DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed July 29th, 2024. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
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 July 29th, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 29th, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 the claim recites “through the power line communication” which is improper as it is marking an original claim as having an amendment. 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 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: “a transmission line matching unit” in claim 5.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim recites “a transmission line matching unit” in lines 4-6 which invokes 112(f) but the disclosure lacks corresponding structure. The closest the specification reaches to describing a structure of the transmission line matching unit in found in page 15 lines 6-10 of the specification which recites “The termination/extension device (40) includes a transmission line matching unit for stable communication between the central controller (30) and the OHT controller (20), the transmission line matching unit being installed at a terminal end of the power line (C)”. This is insufficient for a showing of structure as it merely indicates where it is installed.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim limitation “transmission line matching unit” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest the specification reaches to describing a structure of the transmission line matching unit in found in page 15 lines 6-10 of the specification which recites “The termination/extension device (40) includes a transmission line matching unit for stable communication between the central controller (30) and the OHT controller (20), the transmission line matching unit being installed at a terminal end of the power line (C)”. This is insufficient for a showing of structure as it merely indicates where it is installed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the transmission line matching unit is an electrical component that prevents current from being supplied to or from the powerline or controls the current that passes through the powerline to connected wires.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “[a] junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT” in lines 1-2, “an OHT controller mounted on an OHT which moves along tracks” in line 3, and “controls junction passing of a plurality of OHTs” in line 5 (emphasis added). The recitation of 2 “an OHT”s and the “a plurality of OHTs” causes an antecedent basis issue as it causes confusion of the scope of the claim as to whether each of the “an OHT” is a separate OHT and if the two OHTs previously recited are part of the plurality of OHTs. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the 2nd recitation of “an OHT” is meant to be the same OHT as the first and that the first OHT is part of the plurality of OHTs.
Claims 1-11 recite in their preambles “junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication”. The fact that each claim recites “a location”, “an OHT”, and “a power line communication” is an antecedent basis issue and causes confusion as to whether each claim is directed to their own location/OHT/power line communication or if each claim is referring to the same location/OHT/power line communication. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the location, OHT, and power line communication for each dependent claim is the same as the location, OHT, and power line communication from claim 1.
Claim 9 recite the limitation “recognizes a change of a location” in line 5 of the claim. This creates an antecedent basis issue as it is unclear what the change of “a location” is and if it is the same location of the OHT recited in the preamble. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the “change of a location” is the same location of the OHT recited in the preamble and claim 1.
Claim 11 recite the limitation “a traveling location of each of the OHTs” in lines 6-7 of the claim. This creates an antecedent basis issue as it is unclear if it is the same location of the OHT recited in the preamble. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the location of an OHT from the preamble is one of the traveling locations of each of the OHTs.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onishi; Hisashi (US Pub. No. 20090063052 A1), herein after Onishi 052.
Regarding claim 1, Onishi 052 teaches [a] junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication, comprising: an OHT controller mounted on an OHT which moves along tracks; and a central controller that is installed in a junction section of the tracks and controls junction passing of a plurality of OHTs (Onishi 052: Para. 0042, teaching a transportation system for vehicle of the overhead hoist type (OHT); and Para. 0051, teaching a controller 1000 that is electrically connected to every device in the system and controls the whole system): wherein power lines are laid on the tracks in a zone from a start point of the junction section to an end point of the junction section, and the central controller and the OHT controller transmit and receive data for a junction passage control through power line communication to and from each other (Onishi 052: Para. 0047, teaching a first and second guide wires on the sides of a track at a merge point that start and end at the entrance and exit of the merge point which transmit power and signals between the vehicle and the controller).
Regarding claim 2, Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein the central controller determines a location of a danger zone start point and a danger zone end point on each of the tracks of the junction section and, based on the determined locations, controls passage of the OHTs through the junction section (Onishi 052: Para. 0047, teaching a first and second guide wires on the sides of a track at a merge point that start and end at the entrance and exit of the merge point which transmit power and signals between the vehicle and the controller; and Para. 0067, teaching that the merge points are monitored as potential collision zones and the vehicles are controlled to prevent collision by having a vehicle wait at the entrance to the merge point when another vehicle is detected traveling inside the merge point).
Regarding claim 3, Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein the OHT controller transmits, to the central controller through power line communication, OHT identification information and traveling information including at least one or more of OHT information indicating a traveling or stopping status, a travel distance, and a travel speed (Onishi 052: Para. 0067, teaching that the signal transferred from the vehicle includes information regarding where it is in regards to which track it is traveling over and whether it is actively traveling).
Regarding claim 8, Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein each of the OHTs includes a sensor for detecting location movement information, and the OHT controller transmits the location movement information detected by the sensor to the central controller (Onishi 052: Para. 0053, teaching reading devices that are installed on the vehicles that read marks on the track of the vehicle to determine the location of the vehicles and the vehicle transmits information about the vehicle to the controller in response to reading the marks).
