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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Background
The Amendments to the Claims in the Applicant’s Amendment, filed on 07/13/26, have been entered.
According to the Amendment, claim 1-20 were pending. Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, and 17 are amended. Claims 5 and 18 are canceled. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-17, 19, and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the § 112(b) rejection of claims 10 and 11 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 12-14, and 16 under § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2024/0076140 to Takahashi et al. 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US Pub. No. 2023/0322119 to Chiu et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under § 103 as being obvious over US Pub. No. 2024/0076140 to Takahashi et al. (Takahashi) in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0322119 to Chiu et al. (Chiu). For claim 1, Takahashi discloses a transport vehicle (2) comprising:
a frame (24) having an internal area (see Fig. 5 showing a vehicle body section with an internal area for receiving objects);
a driver (20) on top of the frame, the driver being configured to travel along a rail (see ¶ [0040] for providing a travelling section with a plurality of traveling wheels that travel along rail mounted to the ceiling of a semiconductor manufacturing facility);
a support structure (25) in the internal area, the support structure being configured to seat, thereon, a drone (3) configured to transport an article (see ¶ [0042] for providing a holding section that holds an object in a suspended orientation); and
a controller (8) configured to control an operation of at least one of the driver and the support structure (see ¶¶ [0035] & [0080] for providing a control device configured to control the transport vehicle).
Although Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the claimed wireless power supply, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Chui teaches a charging system for air-land unmanned aerial vehicles wherein a wireless power supply in the internal area, the wireless power supply being configured to supply power to the drone during at least a portion of a period during which the drone is seated on the support structure. See ¶¶ [0032-0033] & Figs. 3-4.
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Takahashi in view of the wireless power supply feature of Chui in order to extend the operation capability of the transport system by expanding the battery life of the drone.
In regards to claim 2, Takahashi further discloses that the support structure comprises: a first support plate (25a), a second support plate (25a) facing the first support plate, and a driving component (not shown) configured to adjust an area between the first support plate and the second support plate. See ¶ [0043] (providing a pair of gripping claws for gripping an object, the gripping claws being driven by a gripping motor).
Claim 12 is rejected under § 103 as being obvious over Takahashi in view of Chui, supra. For claim 12, Takahashi discloses a transport system comprising:
a rail (1);
a first transport vehicle (2) configured to move along the rail; and
a drone (3) configured to be seated on the first transport vehicle, move to a first point, be removed from the first transport vehicle at the first point, and fly to a second point, and pick up an article at the second point (intended use),
wherein the first transport vehicle comprises:
a frame (24) having an internal area;
a driver (20) on top of the frame, the driver being configured to move along the rail;
a support structure (25) in the internal area, the support structure being configured to seat the drone thereon; and
a controller (8) configured to control an operation of at least one of the driver or the support structure.
Although Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the claimed wireless power supply, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Chui teaches a charging system for air-land unmanned aerial vehicles wherein the drone is further configured to receive power wirelessly from the first transport vehicle when being seated on the first transport vehicle. See ¶¶ [0032-0033] & Figs. 3-4.
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Takahashi in view of the wireless power supply feature of Chui in order to extend the operation capability of the transport system by expanding the battery life of the drone.
In regards to claim 13, Takahashi further discloses that the drone is further configured to pick up the article at the second point, fly to a third point, and be seated on a second transport vehicle at the third point. See ¶¶ [0049-0050] (providing that the UAV is configured to transport objects to and from transfer stations located at the processing devices and stockers).
In regards to claim 14, Takahashi further discloses that the second point is a load port (5) of a manufacturing facility (4), wherein a plurality of manufacturing facilities are arranged in a first row and a second row respectively disposed on both opposing sides of a passage, wherein the rail (1) is not installed in the passage, and wherein the drone is further configured to fly from a position out of the passage and reach one of the plurality of manufacturing facilities in the first row or the second row. See Fig. 1 (showing two rows of processing devices where the overhead rail is installed outside the passage between the two processing devices).
In regards to claim 16, Takahashi further discloses that the second point is a stocker (6) comprising a plurality of storage areas (6a), wherein the stocker excludes a separate robot for loading and unloading the article, and wherein the drone is further configured to pick up the article from one of the plurality of storage areas. See ¶¶ [0049-0050] (accessing objects to be transported within storage locations in the stocker).
Claim 6, 15, and 19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Chui, supra, as applied to claims 1, 12, and 12 respectively, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0190510 to Porat (Porat). For claims 6 and 19, Takahashi in view of Chui discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for the structural features of the drone.
Although Takahashi in view of Chui does not explicitly disclose those limitations, such features are found in the prior art. In fact, Porat teaches an overhead warehousing system comprising a drone (202) including:
a body (not shown but see figure below);
a wing assembly (not shown but see figure below) connected to the body, the wing assembly being configured to generate a lift force to fly the drone;
a gripper (224) connected to the body, the gripper being configured to grip the article (see ¶ [0066] for providing a gripper head with a plurality of gripper fingers that grasp an object for transport); and
a leg (not shown but see figure below) connected to the body, the leg being configured to support the body when the drone is seated on the support structure.
See Figure 16 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
910
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the drone of Takahashi with the structural features of Porat in order to provide a second means for transportation in addition to the transport vehicles, and thereby free up any congestion tied to transport operations within the system.
In regards to claim 15, Takahashi further discloses that the second point is a load port (5) of a manufacturing facility (4). See Fig. 1. Also, Porat further discloses that a plurality of storage racks are arranged in a first row and a second row respectively disposed on both opposing sides of a passage, wherein the rail is installed in the passage, and wherein a position tag corresponding to each of the plurality of manufacturing facilities is not installed on the rail. See Fig. 1.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under § 103 as being obvious over Takahashi in view of Chui and Porat, as applied to claims 6 and 12, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0155024 to Lee et al. (Lee). For claim 8, Takahashi in view of Chui and Porat discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for a reader mounted to the drone.
Although Takahashi in view of Chui and Porat does not explicitly disclose this limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Lee teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising a reader (20/30) on the leg, the reader being configured to read an information tag on a load port or the support structure. See ¶¶ [0040-0041] & [0061-0062] (providing a camera and sensor on the drone for sensing information on objects within the surrounding environment). Note that the actual position of the reader on the leg is considered a matter of mere design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (stating that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the drone of Takahashi in view of Chui and Porat with the sensors of Lee in order to facilitate automated loading and unloading operations within the fabrication facility.
In regards to claim 17, Lee further discloses that the drone comprises a reader (20/30) on a leg of the drone, and wherein the drone is further configured to read information tag at the second point using the reader. See ¶¶ [0040-0041] & [0061-0062] (providing a camera and sensor on the drone for sensing information on objects within the surrounding environment).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 9, and 20 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 1 is on a transport system and recites, in part, “wherein the transport vehicle comprises: a frame having an internal area; a driver on top of the frame, the driver being configured to move along a rail; a support structure in the internal area, the support structure being configured to seat, thereon, a drone-the drone configured to transport an article; and an anti-drop member at the support structure, the anti-drop member being configured to prevent the drone seated on the support structure from falling down; and a wireless power supply in the frame, the wireless power supply being configured to supply power to the drone during at least a portion of a period during which the drone is seated on the support structure.” The combination of those limitations was not found in the prior art of record.
Relevant Prior Art
US Pub. No. 2019/0311932 to Ehrne et al. discloses a loading and/or unloading system comprising a wafer transportation container transport system. The wafer transportation container transport system is configured for transporting wafer transportation containers between different loading and/or unloading systems and/or further devices of a wafer fabrication plant. The wafer transportation container transport system is realized as a cleanroom-compatible overhead hoist transport (OHT) system. As of an alternative to this, the wafer transportation container transport system can also be realized as another type of transport system for wafer transportation containers. For example, a system of self-flying drones could also be configured for the purpose of transporting the wafer transportation containers toward the loading and/or unloading station or away from the loading and/or unloading station. The wafer transportation container transport system comprises a rail system. The rail system includes at least one rail which is configured for the purpose of predefining a transport path.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 PM.
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, JACOB SCOTT can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights