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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Morita (JP H0986612 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Morita discloses:
A transport system comprising:
an overhead transport vehicle (11) to convey an article (W) in an area where interference may occur with a peripheral device configured to process the article (4 & 5) (Fig. 1);
a traveling path on which the overhead transport vehicle travels [path parallel to rails (7)]; and
a reset signal generator (“operation start permission means”) to output a reset signal in response to an abnormal stop [0012 & 0015 & 0016 & 0025] of the overhead transport vehicle [0011 & 0015], the reset signal enabling the overhead transport vehicle to restart [0011 & 0015]; wherein the overhead transport vehicle includes:
a gripper (12) to grip the article [0021 & 0040];
a lifting and lowering mechanism (11) to lift and lower the gripper;
a communication module (Ha & Hb) to transmit an interlock signal to the peripheral device during transfer of the article [0008]; and a controller (27 & 28 & 41) configured or programmed to control an operation of the overhead transport vehicle and to reset the interlock signal when a reset signal is input to the controller [0031 & 0044 & 0045 & 0046 & 0047 & 0048 & 0049 & 0062 & 0093]; and
when the gripper is located at a position other than a starting point, the controller is configured or programmed to not reset the interlock signal until the gripper rises to a position not interfering with the peripheral device, even in a case where the reset signal has been input to the controller [0013 & 0014 & 0031 & 0044 & 0045 & 0046 & 0047 & 0048 & 0049 & 0062 & 0068 & 0069 & 0070 & 0071 & 0093 – See MPEP 2111.04.II].
Regarding Claim 8, Morita discloses:
the gripper is located at a position other than a starting point, the controller is configured or programmed to not reset the interlock signal until the gripper returns to the starting point [0031 & 0044 & 0045 & 0046 & 0047 & 0048 & 0049 & 0062 & 0093].
Regarding Claim 9, Morita discloses:
the overhead transport vehicle includes a reset button (34) included in the reset signal generator [0033 & 0035 & 0043 & 0048 & 0055].
Regarding Claim 10, Morita discloses:
an abnormality detection sensor (40) to detect an abnormality in the overhead transport vehicle [0030 & 0034 & 0042].
Regarding Claim 11, Morita discloses:
the peripheral device includes a processing device (5) configured to process the article [0003 & 0039 & 0062 & 0063].
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 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 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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP H0986612 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Morita does not teach:
the peripheral device includes an overhead crane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional transport devices such as overhead cranes in an automated warehouse in order to increase throughput and therefore efficiency in the system since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that automated warehouses utilizing multiple various transport devices for article storage and retrieval were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by patent publications: US 20170200625 A1, US 20170186639 A1, US 20170200626 A1, US 20170194182 A1, US 12434907 B2, and JP 2013501361 A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/07/22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “a peripheral device configured to process the article”:
Applicant’s assertion that the peripheral device of Morita is not configured to process the article is not persuasive as the peripheral device of Morita is configured to receive, store, and present the articles for removal which are all processes performed on the article.
Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to “the peripheral device includes an overhead crane” is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publications US 20170200625 A1, US 20170186639 A1, US 20170200626 A1, US 20170194182 A1, US 12434907 B2, and JP 2013501361 A have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: peripheral devices having overhead cranes.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