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi 052 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US Pub. No. 20170280436 A1), herein after Park.
Regarding claim 4, Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein the central controller transmits, to the OHT controller through the power line communication, data about the danger zone start point, information indicating whether access is permitted (Onishi 052: Para. 0060, teaching that the controller transmits to the vehicles information about where a junction point is and instructions about whether they can enter the junction point).
Onishi 052 is silent to the data includes the selected [vehicle] identification information, and information of the number of [vehicle] controllers in communication.
In a similar field, Park teaches wherein the central controller transmits, to the [vehicle] controller... data about... the selected [vehicle] identification information, and information of the number of [vehicle] controllers in communication (Park: Para. 0078 and 0107, teaching a stationary infrastructure unit for a controlling a junction of a rail system that broadcasts information to each train regarding the location, number of trains associated with the junction, and identifiers for each train) for the benefit of enabling the vehicles to coordinate passage through a junction without relying upon instructions from a central control system.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the information that the junction controller transmits to each vehicle approaching a junction from Onishi 052 to have the controller also transmit vehicle identification information of each vehicle to the vehicles, as taught by Park, for the benefit of enabling the vehicles to coordinate passage through a junction without relying upon instructions from a central control system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi 052 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takagi; Masamichi (JP Publication No. 2008078995 A), herein after Takagi.
Regarding claim 5, Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, further comprising: [electrical devices]… that [are] coupled with the power line via a contact coupler to perform the power line communication with the central controller (Onishi 052: Para. 0055, teaching that the controller is electrically connected to every device in the system).
Onishi 052 is silent to [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, further comprising: a termination device that includes a transmission line matching unit for stable communication between the central controller and the OHT controller, the transmission line matching unit being installed at a terminal end of the power line, and that is coupled with the power line.
In a similar field, Takagi teaches [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, further comprising: a termination device that includes a transmission line matching unit for stable communication between the central controller and the OHT controller, the transmission line matching unit being installed at a terminal end of the power line, and that is coupled with the power line (Takagi: Para. 0012, teaching impedance bonds that are installed in a rail that act as termination devices that prevents current from being supplied) for the benefit of isolating the signals in the junction from the rest of the rail network.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify junction electrical system from Onishi 052 with impedance bonds at the ends of the junction, as taught by Takagi, for the benefit of isolating the signals in the junction from the rest of the rail network.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi 052 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ichimura; Kinya (US Pub. No. 20090127048 A1), herein after Ichimura.
Regarding claim 6, Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein the central controller is coupled with the power line via a contact coupler (Onishi 052: Para. 0055, teaching that the controller is electrically connected to every device in the system).
Onishi 052 is silent to the OHT controller is coupled with the power line via a non-contact coupler to perform the power line communication with the central controller.
In a similar field, Ichimura teaches the OHT controller is coupled with the power line via a non-contact coupler to perform the power line communication with the central controller (Ichimura: Para. 0054, teaching a trolley system that supplies power to the trolley via non-contact induction power couplers) for the benefit of allowing the moving vehicle to receive power and instructions without a physical connection hindering its movement.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the OHT vehicle junction control system from Onishi 052 to have the vehicles couple to the powerline using non-contact induction couplers, as taught by Ichimura, for the benefit of allowing the moving vehicle to receive power and instructions without a physical connection hindering its movement.
Claims 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi 052 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoashi; Kouichi (US Pub. No. 20230237911 A1), herein after Hoashi.
Regarding claim 7, Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1, however Onishi 052 is silent to [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein a junction section status display device that displays a status of the junction section is installed at the start point of to the junction section of the tracks; and a camera is installed on each of the OHTs, and the OHT controller acquires access availability status information of the junction section from an image captured by the camera.
In a similar field, Hoashi teaches [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein a junction section status display device that displays a status of the junction section is installed at the start point of to the junction section of the tracks; and a camera is installed on each of the OHTs, and the OHT controller acquires access availability status information of the junction section from an image captured by the camera (Hoashi: Para. 0026, teaching a vehicle with a camera and traffic lights that are being read by the camera to control the vehicle at intersections) for the benefit of improving control of traffic at an intersection without requiring direct communication between the intersection traffic controller and the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the junction control from Onishi 052 a vehicle that has a camera that responds to control signals displayed by an intersection traffic controller, as taught by Hoashi, for the benefit of improving control of traffic at an intersection without requiring direct communication between the intersection traffic controller and the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Onishi 052 and remains as applied as in claim 8, however Onishi 052 is silent to [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 8, wherein the sensor is any one of an optical flow sensor, an IMU sensor, or a camera that detects a change on a surface of each of the tracks and recognizes a change of a location.
In a similar field, Hoashi teaches [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 8, wherein the sensor is any one of an optical flow sensor, an IMU sensor, or a camera that detects a change on a surface of each of the tracks and recognizes a change of a location (Hoashi: Para. 0022, teaching a vehicle installed with GPS and a camera that monitors the area around the vehicle) for the benefit of monitoring the area around the vehicle when controlling its driving.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the reading devices used in junction control from Onishi 052 to use cameras, as taught by Hoashi, for the benefit of monitoring the area around the vehicle when controlling its driving.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi 052 as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Fujioka; Shinji (US Pub. No. 20140034786 A1),herein after Fujioka, and further in view of Ichimura.
Regarding claim 10, Onishi 052 remain as applied as in claim 1, however Onishi 052 is silent to [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein a location information update device for detecting location movement information of the OHTs is installed on each of the tracks in the junction section, and the OHT controller receives the location movement information of the OHTs through a non-contact power line communication from the location information update device; and a frequency of the non-contact power line communication is different from a frequency of communication between the central controller and the OHT controller.
In a similar field, Fujioka teaches [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein a location information update device for detecting location movement information of the OHTs is installed on each of the tracks in the junction section, and the OHT controller receives the location movement information of the OHTs… (Fujioka: Para. 0013, teaching a vehicle with a determination unit that determines the location and speed of the vehicle based on signals it has received; and Para. 0093 and 0095, teaching that the signals are received from guidepath wires installed along the track of the vehicle); and a frequency of the non-contact power line communication is different from a frequency of communication between the central controller and the OHT controller (Fujioka: Para. 0009, teaching that each vehicle has a unique frequency in the guidepath wire) for the benefit of positioning the vehicle in relation to the wire without any additional components.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the OHT vehicle control based on signals received through a guidewire from Onishi 052 to monitor the signal strength to determine the location of the vehicle in relation to the junction, as taught by Fujioka, for the benefit of positioning the vehicle in relation to the wire without any additional components.
Onishi 052 in view of Fujioka are silent to the OHT controller receives the location movement information of the OHTs through a non-contact power line communication from the location information update device.
In a similar field, Ichimura teaches the OHT controller receives the location movement information of the OHTs through a non-contact power line communication from the location information update device (Ichimura: Para. 0054, teaching a trolley system that supplies power to the trolley via non-contact induction power couplers) for the benefit of allowing the moving vehicle to receive power and instructions without a physical connection hindering its movement.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the OHT vehicle junction control system from Onishi 052 in view of Fujioka to have the vehicles couple to the powerline using non-contact induction couplers, as taught by Ichimura, for the benefit of allowing the moving vehicle to receive power and instructions without a physical connection hindering its movement.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi 052 as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Onishi; Hisashi (JP Pub. No. 2006145260 A), herein after Onishi 260, and further in view of Sato et al. (JP Patent No. H10324421 A), herein after Sato.
Regarding claim , Onishi 052 remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein the power line is a two-wire transmission line (Onishi 052: Para. 0047, teaching the use of two guidewires that are conductive wires and are laid out on each side of the track; and Para. 0025, teaching that a plurality of conductive wires may be used).
Onishi 052 is silent to the power line is laid so that a distance between two conductor lines is periodically variable; and the OHT controller calculates a traveling location of each of the OHTs based on a reception intensity of a signal received through the power line.
In a similar field, Onishi 260 teaches [t]he junction passage control system based on a location of an OHT using a power line communication according to claim 1, wherein the power line is a two-wire transmission line and is laid so that a distance between two conductor lines is periodically variable (examiner interprets that an annular conductive wire is a type of conductor made of layered conductive wires concentrically wound in alternating directions) (Onishi 260: Para. 0024, teaching a guide line configuration where multiple conductive wires are laid as an annular conductive wire) for the benefit of having a consistent pattern of signals from the guidewire.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify junction guidewires from Onishi 052 to be laid in an annular conductive wire shape, as taught by Onishi 260, for the benefit of having a consistent pattern of signals from the guidewire.
Onishi 052 in view of Onishi 260 are silent to the OHT controller calculates a traveling location of each of the OHTs based on a reception intensity of a signal received through the power line.
In a similar field, Sato teaches the OHT controller calculates a traveling location of each of the OHTs based on a reception intensity of a signal received through the power line (Sato: Para. 0073, teaching determining the location of a vehicle based on the signal strength of a signal from a trolley wire) for the benefit of positioning the vehicle in relation to the wire without any additional components.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the OHT vehicle position determination from Onishi 052 in view of Onishi 260 to utilize the strength of the signals of the guidewire, as taught by Sato, for the benefit of positioning the vehicle in relation to the wire without any additional components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
King et al. (US Pub. No. 20070276600 A1) discloses a base station for an intersection that receives data about a plurality of vehicles and controls the vehicles to prevent collision at the intersection.
Asuka et al. (US Pub. No. 20110108677 A1) discloses a train control system for intersections that receives information from the trains including ID and position information and controls the trains to prevent collisions.
Maejima et al. (US Pub. No. 20170283182 A1) discloses a merging point control device for a conveyor system of a manufacturing plant that controls passage through merging points to prevent collisions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights