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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okazaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0129704).
Regarding claim 1: Okazaki discloses a n unmanned transport vehicle comprising:
a plurality of first travel wheels each having an axle extending in a front-back direction, see for example (Figs. 5-7; via wheels 11/24);
a plurality of second travel wheels each having an axle extending in a left-right direction, see for example (Figs. 5-7; via the other sets of wheels 11/24);
a travel wheel switching mechanism that causes one of the first travel wheels and the second travel wheels to be grounded on a travel surface, and another one of the first travel wheels and the second travel wheels to be lifted from the travel surface in a lifting operation, see for example (Figs. 5-9; via switching mechanism or cams 17A, 17B, 17C, and 17D); and
a pair of left and right frame bodies extending in the front-back direction, each of the frame bodies being supported at an intermediate position by a left-right spindle (Figs. 8-9; via sub frames 6 & 7), and swinging around the left-right spindle, the frame body having a front end part and a back end part, on which some of the second travel wheels are disposed, see for example (Figs. 8-9; via cam followers 20B and 20C and/or Figs. 10-11; via elevating cams 24A-24D); and
a frame body swing restriction unit that restricts swing of each of the frame bodies around the left-right spindle, when the first travel wheels are grounded on the travel surface and the second travel wheels are lifted from the travel surface by the travel wheel switching mechanism, see for example (Fig. 7; via M4 & sprockets 27A-27C; paragraphs 0127-0129).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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.
Regarding claim 2: the prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of the claimed unmanned transport vehicle comprising among other features, the ability of having the frame body swing restrictions unit restricts the swing of each of the frame bodies (Figs. 4-5 & 8-9; via swing restriction unit A of the swing frame bodies 7 & 8; ) when the second travel wheels are moved up and releases the restriction on the swing of each of the frame bodies when the second travel wheels are moved down, see for example (the filed specification, paragraphs 0067-0068).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Okazaki ‘704 does not suggest the claimed “swing” of frame bodies (Fig. 5; via 6 and/or 7) similarly to the suggested by the filed application swinging bodies (Fig. 8; via 7 and/or 8).
The Office believes that ‘704 suggests a pivoting wheels 12A-12D (paragraph 0084), which are part of frames 6 and/or 7. It is noted that in order to have pivoting wheels on a frame, at least portions of those frames need to be moving or member in within in order to allow pivotal movements to those wheels.
Further, as have been admitted by applicant that ‘704 uses similar frames as claimed (Fig. 5; via 6 and/or 7), having those frames to be movable and/or swinging parts would be nothing more than a design choice to be made to have a part movable instead of being fixed.
In addition, it appears that the argued upon issue of having the frame to be movable and swinging is nothing more than an intended use of the actual frames, which not given much patentable weight in the apparatus claims.
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights