DETAILED ACTION
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application.
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: detection unit, transport unit, command generation unit, wheel identification unit, position estimation unit, wheel information acquisition unit and transport instruction unit in claim 1-10.
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 § 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rana U.S. Patent Application 20210232989 in view of Watanabe U.S. Patent Application 20190232970, and further in view of Kyutoku U.S. Patent Application 20080127851.
Regarding claim 1, Rana discloses a vehicle detection apparatus, comprising:
a detection unit; This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the sensor with the algorithm described in the specification (detection and/or surveying algorithms (or units)) configured to detect, using at least one of state information indicating a state of a vehicle capable of running by unmanned driving obtained from a detector provided on the vehicle, an image of the vehicle, three-dimensional (3D) point cloud data of the vehicle, and position information of the vehicle (paragraph [0082]: an image from a camera 15c at the mobile vehicle 5m can be evaluated by a less accurate SLAM or collision avoidance algorithm (or unit) during the autonomous navigation when moving around in the manufacturing environment 1, while an image form the same camera 15c can be evaluated by a more accurate reference mark detection and/or surveying algorithms (or units) when the mobile vehicle 5 accurately positions or references itself with respect to a work piece 2 or a machine 3 for the execution of a specific task; paragraph [0143]: a quality inspection can be implemented with the mobile vehicles, which can comprise a comparison of point cloud data derived by one or more of the mobile vehicles to nominal model data from a design or CAD file, a statistical evaluation of 3D-scan or measurement data, computer vision for part recognition, completeness check, etc),
that the vehicle moves from a transport unit of a transport device (paragraph [0097]: a mobile vehicle 5 not at a single specific location at the conveyor belt 6 or manufacturing environment 1, but by one or multiple mobile measurement vehicles 5m at some arbitrary location which can be inferred on demand using machine learning, based on availability of resources, capacity and/or space; paragraph [0139]: The cars are moved along a conveyor belt, which is in this case not embodied as a classical belt, but with mobile vehicles 6b for carrying the work pieces 2 autonomously and not strictly bound to a fixed track in the manufacturing environment 1), and
output a detection result, the transport unit; This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the conveyor (conveyor belt 6) being capable of transporting the vehicle (paragraph [0040]: a deviation of the real-world work piece from the required properties can be detected by the machine learned system according to a measurement; paragraph [0148]: A software agent at the edge-computation system 33 of the machine 3 detects such and automatically dispatches an according information about this anomaly to a higher-level factory control system; paragraph [0139]: The cars are moved along a conveyor belt),
wherein the detection unit detects the vehicle moves on the transport unit of the transport device by detecting a relative position of the vehicle with respect to the transport unit using the 3D point cloud data or the image of the vehicle (paragraph [0082]: an image form the same camera 15c can be evaluated by a more accurate reference mark detection and/or surveying algorithms (or units) when the mobile vehicle 5 accurately positions or references itself with respect to a work piece 2 or a machine 3 for the execution of a specific task; paragraph [0139]: The cars are moved along a conveyor belt).
Rana discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Rana fails to disclose at least one wheel provided in the vehicle disposed on a transport unit of a transport device is running off the transport unit, wherein the detector includes at least one of an acceleration sensor and a wheel speed sensor, wherein the detection unit detects the at least one wheel is running off the transport unit of the transport device by detecting a relative position of the vehicle with respect to the transport unit using the 3D point cloud data or the image of the vehicle, or using inclination of the vehicle relative to a horizontal plane acquired from the acceleration sensor or rotation of the wheel detected by the wheel speed sensor.
Watanabe discloses at least one wheel provided in the vehicle departs (paragraph [0043]: a driving wheel is detected to be spinning when starting or accelerating the vehicle 100 to thereby minimize the occurrence of skidding of the vehicle 100. The TCS is also configured to output information indicating the time point of starting or ending such control over the brake system 3 or the powertrain system 2, to the advanced drive system 1; Watanabe’s teaching of detecting wheel spinning can be combined with Rana’s device, such that to detect a vehicle wheel spinning off a transport unit by detecting the position change);
wherein the detector includes at least one of an acceleration sensor and a wheel speed sensor (paragraph [0033]: The sensor 8 includes a vehicle-speed sensor, an acceleration sensor... The vehicle-speed sensor detects a current speed of the vehicle 100. The accelerator sensor detects current accelerations),
position acquired from the acceleration sensor or rotation of the wheel detected by the wheel speed sensor (paragraph [0034]: The accelerator-position sensor detects a depressed position and a depressing speed of the accelerator pedal; paragraph [0033]: The vehicle-speed sensor detects a current speed of the vehicle 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rana’s to detect wheel spinning as taught by Watanabe, to minimize the occurrence of skidding of the vehicle.
Rana as modified by Watanabe discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Rana as modified by Watanabe fails to disclose vehicle disposed on a transport unit of a transport device is running off the transport unit, vehicle is running off the transport unit of the transport device by detecting a relative position of the vehicle with respect to the transport unit, or using inclination of the vehicle relative to a horizontal plane.
Kyutoku discloses vehicle disposed on a transport unit of a transport device is running off the transport unit, vehicle is running off the transport unit of the transport device by changing a relative position of the vehicle with respect to the transport unit, or using inclination of the vehicle relative to a horizontal plane (paragraph [0075]: the transport vehicle 130 traveling in the right direction in FIG. 9 of the main rail 111 runs off the main rail 111 and runs to the sub-rail 112 in the "H"-shaped rail shown in FIG. 9; see fig. 9; Kyutoku’s teaching of vehicle runs off rail can be combined with Rana and Watanabe’s device, such that to detect a vehicle wheel running off a transport unit by detecting the position change).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rana and Watanabe’s to run off transport device as taught by Kyutoku, to provide a rail transport apparatus in which the connection rail is shortened.
Regarding claim 5, Rana as modified by Watanabe and Kyutoku discloses the vehicle detection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a position estimation unit; This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the circuitry, or the software and processor, with the algorithm described in the specification (Rana’s detection and/or surveying algorithms (or units)) configured to estimate a position of the vehicle using vehicle information, the vehicle information being at least one of the image of the vehicle and the 3D point cloud data of the vehicle and acquired by a vehicle detector that acquires the vehicle information (Rana’s paragraph [0082]: an image from a camera 15c at the mobile vehicle 5m can be evaluated by a less accurate SLAM or collision avoidance algorithm (or unit) during the autonomous navigation when moving around in the manufacturing environment 1, while an image form the same camera 15c can be evaluated by a more accurate reference mark detection and/or surveying algorithms (or units) when the mobile vehicle 5 accurately positions or references itself with respect to a work piece 2 or a machine 3 for the execution of a specific task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rana’s to detect wheel spinning as taught by Watanabe, to minimize the occurrence of skidding of the vehicle; and combine Rana and Watanabe’s to run off transport device as taught by Kyutoku, to provide a rail transport apparatus in which the connection rail is shortened.
Regarding claim 6, Rana as modified by Watanabe and Kyutoku discloses the vehicle detection apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising:
a command generation unit; This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the circuitry, or the software and processor, with the algorithm described in the specification (Rana’s detection and/or surveying algorithms (or units)) configured to generate and output a control command to move the vehicle to the transport unit using the position of the vehicle estimated by the position estimation unit when running off of the wheel is detected (Watanabe’s paragraph [0043]: a driving wheel is detected to be spinning when starting or accelerating the vehicle 100 to thereby minimize the occurrence of skidding of the vehicle 100. The TCS is also configured to output information indicating the time point of starting or ending such control over the brake system 3 or the powertrain system 2, to the advanced drive system 1; Kyutoku’s paragraph [0075]: the transport vehicle 130 traveling in the right direction in FIG. 9 of the main rail 111 runs off the main rail 111 and runs to the sub-rail 112 in the "H"-shaped rail shown in FIG. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rana’s to detect wheel spinning as taught by Watanabe, to minimize the occurrence of skidding of the vehicle; and combine Rana and Watanabe’s to run off transport device as taught by Kyutoku, to provide a rail transport apparatus in which the connection rail is shortened.
Claim 11 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 1 applies to the method steps of claim 11.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rana U.S. Patent Application 20210232989 in view of Mochizuki U.S. Patent Application 20220219599, and further in view of Kyutoku U.S. Patent Application 20080127851.
Regarding claim 10, Rana discloses a vehicle capable of running by unmanned driving, comprising:
at least one wheel (paragraph [0058]: an autonomous ground vehicle (AGV), comprising wheels);
vehicle disposed on a transport unit of a transport device, the transport unit (conveyor belt) being capable of transporting the vehicle (paragraph [0139]: The cars are moved along a conveyor belt).
Rana discloses all the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above. However, Rana fails to disclose a command generation unit configured to generate, when the at least one wheel disposed on a transport unit of a transport device is running off the transport unit, a control command to cause the run-off wheel to be spinnable with a force smaller than a force before running off of the wheel is detected, and output the control command.
