when the suspending tool is fixed at the upper limit of winding, the light beam emitted from the light beam irradiation means 21A is reflected by the reflecting plate 22 provided on the upper surface of the suspending tool 22, and then the light receiving device. It is supposed to return to 21B. When the range of the shake w is shown in FIG. 2, the light receiving device 21B can capture the reflected light beam, but if the range is exceeded, the intensity of the reflected light beam sharply decreases, so it is determined that there is excessive shake. Measures are taken such as stopping the winding."
and the controller determines occurrence or non- occurrence of swinging of the holding unit based on whether the return light is received within the set monitoring range.
Tamura teaches ([0006]): "In the stationary state of the suspending tool, for example, when the suspending tool is fixed at the upper limit of winding, the light beam emitted from the light beam irradiation means 21A is reflected by the reflecting plate 22 provided on the upper surface of the suspending tool 22, and then the light receiving device. It is supposed to return to 21B. When the range of the shake w is shown in FIG. 2, the light receiving device 21B can capture the reflected light beam, but if the range is exceeded, the intensity of the reflected light beam sharply decreases, so it is determined that there is excessive shake. Measures are taken such as stopping the winding." Tamura further teaches ([0011]): "The threshold value calculated as described above is input to the shake determination means 35 together with the reflected light beam intensity in the operating state of the crane, and is compared and calculated. As a result, if the reflected light beam intensity exceeds the threshold value, it is determined that shake is within the allowable limit... On the other hand, if the reflected light beam intensity is below the threshold value, it is determined that the shake exceeds the allowable limit. In that case, the operation such as hoisting is stopped."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Tamura to provide that the holding unit is provided with a reflector, wherein the monitoring sensor is a laser rangefinder, wherein the monitoring sensor emits the laser beam toward the reflector and detects return light reflected by the reflector, and the controller determines occurrence or non- occurrence of swinging of the holding unit based on whether the return light is received within the set monitoring range. Wada and Tamura are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of laser-based imaging used for swinging detection in lifts. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Tamura, as the range-based laser intensity monitoring of Tamura advantageously allows for a determination of whether swinging is detected within acceptable limits or whether swinging exceeds acceptable limits, and stopping lifting if excessing swinging is detected, as recognized by Tamura (see at least [0006] and [0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 10. Wada further teaches:
the controller stores each of first to third monitoring ranges that are the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor in a manner associated with each of first to third patterns that are patterns of lifting and lowering the holding unit,
Wada teaches ([0077]): "Information on such transfer destinations S1 to S8 is stored in the storage 82 (refer to FIG. 1) of the controller 80 as a data table, for example." Wada further teaches ([0080]): "In this process, depending on the positions of the transfer destinations S1 to S8, at least either the adjustment of the laterally moved amount or the adjustment of the orientation of the sensor (the application direction of the laser light L1 of the shaking detection sensor 47 and the application direction of the laser light L2 of the look-down sensor 48) may be required. The adjuster 81 performs the adjustment of the laterally moved amount, adjustment of the lowered amount, and the adjustment of the orientation of the sensor in accordance with the positions of the transfer destinations S1 to S8 and the presence or absence of the article FP. The adjuster 81 performs the adjustment of the laterally moved amount, the adjustment of the lowered amount, and the adjustment of the orientation of the sensor from the data table DT2 stored in the storage 82 in accordance with the positions of the transfer destinations S1 to S8." FIG. 12 (i.e., data table DT2), included below, demonstrates that each of S1-S8 represent different patterns of lifting and lowering the holding unit.
PNG
media_image3.png
534
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and changes the monitoring range into the first monitoring range when the pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit is the first pattern,
Referring to FIG. 12, included above, and FIG. 10, included below, S7 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement is not adjusted and the sensor actuators are not driven. The Examiner has interpreted this orientation as a first monitoring range.
PNG
media_image4.png
806
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
changes the monitoring range into the second monitoring range when the pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit is the second pattern,
Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S8 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement adjustment amount is SLRX1 when the article is absent, resulting in sensor actuation in the -X direction (ON(2) = -X direction; see at least [0083]).
and changes the monitoring range into the third monitoring range when the pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit is the third pattern.
Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S8 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement adjustment amount is SLRX1 when the article is present, resulting in sensor actuation in the -X direction (ON(2) = -X direction; see at least [0083]).
Regarding claim 12, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 11. Wada further teaches:
the first pattern is a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit directly below the body section,
Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S7 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement is not adjusted and the sensor actuators are not driven.
the second pattern is a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit that is not holding the article when the lifting drive section has been moved laterally with respect to the body section,
Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S8 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement adjustment amount is SLRX1 when the article is absent, resulting in sensor actuation in the -X direction (ON(2) = -X direction; see at least [0083]).
and the third pattern is a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit that is holding the article when the lifting drive section has been moved laterally with respect to the body section.
Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S8 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement adjustment amount is SLRX1 when the article is present, resulting in sensor actuation in the -X direction (ON(2) = -X direction; see at least [0083]).
Regarding claim 13, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 12. Wada further teaches:
the first monitoring range is a range oriented in a first direction along a vertical direction in the monitoring sensor in a reference attitude,
Wada teaches ([0038]): "The look-down sensor 48 applies laser light L2 toward the vicinity of a lowering destination of the up-and-down stage 42. The look-down sensor 48 applies the laser light L2 and from reflected light thereof detects whether there is a foreign object near the transfer destination S being the lowering destination of the up-and-down stage 42." Wada further teaches ([0083]): "For the transfer destinations S4 and S7, the lateral movement of the up-and-down driver 43 by the lateral mover 45 is not performed. Thus, the bending of the lateral mover 45 does not occur, and the adjustment of the laterally moved amount, the adjustment of the lowered amount, and the adjustment of the orientation of the sensor by the adjuster 81 are not performed." Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S7 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement is not adjusted and the sensor actuators are not driven. Therefore, in such an arrangement, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first monitoring range is a range oriented in a first direction along a vertical direction of the monitoring sensor in a reference attitude.
the second monitoring range is a range oriented in a second direction formed by tilting the first direction at a first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude,
Wada teaches ([0086]): "In the present preferred embodiment, the adjuster 81 corrects the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 so as to be applied to the +X side in accordance with the laterally moved amount of the up-and-down driver 43 by the lateral mover 45. Consequently, the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 is corrected to be an application direction L2a to depart from the lower conveyance vehicle 100, and false detection by the look-down sensor 48 can be prevented." Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S8 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement adjustment amount is SLRX1 when the article is absent, resulting in sensor actuation in the -X direction (ON(2) = -X direction; see at least [0083]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the monitoring range of the look-down sensor 48 is oriented in a second direction formed by tilting the first direction at a first angle in order to apply in the desired application direction L2a.
However, while Wada does teach a third monitoring range (see at least [0085]-[0086] and FIG. 12, in particular S8) Wada does not outright teach that the third monitoring range is a range oriented in a third direction formed by tilting the first direction at a second angle that is larger than the first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Wada to provide:
and the third monitoring range is a range oriented in a third direction formed by tilting the first direction at a second angle that is larger than the first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude.
Wada teaches ([0085]): "As illustrated in FIG. 13, in the processing room PR, upper and lower two-tier rails R are provided, and the conveyance vehicle 100 travels along each of the rails R. In this configuration, the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 mounted on the upper conveyance vehicle 100 is inclined to the −X side by the bending of the lateral mover 45. " Wada further teaches ([0086]): "In the present preferred embodiment, the adjuster 81 corrects the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 so as to be applied to the +X side in accordance with the laterally moved amount of the up-and-down driver 43 by the lateral mover 45. Consequently, the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 is corrected to be an application direction L2a to depart from the lower conveyance vehicle 100, and false detection by the look-down sensor 48 can be prevented." Wada even further teaches ([0070]): "That is, with the article FB being held, when the up-and-down driver 43 is laterally moved by the lateral mover 45, the weight of the article FP is added, and thus the bending of the lateral mover 45 increases..." Referring to FIGs. 12 and 10, included above, S8 comprises a pattern of lifting and lowering the holding unit where the lateral movement adjustment amount is SLRX1 when the article is present, resulting in sensor actuation in the -X direction (ON(2) = -X direction; see at least [0083]). Based on the teachings of [0070], when the lifting drive section has been moved laterally, the bending of the lateral transfer mechanism increases. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Wada such that the correction of the application direction of the laser light is greater while the article is present in order to compensate for the increase in bending (and an associated increase in inclination due to the bending).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wada such that the third monitoring range is a range oriented in a third direction formed by tilting the first direction at a second angle that is larger than the first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude. Wada already provides that the second monitoring range is a range oriented in a second direction formed by tilting the first direction at a first angle in the monitoring sensor in the reference attitude (see at least [0083] and [0086]). The third pattern of Wada is similar to the second pattern of Wada, though the third pattern of Wada requires that the holding unit is holding the article, while the second pattern requires that the holding unit does not hold the article. Wada teaches ([0070]) that when the lifting drive section has been moved laterally, the bending of the lateral transfer mechanism increases. Therefore, in conjunction with the teachings of [0085]-[0086], which states that the inclination is caused by bending of the lateral mover 45, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the conclusion that an increase of bending of the lateral transfer mechanism would require greater correction of the application direction of the laser light in order to compensate for the increased bending caused by the weight of the article. Therefore, despite the second and third pattern extending the lifting drive section laterally by the same amount (see S8 of FIG. 12), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Wada such that the second angle is larger than the first angle in order to compensate for the increased weight (and thus bending) contributed by the presence of the article.
Regarding claim 14, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 10. However, Wada does not outright teach that the laser rangefinder monitoring sensor emits light toward the reflector (provided on the holding unit) and also detects return light when the light has been reflected by the reflector. Tamura further teaches:
the holding unit is provided with a reflector,
Tamura teaches ([0005]): "As an example, the photoelectric switch 21 provided in the crane body 10 shown in FIG. 1 is provided with a light beam irradiating means 21A, while the upper surface of the suspender 11 suspended from the crane body 10 has a light beam emitting means 21A. A reflecting plate 22 is provided as a reflecting means, and is adapted to receive and reflect the light beam emitted from the light beam emitting means 21A." FIG. 1, included above, demonstrates that the holding unit is provided with reflecting plate 22.
and the monitoring sensor emits light toward the reflector and also detects return light when the light has been reflected by the reflector.
Tamura teaches ([0005]): "As an example, the photoelectric switch 21 provided in the crane body 10 shown in FIG. 1 is provided with a light beam irradiating means 21A, while the upper surface of the suspender 11 suspended from the crane body 10 has a light beam emitting means 21A. A reflecting plate 22 is provided as a reflecting means, and is adapted to receive and reflect the light beam emitted from the light beam emitting means 21A." Tamura further teaches ([0006]): "In the stationary state of the suspending tool, for example, when the suspending tool is fixed at the upper limit of winding, the light beam emitted from the light beam irradiation means 21A is reflected by the reflecting plate 22 provided on the upper surface of of the suspending tool 22, and then the light receiving device. It is supposed to return to 21B. When the range of the shake w is shown in FIG. 2, the light receiving device 21B can capture the reflected light beam, but if the range is exceeded, the intensity of the reflected light beam sharply decreases, so it is determined that there is excessive shake. Measures are taken such as stopping the winding."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wada and Tamura to further incorporate the teachings of Tamura to provide that the laser rangefinder monitoring sensor emits light toward the reflector (provided on the holding unit) and also detects return light when the light has been reflected by the reflector. Wada and Tamura are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of laser-based imaging used for swinging detection in lifts. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Tamura, as the range-based laser intensity monitoring of Tamura advantageously allows for a determination of whether swinging is detected within acceptable limits or whether swinging exceeds acceptable limits, and stopping lifting if excessing swinging is detected, as recognized by Tamura (see at least [0006] and [0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 10. Wada further teaches:
the monitoring sensor is able to change orientation of the monitoring range in a direction along a first horizontal direction.
Wada teaches ([0056]): "As described above, the protruding amount in the X direction by the lateral mover 45 changes by the position of the transfer destination S. In accordance with the protruding amount by the lateral mover 45, the inclination of the up-and-down driver in the θY direction changes. Consequently, in the present preferred embodiment, when the up-and-down driver 43 is caused to protrude by the lateral mover 45, the controller 80 determines whether the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed in accordance with the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43 in the θY direction. When the controller 80 determines that the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed, the second correction driver 76 is driven by the adjuster 81 described below to rotate the movable portion 73 as described above, and thus the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 can be corrected." FIG. 1, included above, demonstrates that the application direction of the laser light L2 is changed in a direction along a first horizontal direction (i.e., orientation of the monitoring range of laser light L2 is shifted in the +X direction)
Regarding claim 16, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 15. Wada further teaches:
the first horizontal direction corresponds to a direction in which the lifting drive section is able to be moved by the lateral transfer mechanism.
FIG. 1, included above, demonstrates that the application direction of the laser light L2 is changed in a direction along a first horizontal direction (i.e., orientation of the monitoring range of laser light L2 is shifted in the +X direction). FIG. 1 also demonstrates that the +X direction is the same direction in which the lifting drive section is moved by the lateral transfer mechanism.
Regarding claim 18, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 10. Wada further teaches:
a tilt detection sensor configured to detect the tilt of the lifting drive section with respect to the horizontal plane,
Wada teaches ([0042]): "The shaking detection sensor 47 and the look-down sensor (the sensor 44) apply the laser light L1 and laser light L2, respectively, in directions deviated from original application directions by the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43." Wada further teaches ([0056]): "Consequently, in the present preferred embodiment, when the up-and-down driver 43 is caused to protrude by the lateral mover 45, the controller 80 determines whether the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed in accordance with the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43 in the θY direction. When the controller 80 determines that the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed, the second correction driver 76 is driven by the adjuster 81 described below to rotate the movable portion 73 as described above, and thus the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 can be corrected."
wherein the controller changes the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor in accordance with a detection result of the tilt detection sensor.
Wada teaches ([0056]): "Consequently, in the present preferred embodiment, when the up-and-down driver 43 is caused to protrude by the lateral mover 45, the controller 80 determines whether the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed in accordance with the inclination of the up-and-down driver 43 in the θY direction. When the controller 80 determines that the application direction of the laser light L2 should be changed, the second correction driver 76 is driven by the adjuster 81 described below to rotate the movable portion 73 as described above, and thus the application direction of the laser light L2 applied from the look-down sensor 48 can be corrected."
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada and Tamura in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 2020/0307967 A1), hereinafter Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 17, Wada and Tamura teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 15. However, while Wada does teach adjusting the orientation of the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor in a first horizontal direction (e.g., see FIG. 1), Wada does not outright teach an adjustment structure configured to adjust a positional relation between the monitoring sensor and the lifting drive section such that the orientation of the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor is changed in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction. Ishikawa teaches a crane, comprising:
an adjustment structure configured to adjust a positional relation between the monitoring sensor and the lifting drive section such that the orientation of the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor is changed in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction.
Ishikawa teaches ([0027]): "Laser scanner 17 is configured to be swingable, via an actuator, centered on an axis, as a swing center, parallel to the swing axis of telescopic boom 8. Laser scanner 17 is configured to be capable of measuring an area perpendicularly downward from the installation position irrespective of the lowered angle of telescopic boom 8 or the lowered angle of jib 9, and is configured to be capable of changing its position from that perpendicularly downward in any situation." Ishikawa further teaches ([0043]): "As illustrated in FIGS. 3A, 3B and 3C, laser scanner 17 can change the measurement direction, the measurement range and the measurement density. As illustrated in FIG. 3A, the measurement direction can be changed by an actuator swinging laser scanner 17." Ishikawa even further teaches ([0044]): " As illustrated in FIG. 4, crane 1 at an operation site is configured to be capable of obtaining three-dimensional information on monitoring area B made up of the measurement direction and the measurement range of laser scanner 17 in operation area A. The operator sequentially obtains the three-dimensional information on monitoring area B that is changed according to the swing operation of swivel base 7, the luffing operation of telescopic boom 8, the extending and retracting operation of telescopic boom 8, or the traveling operation of crane 1, thereby obtaining the three-dimensional information on the entire range of operation area A." FIGs. 3-4, included below, demonstrate that the laser scanner 17 is able to change the orientation of its monitoring range in both axes of the horizontal plane. Therefore, the orientation of the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor of Ishikawa is capable of being changed in both axes of a horizontal plane
PNG
media_image5.png
652
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
436
382
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wada and Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to provide an adjustment structure configured to adjust a positional relation between the monitoring sensor and the lifting drive section such that the orientation of the monitoring range of the monitoring sensor is changed in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction. Wada, Tamura, and Ishikawa are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of laser-based sensor systems in lifting applications. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the swingable laser scanner of Ishikawa, as enabling such actuation beneficially allows the monitoring sensor to be capable of changing its position from being perpendicularly downward in any situation, as recognized by Ishikawa ([0027]). Further, allowing for reorientation in both axes of the horizontal plane advantageously expands the measurement area, as illustrated in FIGs. 3-4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tax et al. (US 6,182,843 B1) teaches a method for target path correction of a load carrier, including providing movement correction along two paths of movement in a horizontal plane (see at least Col. 12 line 63 - Col. 13 line 5 and FIG. 1). Ozeki (US 2018/0193958 A1) teaches a laser machine with a workpiece rack and an elevator, including a gantry and slider configuration which allows movement of the laser head in the X, Y, and Z directions (see at least [0035]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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).
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 FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662