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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 06/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made, in view of the prior art cited below.
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 Harasaki et al. U.S. P.G. Publication (hereinafter, Harasaki), in view of Ichimura et al. JP2003267219A (hereinafter, Ichimura).
Regarding Claim 7, Harasaki describes a traveling vehicle system comprising:
-a track (track TA including circular tracks and connection tracks, Harasaki, Paragraph 0028 and Figures 1-2);
-a plurality of traveling vehicles to travel along the track in one direction (traveling vehicles travel along track TA and are set to travel in one direction, Harasaki, Paragraphs 0028-0032 and Figure 1);
-and a controller configured or programmed to control each of the traveling vehicles (host controller and controller TC control the traveling vehicles, including transmitting travel instructions and controlling each of the plurality of traveling vehicles, Harasaki, Paragraph 0028 and Figures 1-3); …
-set as a lock section a section … having a section length in which two or more of the traveling vehicles are able to be present (a first area (i.e., CA1) is a controlled area having an upper limit number of traveling vehicles permitted, for example, with an upper limit of eight traveling vehicles, Harasaki, Paragraphs 0043-0048 and Figures 1-3);
-further permit the traveling vehicles to enter … upon determining that a number of the traveling vehicles present in the lock section has not reached a specified number of two or more (number counting unit counts traveling vehicles existing in the first area (i.e., CA1), and the determination unit determines whether the number of traveling vehicles existing in the first area together with vehicles already permitted to enter has reached an upper limit, if the maximum has not been reached, the entry permission unit permits another traveling vehicle to enter the first area, Harasaki, Paragraphs 0043-0048 Figures 2-4); and
-prohibit the traveling vehicles from entering … upon determining that the specified number has been reached (entry is not granted when the sum of traveling vehicles present in the first area CA1 and the traveling vehicles already permitted to enter the first area reaches upper limit number, a traveling vehicle that does not obtain entry permission is stopped outside the first area, Harasaki, Paragrpahs 0043-0049 and Figures 2-4).
Harasaki does not specifically describe the system to include 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; set as a lock section a section being adjacent downstream of the interference section in the one direction.
Ichimura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Ichimura describes a traveling track along which a plurality of containers/traveling vehicles travel and a fire door located along the traveling track that descends to shut off the traveling track when a fire occurs (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0016-0018 and Figures 1-2). Ichimura further describes section X extending along the traveling track in front of and behind the fire door as the space required for the fire door to close (Ichimura, Paragraph 0019 and Figure 2). Thus, Ichimura teaches an interference section including at least the presence area of a traveling vehicle with which the activated shutter comes into contact.
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 Harasaki to include 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; set as a lock section a section being adjacent downstream of the interference section in the one direction, 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 Ichimura expressly recognizes that a traveling vehicle located in the region required for closure of a fire door can prevent the fire door from closing and teaches controlling vehicle travel around that region to prevent interference between the traveling vehicle and the fire door (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0019-0020, 0037-0040).
Regarding Claim 8, Harasaki, 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 (determining whether entry is permitted based upon the number of traveling vehicles in the entry-target first area, together with traveling vehicles already permitted to enter, and thereafter permitting an authorized traveling vehicle to advance from the approach area through connection track into first area, Harasaki, Paragraphs 0006 and 0043-0050 and Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claim 12, Harasaki, as modified by Ichimura, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 7.
Harasaki does not expressly describe a system to include a fire detector to detect a fire, and the shutter includes a fire door.
Ichimura describes a fire door that is activated in response to occurrence of a fire (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0018 and 0038-0039).
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 Harasaki to include a fire detector to detect a fire, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ichimura.
It would have been obvious to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, because automatically detecting the fire condition provides the condition upon which activation of the fire door and modification of the vehicle-entry control occurs (Ichimura, Background).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0229447A1 (hereinafter, Harasaki), in view of Ichimura et al. JP2003267219A (hereinafter, Ichimura), in further view of Gastgeb DE2554272B1 (hereinafter, Gastgeb).
Regarding Claim 9, Harasaki, as modified by Ichimura, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 7.
Harasaki does not specifically describe the system to include wherein 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.
Gastgeb discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Gastgeb describes an overhead traveling vehicle system including a fire door in which, upon a hazard alarm, a carriage may be located in the cross-sectional area of the fire door while the door remains open, and the closing mechanism includes a delay device that holds the fire door open until the carriage has left the fire-door area (Gastgeb, Description and Figures 1-3). Gastgeb further describes that, upon the alarm, the carriage travels along the track from the fire-door area to a position outside of the fire-door area before the delayed fire door closes (Gastgeb, Description, Figures 1-3 and Claim 1).
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 Harasaki to include wherein 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 Gastgeb.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Gastgeb expressly teaches delaying closure of a fire door until a traveling carriage has exited the area required for closure of the fire door, thereby allowing the carriage to clear the fire-door area before the fire door closes and preventing the carriage from interfering with closure of the fire door (Gastgeb, Description, Figures 1-3 and Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Harasaki, as modified, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 9.
Harasaki, as modified by Ichimura and Gastgeb, does not specifically describe the system to include that 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 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 shut off by the shutter; and the lock section is between the boundary and the deceleration point or between the boundary and the stop point.
Ichimura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Ichimura describes a plurality of stations positioned along the traveling track and expressly describes providing a barcode label before a station such that, upon detecting the barcode label, the controller causes the traveling vehicle to decelerate and stop at the station (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0044 and Figure 1). Ichimura further recognizes that when a traveling vehicle is stopped immediately downstream of a fire door, a following traveling vehicle may stop beneath the fire door and prevent the fire door from closing (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 Harasaki to include that 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 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 shut off by the shutter; and the lock section is between the boundary and the deceleration point or between the boundary and the stop point., 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 Ichimura expressly recognizes that a traveling vehicle stopped immediately downstream of a fire door can cause a following traveling vehicle to stop in the fire-door area and prevent closure of the fire door. Configuring the capacity-controlled lock section between the fire-door clearance boundary and a downstream deceleration or stop point would predictably control the accumulation of traveling vehicles downstream of the fire door and prevent such accumulation from causing a traveling vehicle to stop within the area required for closure of the fire door (Ichimura, Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0019, 0044).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasaki WO 2020/261772 A1 (hereinafter, Harasaki), in view of Ichimura et al. JP2003267219A (hereinafter, Ichimura), in further view of Gastgeb DE2554272B1 (hereinafter, Gastgeb), in further view of Koide JP2003182809A (hereinafter, Koide).
Regarding Claim 11, Harasaki, as modified, describes the traveling vehicle system according to claim 10.
Harasaki does not specifically describe the system to include wherein the deceleration point or the stopping point is set at a branch point where the track branches in two or more directions.
Koide discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Koide describes a traveling track including a transport route and a bypass route that branches from the transport route at a diversion point (Koide, Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0017, 0029 and Figure 1). Koide further describes a branch point located at the diversion position and controlling a traveling vehicle to stop when the branch point is detected, wait for a movement permission signal, and thereafter resume traveling into the selected branch (Koide, Paragraphs 0041, 0073-0077 and Figure 11).
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 Harasaki to include wherein the deceleration point or the stopping point is set at a branch point where the track branches in two or more directions, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Koide.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Koide teaches stopping a traveling vehicle at a branch point until permission to proceed along the selected branch is received in order to prevent improper movement through the branch, including preventing derailment at the diversion point (Koide, Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0041, 0073-0077).
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
Prosecution Insights