Mochizuki discloses a command generation unit (control unit) configured to generate, when the at least one wheel departs, a control command to cause the departed wheel to be spinnable with a force smaller than a force before departure of the wheel is detected, and output the control command (paragraph [0018]: when switching information indicating that the brake is switched from a braking state to a releasing state is detected after a necessary target for a departure notification display is detected, the road surface rendering unit renders a vehicle departure notification display onto a road surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rana’s to switch brake state as taught by Mochizuki, to notify departure of a vehicle.
Rana as modified by Mochizuki discloses all the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above. However, Rana as modified by Mochizuki fails to disclose running off from a transport unit of a transport device.
Kyutoku discloses running off from a transport unit of a transport device (paragraph [0075]: the transport vehicle 130 traveling in the right direction in FIG. 9 of the main rail 111 runs off the main rail 111 and runs to the sub-rail 112 in the "H"-shaped rail shown in FIG. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rana and Mochizuki’s to depart transport device as taught by Kyutoku, to provide a rail transport apparatus in which the connection rail is shortened.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4 and 7-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 is about a command generation unit configured to generate, when running off of the wheel depart is detected, a control command to cause the run-off wheel to be spinnable with a force smaller than a force before the running off of the wheel is detected, and output the control command.
Rana 20210232989, Watanabe 20190232970, Kyutoku 20080127851, and Mochizuki 20220219599 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. Although the individual limitations recited in the claims do exist in isolation in the prior art of record, the specific combination recited by the Applicant is found to be non-obvious. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Claim 3-4 depend on claim 2, are allowed base on same reason as claim 2.
Claim 7 is about a wheel information acquisition unit configured to acquire wheel information indicating a state of the run-off wheel using the acquired at least one information; and a transport instruction unit configured to output an instruction to stop transport by the transport device when the acquired state of the run-off wheel satisfies a predetermined stopping condition.
Rana 20210232989, Watanabe 20190232970, Kyutoku 20080127851, and Mochizuki 20220219599 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. Although the individual limitations recited in the claims do exist in isolation in the prior art of record, the specific combination recited by the Applicant is found to be non-obvious. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, are allowed base on same reason as claim 7.
Claim 9 is about a command generation unit configured to generate and output a control signal to activate at least one of a lamp or a horn provided in the vehicle when running off of the wheel is detected.
Rana 20210232989, Watanabe 20190232970, Kyutoku 20080127851, and Mochizuki 20220219599 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. Although the individual limitations recited in the claims do exist in isolation in the prior art of record, the specific combination recited by the Applicant is found to be non-obvious. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026, page 7 - 10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10-11 under 103, have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rana U.S. Patent Application 20210232989 in view of Watanabe U.S. Patent Application 20190232970, and further in view of Kyutoku U.S. Patent Application 20080127851, as outlined above.
Applicant argues on page 7-10 that "Rana is silent about the detection of a wheel running off a transport unit. Moreover, Rana's alleged detector is not equivalent to the claimed detector that includes at least one of an acceleration sensor and a wheel speed sensor”; and for Watanabe, “There is no hint or suggestion for detecting that a wheel is running off from a transport unit that the vehicle is transported on."
In reply, the rejection is based on Rana, Watanabe and Kyutoku combined. Rana discloses detecting vehicle moves on a transport unit by detecting the position change. Watanabe discloses detecting at least one wheel provided in the vehicle departs (paragraph [0043]: a driving wheel is detected to be spinning when starting or accelerating the vehicle 100 to thereby minimize the occurrence of skidding of the vehicle 100. The TCS is also configured to output information indicating the time point of starting or ending such control over the brake system 3 or the powertrain system 2, to the advanced drive system 1; Watanabe’s teaching of detecting wheel spinning can be combined with Rana’s device, such that to detect a vehicle wheel spinning off a transport unit by detecting the position change); and the detector includes at least one of an acceleration sensor and a wheel speed sensor (paragraph [0033]: The sensor 8 includes a vehicle-speed sensor, an acceleration sensor... The vehicle-speed sensor detects a current speed of the vehicle 100. The accelerator sensor detects current accelerations).
Kyutoku discloses vehicle disposed on a transport unit of a transport device is running off the transport unit (paragraph [0075]: the transport vehicle 130 traveling in the right direction in FIG. 9 of the main rail 111 runs off the main rail 111 and runs to the sub-rail 112 in the "H"-shaped rail shown in FIG. 9; see fig. 9). Kyutoku’s teaching of vehicle runs off rail can be combined with Rana and Watanabe’s device, such that to detect a vehicle wheel running off a transport unit by detecting the position change.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yi Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-9589. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on 571-272-7642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YI YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights