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.
Background
The Amendments to the Specification and the Amendments to the Claims in the Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment, filed on 09/25/24, have been entered.
According to the Amendment, claims 1-6 were pending but have been canceled. Claims 7-12 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 7-12 are rejected under § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 7 recites the limitations "the transport vehicles," and “the branch tracks”. Claim 8 recites the limitations "the transport vehicles," and “the stop positions,” “the branch tracks,” “the stop position,” and “the transport vehicle”. Claim 9 recite the limitations “the transport vehicle,” “the stop position,” and “the branch tracks”. Claim 10 recites the limitations “the confluence point,” “the branch tracks,” and “the transport vehicles”. Claim 11 recites the limitations “the transport vehicle,” “the branch tracks,” “the transport vehicles,” and “the next cycle”. Claim 12 recites the limitations “the transport vehicle,” “the branch tracks,” and “the transport vehicles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Correction is required.
Furthermore, claim 11 is further indefinite. Specifically claim 11 recites that “the departure control (1) causes the transport vehicles stopped at the respective stop positions of the branch tracks to depart at a timing repeated at a fixed cycle for each of the branch tracks; and (2) for the transport vehicle the departure in a certain cycle of which has been prohibited, determines again whether departure in the next cycle is prohibited.” (Emphasis added.) As recited, it is unclear what is meant by the claim language “to depart at a timing repeated at a fixed cycle for each of the branch tracks”. Similarly, it is unclear what is meant by “for the transport vehicle the departure in a certain cycle of which has been prohibited”. Additionally, because there is no mention earlier in the claim of determining, it is unclear why the controller is instructed to determine again whether departure in the next cycle is prohibited when there is no mention of such a determination earlier in the claim. Claim 12 is further indefinite as it depends from claim 11. Correction is required.
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, 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 7 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0155406 to Ito et al. (Ito) in view of JP2006195859 to Shimamura et al. (Shimamura) (as best understood by machine translation submitted with IDS). For claim 7, Ito discloses a transport system, comprising:
a plurality of transport vehicles (10) to travel along a track (3) and transport a load (L) (see ¶ [0029]); and
a controller (20) configured or programmed to control traveling of the transport vehicles (see ¶ [0045]);
the track including a first main track (31) and a plurality of branch tracks (33a-33d) connecting to the first main track via different confluence points (35a-35d) (see ¶ [0032] for providing a track including a first main track and four first branch tracks connected via junction points);
the controller is configured or programmed to execute departure control to cause the transport vehicles stopped at respective stop positions of the branch tracks to depart toward the first main track for each of the branch tracks (see ¶ [0046-0047] & [0075] for performing, via a controller, starting control on transport vehicles stopping at stop positions corresponding to delivery ports of the first branch track).
Although Ito does not explicitly disclose the departure control prohibition as claimed, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Shimamura teaches a guided vehicle system comprising a system controller configured to execute a departure control prohibiting, in accordance with whether the transport vehicle is present in a certain section on the track, departure of at least one of the transport vehicles stopped at the respective stop positions of the branch tracks. See p. 3-4 (providing a system controller comprising a blocking permission process for permitting or blocking entry of a transport vehicle to a branching part based on the presence of another transport vehicle traveling through the branching part or adjacent section of the track).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the system of Ito with the traffic jam control feature of Shimamura in order to control the flow of a plurality of transport vehicles simultaneously traveling along various sections of the track.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
US Pub. No. 2015/0360706 to Niinomi et al. discloses an operation management device that manages the operation of a plurality of vehicles is provided with: a vehicle position acquisition unit that acquires the positions of the plurality of vehicles; an interval adjustment unit that, on the basis of congestion information, identifies a station that is a reference for increasing the density of the plurality of vehicles that are present and sets a standby time at each station that is behind the station that is a reference, the standby time being for the plurality of vehicles that stops at the stations behind the station; and a departure determination unit that adjusts the departure times of the plurality of vehicles from each of the stations behind the station on the basis of the standby times.
US Pub. No. 2021/0107745 to Lee et al. discloses a method and a device for controlling an OHT vehicle are proposed. The method and device presents a solution in which it is possible to minimize a repetition of start and stop of a vehicle, due to congestion on a track, by providing a buffer distance or a buffer waiting time, when the control target vehicle starts due to moving out of range of a proximity distance to a preceding vehicle, after stopping according to reaching of the proximity distance to the preceding vehicle, during driving the OHT control target vehicle.
Conclusion
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