DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 7-12 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 10/17/2024 and 01/26/2026 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita U.S. P.G. Publication 2011/0106341A1 (hereinafter, Kinoshita), in view of Ichimura et al. JP2003267219A (hereinafter, Ichimura).
Regarding Claim 7, Kinoshita describes a traveling vehicle system comprising:
-a track (rail, Kinoshita, Paragraph 0058 and Figures 1-6);
-a plurality of traveling vehicles to travel along the track in one direction (vehicles to travel along track in one direction, Kinoshita, Figure 1); and
-a controller configured or programmed to control each of the traveling vehicles (ground controller configured to control each of the traveling vehicles, Kinoshita, Paragraph 0058 and Figure 1); …
-set as a lock section a section being adjacent downstream of the interference section in the one direction and having a section length in which two or more of the traveling vehicles are able to be present (setup a section that is downstream from the interference section that is large enough for two or more traveling vehicles to be present, Kinoshita, Paragraphs 0011 and 0059-0064 and Figures 1-6);
-further permit the traveling vehicles to enter the interference section upon determining that a number of the traveling vehicles present in the lock section has not reached a specified number of two or more (allow for vehicles to enter into the interference section when the section (i.e., lock or blocking area) has not reached two or more vehicles, Kinoshita, Paragraphs 0009-0011, 0059 and Figures 1-6); and
-prohibit the traveling vehicles from entering the interference section upon determining that the specified number has been reached (prohibit or block vehicles from entering when a specified number has been reached, Kinoshita, Paragraphs 0009-0011 and Figures 1-6).
Kinoshita does not specifically disclose the system to include that a portion of a traveling area for the traveling vehicles is shut off by a shutter activatable upon detection of an anomaly by a detector; the controller is configured or programmed to: set as an interference section a section of the track that includes at least a presence area of the traveling vehicles with which the shutter activated upon detection of the anomaly comes into contact.
Ichimura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ichimura describes a system that includes a fire door that descends when a fire is detected (i.e., anomaly detected) (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0004). Moreover, Ichimura describes the ability for the controller to determine the locations of the vehicles before, between, and after fire doors (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0004-0005).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Kinoshita to include that a portion of a traveling area for the traveling vehicles is shut off by a shutter activatable upon detection of an anomaly by a detector; the controller is configured or programmed to: set as an interference section a section of the track that includes at least a presence area of the traveling vehicles with which the shutter activated upon detection of the anomaly comes into contact, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ichimura.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the location of vehicles around fire blocks helps prevent collisions with each other (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Regarding Claim 8, Kinoshita, as modified, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to permit the traveling vehicles to enter the interference section without checking for presence or absence of the traveling vehicles in the interference section (vehicle can enter into an area without checking for presence or absence of another vehicle (e.g., the ground controller is in charge for detecting for presence or absence of other vehicles), Kinoshita, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 12, Kinoshita, as modified, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 7.
Kinoshita does not specifically disclose the system to include that the detector is a fire detector to detect a fire, and the shutter includes a fire door.
Ichimura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ichimura describes a system that includes a fire door that descends when a fire is detected (i.e., anomaly detected) (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0004).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Kinoshita to include that the detector is a fire detector to detect a fire, and the shutter includes a fire door, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ichimura.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the location of vehicles around fire blocks helps prevent collisions with each other (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita U.S. P.G. Publication 2011/0106341A1 (hereinafter, Kinoshita), in view of Ichimura et al. JP2003267219A (hereinafter, Ichimura), in further view of Suyama et al. JP2005284779A (hereinafter, Suyama).
Regarding Claim 9, Kinoshita, as modified, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 7.
Kinoshita does not specifically disclose the system to include that the shutter has a time lag between shutting off the traveling area and detecting the anomaly; and the interference section is structured so that the traveling vehicles are able to travel through the interference section during the time lag.
Suyama discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Suyama describes a system that includes the ability to have a lag time (i.e., delay) (Suyama, Paragraphs 0022). Moreover, Suyama describes that the delay time can allow for a traveling vehicle to be able to travel to a location (e.g., interference section) (Suyama, Paragraph 0022).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Kinoshita to include that the shutter has a time lag between shutting off the traveling area and detecting the anomaly; and the interference section is structured so that the traveling vehicles are able to travel through the interference section during the time lag, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Suyama.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a lag time or delay time allows for items to reach their desired location before another action takes place (e.g., branch) (Suyama, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 10, Kinoshita, as modified, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 9, wherein a boundary between the interference section and the lock section is located where the traveling vehicles are able to travel through the interference section during the time lag (See Claim 9 – Lag teachings by Suyama); a deceleration point for the traveling vehicles or a stop point for the traveling vehicles is located on the track farther downstream in the one direction than a portion of the traveling area (blocking section, which can stop the vehicle downstream or at a desired location, Kinoshita, Paragraphs 0004-0005) shut off by the shutter (See Claim 1 – Fire block teachings by Ichimura); and the lock section is between the boundary and the deceleration point or between the boundary and the stop point (again blocking section, which can stop the vehicle downstream or at a desired location, Kinoshita, Paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding Claim 11, Kinoshita, as modified, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 10, wherein the deceleration point or the stopping point is set at a branch point where the track branches in two or more directions (blocking section can be a branch point for a track, Kinoshita, Paragraphs 0004-0005 and Figures 1-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667