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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12189396 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons given in the table below:
Pending Claim from 18/924,890
Patented Claim from US 12189396 B2
Reason for rejection
1. A vehicle for an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the vehicle is configured to follow a route relative to tracks of the automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the route includes one or more track crossings, and wherein the vehicle comprises: a first set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a first direction; a second set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and one or more sensors attached to the vehicle and configured to detect the one or more track crossings while the vehicle is moving in the first direction or the second direction.
1. A vehicle for an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the vehicle is configured to follow a set route on a track being laid out in the automated storage and retrieval system and having one or more track features, wherein the vehicle comprises: a first wheel support supporting a first set of wheels configured to move the vehicle in a first direction; a second wheel support supporting a second set of wheels configured to move the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and a plurality of sensors attached to the vehicle and configured to detect the one or more track features and to measure a distance to a particular track feature of the one or more track features while the vehicle is moving in the first direction or the second direction, based on intensities of light reflected from different track features of the track, wherein a first one of the plurality of sensors is attached to the first wheel support and a second one of the plurality of sensors is attached to the second wheel support; wherein the first one of the plurality of sensors attached to the first wheel support is configured to detect the one or more track features when the first wheel support is in an active state, and configured to measure the distance to the particular track feature when the first wheel support is in a passive state.
11. The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more track features is a track crossing.
Besides minor immaterial differences in language and phrasing (i.e., “on a track” in the patented claim is a narrower version of “relative to tracks” in the pending claim), the bolded subject matter of patented claim 11 (and patented claim 1, from which patented claim 11 depends) entirely encompasses all of the subject matter (also bolded) of pending claim 1.
8. The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises a first wheel support supporting the first set of wheels, and wherein at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is attached to the first wheel support.
12. The vehicle of Claim 8, wherein the vehicle further comprises a second wheel support supporting the second set of wheels, and wherein at least one second sensor of the one or more sensors is attached to the second wheel support.
1. A vehicle for an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the vehicle is configured to follow a set route on a track being laid out in the automated storage and retrieval system and having one or more track features, wherein the vehicle comprises: a first wheel support supporting a first set of wheels configured to move the vehicle in a first direction; a second wheel support supporting a second set of wheels configured to move the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and a plurality of sensors attached to the vehicle and configured to detect the one or more track features and to measure a distance to a particular track feature of the one or more track features while the vehicle is moving in the first direction or the second direction, based on intensities of light reflected from different track features of the track, wherein a first one of the plurality of sensors is attached to the first wheel support and a second one of the plurality of sensors is attached to the second wheel support; wherein the first one of the plurality of sensors attached to the first wheel support is configured to detect the one or more track features when the first wheel support is in an active state, and configured to measure the distance to the particular track feature when the first wheel support is in a passive state.
11. The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more track features is a track crossing.
Besides minor discrepancies in language and phrasing, claim 11 of the patented application completely encompasses claims 8 and 12 of the pending application.
14. A method for tracking a position of a vehicle following a route relative to tracks of an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the route includes one or more track crossings, and wherein the vehicle comprises: a first set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a first direction; a second set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and one or more sensors attached to the vehicle and configured to detect the one or more track crossings while the vehicle is moving in the first direction or the second direction; wherein the method comprises: moving the vehicle in the first direction or the second direction while detecting the one or more track crossings by at least one sensor of the one or more sensors.
12. A method for tracking a position of a vehicle following a set route on a track being laid out in an automated storage and retrieval system and having one or more track features, wherein the vehicle comprises: a first wheel support supporting a first set of wheels configured to move the vehicle in a first direction; a second wheel support supporting a second set of wheels configured to move the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and a plurality of sensors attached to the vehicle and configured to detect the one or more track features and to measure a distance to a particular track feature of the one or more track features while the vehicle is moving in the first direction or the second direction, wherein a first one of the plurality of sensors is attached to the first wheel support and a second one of the plurality of sensors is attached to the second wheel support; wherein the first one of the plurality of sensors attached to the first wheel support is configured to detect the one or more track features when the first wheel support is in an active state, and configured to measure the distance to the particular track feature when the first wheel support is in a passive state; wherein the method comprises: moving the vehicle in the first direction or the second direction while: detecting the one or more track features by the first one of the plurality of sensors, based on intensities of light reflected from different track features of the track; and measuring the distance to the particular track feature by the first one of the plurality of sensors.
11. The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more track features is a track crossing.
Besides minor immaterial differences in language and phrasing (i.e., “on a track” in the patented claim is a narrower version of “relative to tracks” in the pending claim) and the replacement of “track feature” with “track crossing”, the bolded subject matter of patented claim 12 entirely encompasses all of the subject matter (also bolded) of pending claim 1. Notably, because claim 11 of the patented application, also reproduced to the left, indicates that track crossings are an obvious type of track feature contemplated in the claims, then it would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 12 of the patented to specify that the track feature is a track crossing as in claim 11 of the patented application.
Examiner’s note to help applicant overcome the double patenting rejections: applicant can overcome the double patenting rejections by amending the independent claims to include the limitations of any claim not rejected under double patenting.
Priority
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship from continuation to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application in claim 4:
Regarding claim 4, the claims recites, “wherein at least one track of the tracks comprises a base coupled to opposing walls that extend from the base, wherein when the vehicle moves in the first direction, the first set of wheels contacts the base of the at least one track and at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is directed to one of the opposing walls of the at least one track.” (emphasis added).
However, the specification contains no discussion of “bases” or “walls” making up the tracks. Therefore, this claim has no basis in the specification of the original parent application, 16/347,138.
Examiner’s note to help application overcome the priority issue: Applicant should delete the benefit claim or change the relationship from continuation to continuation-in-part and file all appropriate paperwork to that effect (i.e. filing a new Application Data Sheet, a corrected specification, etc. that all indicate that the case is a continuation-in-part rather than a continuation).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains new matter which was not described in the specification of the parent application in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claims recites, “wherein at least one track of the tracks comprises a base coupled to opposing walls that extend from the base, wherein when the vehicle moves in the first direction, the first set of wheels contacts the base of the at least one track and at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is directed to one of the opposing walls of the at least one track.” (emphasis added).
However, the specification contains no discussion of “bases” or “walls” making up the tracks. Therefore, this claim has no basis in the specification of the original parent application, 16/347,138 and the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for constituting new matter.
Examiner’s note to help application overcome the priority issue: Applicant should delete the benefit claim or change the relationship from continuation to continuation-in-part and file all appropriate paperwork to that effect (i.e. filing a new Application Data Sheet, a corrected specification, etc. that all indicate that the case is a continuation-in-part rather than a continuation).
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)(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 1-2, 4, 8-10, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 20190047786 A1), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses A vehicle for an automated storage and retrieval system (See at least Figs. 1-2 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the conveyance system 100 includes a travel rail 4 and vehicles 8 traveling on the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0039]), wherein the vehicle is configured to follow a route relative to tracks of the automated storage and retrieval system (Suzuki discloses that, in the conveyance system 100, the vehicle 8 can take a plurality of paths with a combination of the X direction and the Y direction in the travel rail 4 and therefore can convey the FOUP 50 efficiently between a plurality of load ports provided non-parallel to each other [See at least Suzuki, 0080]), wherein the route includes one or more track crossings (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the travel part 24 has sensors 36 and barcode readers (detector) 38 to detect cross points and barcodes disposed on the rails, respectively [See at least Suzuki, 0053-0054]), and wherein the vehicle comprises:
a first set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a first direction (See at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the wheels 32a are guided in the guide 10 of the first rail 9 and travel on a travel surface of the first rail 9 show in Fig. 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]);
a second set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the wheels 32b are guided in the guide 12 of the second rail 11 and travel on a travel surface of the second rail 11 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]); and
one or more sensors attached to the vehicle and configured to detect the one or more track crossings while the vehicle is moving in the first direction or the second direction (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 has sensors 36 and barcode readers (detector) 38 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki further discloses that The sensors 36 are disposed at the four corners on the bottom surface of the travel part 24 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Suzuki further discloses that The sensor 36 detects the cross point 14 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. It will be appreciated that the vehicle must be moving in at least one of the X or Y directions indicated in Fig. 1 prior to this stop).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein a first sensor of the one or more sensors is configured to detect the one or more track crossings (See at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]) while the vehicle is moving in the first direction (See at least Fig. 14 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the vehicle 8 moves to the position “2” on the lower side in the figure along the Y direction and thereafter moves to the position denoted by “3” on the right side in the figure along the X direction [See at least Suzuki, 0068]. It will therefore be appreciated that the vehicle can stop and start moving in either direction: X or Y), and wherein a second sensor of the one or more sensors is configured to detect the one or more track crossings (See at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]) while the vehicle is moving in the second direction (See at least Fig. 14 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the vehicle 8 moves to the position “2” on the lower side in the figure along the Y direction and thereafter moves to the position denoted by “3” on the right side in the figure along the X direction [See at least Suzuki, 0068]. It will therefore be appreciated that the vehicle can stop and start moving in either direction: X or Y).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein at least one track of the tracks comprises a base coupled to opposing walls that extend from the base (See at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that Each of the first rails 9 extends linearly in the X direction (first direction) [See at least Suzuki, 0048]. Suzuki further discloses that The first rail 9 is provided with a guide 10 [See at least Suzuki, 0048]. Suzuki further discloses that The guide 10 is a groove and provided along the lengthwise direction of the first rail 9 [See at least Suzuki, 0048]. Suzuki further discloses that Each of the second rails 11 extends linearly in the Y direction (second direction) orthogonal to the X direction in which the first rail 9 extends [See at least Suzuki, 0048]. Suzuki further discloses that The second rail 11 is provided with a guide 12 [See at least Suzuki, 0048]. Suzuki further discloses that The guide 12 is a groove and provided along the lengthwise direction of the second rail 11 [See at least Suzuki, 0048]. Suzuki further discloses that A cross point 14 is provided at a section where the guide 10 of the first rail 9 intersects the guide 12 of the second rail 11 [See at least Suzuki, 0048]), wherein when the vehicle moves in the first direction, the first set of wheels contacts the base of the at least one track (See at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The wheels 32a are guided in the guide 10 of the first rail 9 and travel on a travel surface of the first rail 9 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]. Suzuki further discloses that The wheels 32b are guided in the guide 12 of the second rail 11 and travel on a travel surface of the second rail 11 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]) and at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is directed to one of the opposing walls of the at least one track (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that that The sensor 36 detects the cross point 14 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. It will therefore be appreciated that the bottom of each segment of track may be regarded as applicant’s “opposing walls” since they are what the sensors 36 are facing to detect cross points 14 and the raised walls of each track may be regarded as applicant’s base).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises a first wheel support supporting the first set of wheels (See at least Figs. 5-6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the travel part 24 has a plurality of (four in this example) travel units 35 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]. Suzuki discloses that each travel unit 35 has a plurality of (two in this example) wheels 32a or wheels 32b, a travel motor 34, and an up and down mechanism (switch) 30 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]. The travel part 24 may be regarded as supporting each of the wheels, since the travel units 35 are attached to a surface of the travel part 24 which structurally supports them), and wherein at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is attached to the first wheel support (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The sensors 36 are disposed at the four corners on the bottom surface of the travel part 24 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 8, wherein the first wheel support is operable between an active state, in which the first set of wheels are engaged with the tracks, and a passive state, in which the first set of wheels are disengaged from the tracks (See at least Figs. 5-6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the up and down mechanism 30 moves the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b upward and downward to switch a traveling state between a first traveling state in which the wheels 32a travel along the first rail 9 of Fig. 4 and a second traveling state in which the wheels 32b travel along the second rail 11 of Fig. 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. Suzuki further discloses that, at any given time, the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b come into contact with the guide 10 of the first rail 9 or the guide 12 of the second rail 11 so that the travel part 24 travels along the first rail 9 or the second rail 11 (emphasis added) [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. The state in which one set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “active state”, whereas the state in which that same set of wheels is deactivated but another set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “passive state”. Since all of the wheels are attached to travel part 24, then both of these states may broadly be regarded as states of travel part 24).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 9, wherein the at least one sensor attached to the first wheel support is configured to detect the one or more track crossings when the first wheel support is in the active state (Suzuki further discloses that The sensor 36 detects the cross point 14 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. It will be appreciated that the vehicle must be moving in at least one of the X or Y directions indicated in Fig. 1 prior to this stop, which means that at least one set of wheels must be engaged right before the sensor detects the cross point and stops the vehicle, as per the “active state” described in the rejection of the previous claim).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki discloses A method for tracking a position of a vehicle following a route relative to tracks of an automated storage and retrieval system (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the travel part 24 has sensors 36 and barcode readers (detector) 38 to detect cross points and barcodes disposed on the rails, respectively [See at least Suzuki, 0053-0054]), wherein the route includes one or more track crossings (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the travel part 24 has sensors 36 and barcode readers (detector) 38 to detect cross points and barcodes disposed on the rails, respectively [See at least Suzuki, 0053-0054]), and
wherein the vehicle comprises:
a first set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a first direction (See at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the wheels 32a are guided in the guide 10 of the first rail 9 and travel on a travel surface of the first rail 9 show in Fig. 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]);
a second set of wheels capable of moving the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the wheels 32b are guided in the guide 12 of the second rail 11 and travel on a travel surface of the second rail 11 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]); and
one or more sensors attached to the vehicle and configured to detect the one or more track crossings while the vehicle is moving in the first direction or the second direction (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 has sensors 36 and barcode readers (detector) 38 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki further discloses that The sensors 36 are disposed at the four corners on the bottom surface of the travel part 24 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Suzuki further discloses that The sensor 36 detects the cross point 14 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. It will be appreciated that the vehicle must be moving in at least one of the X or Y directions indicated in Fig. 1 prior to this stop);
wherein the method comprises:
moving the vehicle in the first direction or the second direction while detecting the one or more track crossings by at least one sensor of the one or more sensors (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 has sensors 36 and barcode readers (detector) 38 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 5 in Suzuki: Suzuki further discloses that The sensors 36 are disposed at the four corners on the bottom surface of the travel part 24 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Suzuki further discloses that The sensor 36 detects the cross point 14 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. It will be appreciated that the vehicle must be moving in at least one of the X or Y directions indicated in Fig. 1 prior to this stop).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki discloses The method of Claim 14, wherein the vehicle further comprises:
a first wheel support supporting the first set of wheels (See at least Figs. 5-6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the travel part 24 has a plurality of (four in this example) travel units 35 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]. Suzuki discloses that each travel unit 35 has a plurality of (two in this example) wheels 32a or wheels 32b, a travel motor 34, and an up and down mechanism (switch) 30 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]. The travel part 24 may be regarded as supporting each of the wheels, since the travel units 35 are attached to a surface of the travel part 24 which structurally supports them), wherein at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is attached to the first wheel support (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The sensors 36 are disposed at the four corners on the bottom surface of the travel part 24 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]);
wherein the method further comprises:
moving the first wheel support from a passive state, in which the first set of wheels are disengaged from the tracks, to an active state, in which the first set of wheels are engaged with the tracks (See at least Figs. 5-6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the up and down mechanism 30 moves the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b upward and downward to switch a traveling state between a first traveling state in which the wheels 32a travel along the first rail 9 of Fig. 4 and a second traveling state in which the wheels 32b travel along the second rail 11 of Fig. 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. Suzuki further discloses that, at any given time, the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b come into contact with the guide 10 of the first rail 9 or the guide 12 of the second rail 11 so that the travel part 24 travels along the first rail 9 or the second rail 11 (emphasis added) [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. The state in which one set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “active state”, whereas the state in which that same set of wheels is deactivated but another set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “passive state”. Since all of the wheels are attached to travel part 24, then both of these states may broadly be regarded as states of travel part 24);
wherein detecting the one or more track crossings by the at least one sensor of the one or more sensors comprises detecting the one or more track crossings by the at least one sensor attached to the first wheel support when the first wheel support is in the active state (Suzuki further discloses that The sensor 36 detects the cross point 14 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. Also see at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]. It will be appreciated that the vehicle must be moving in at least one of the X or Y directions indicated in Fig. 1 prior to this stop, which means that at least one set of wheels must be engaged right before the sensor detects the cross point and stops the vehicle, as per the “active state” described earlier in this rejection).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20190047786 A1) in view of Baines et al. (US 20130194423 A1), hereinafter referred to as Baines.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 1.
However, Suzuki does not explicitly teach the vehicle wherein at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is an optical sensor.
However, Baines does teach a vehicle wherein at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is an optical sensor (Baines teaches that the method further involves the train capturing and recording images of the railroad crossing responsive to detection of an obstacle by the train [See at least Baines, 0020]). Both Kiss and Suzuki teach methods for using sensors attached to track-bound vehicles to detect crossings. However, only Baines explicitly teaches where an optical sensor may be used.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crossing detections sensors of Suzuki to also be optical sensors, as in Baines. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that optical sensors are an obvious type of sensor for detection such things as the presence of intersections.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Baines teaches The vehicle of Claim 5, wherein the optical sensor is configured to detect a different intensity of reflected light when the optical sensor passes a track crossing of the one or more track crossings compared to when the optical sensor is between the one or more track crossings (See at least Fig. 2 in Baines: Baines teaches that At query step 68, the controller 22 determines whether there has been a collision between the vehicle 4 and train 10 [See at least Baines, 0084]. Baines further teaches that A collision can be determined if the detected vehicle position and train position are concurrently coincident with the railroad crossing 6 and can be confirmed using the captured image [See at least Baines, 0084]. It will be appreciated that, in order to discern different scenarios like this at various stages of crossing the intersection, the train’s image sensor obviously can distinguish different intensities of light. That is how cameras work).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses The method of Claim 14.
However, Suzuki does not explicitly teach the method wherein the at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is an optical sensor, and wherein the method further comprises optically detecting the one or more track crossings.
However, Baines does teach a method wherein the at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is an optical sensor, and wherein the method further comprises optically detecting the one or more track crossings (Baines teaches that the method further involves the train capturing and recording images of the railroad crossing responsive to detection of an obstacle by the train [See at least Baines, 0020]). Both Kiss and Suzuki teach methods for using sensors attached to track-bound vehicles to detect crossings. However, only Baines explicitly teaches where an optical sensor may be used.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crossing detections sensors of Suzuki to also be optical sensors, as in Baines. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that optical sensors are an obvious type of sensor for detection such things as the presence of intersections.
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki discloses The method of Claim 17, wherein optically detecting the one or more track crossings comprises detecting a different intensity of reflected light when the optical sensor passes a track crossing of the one or more track crossings compared to when the optical sensor is between one or more track crossings (See at least Fig. 2 in Baines: Baines teaches that At query step 68, the controller 22 determines whether there has been a collision between the vehicle 4 and train 10 [See at least Baines, 0084]. Baines further teaches that A collision can be determined if the detected vehicle position and train position are concurrently coincident with the railroad crossing 6 and can be confirmed using the captured image [See at least Baines, 0084]. It will be appreciated that, in order to discern different scenarios like this at various stages of crossing the intersection, the train’s image sensor obviously can distinguish different intensities of light. That is how cameras work).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20190047786 A1) in view of Hognaland (US 20150307276 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hognaland.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 8, wherein the vehicle further comprises a second wheel support supporting the second set of wheels (See at least Fig. 6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses up-and-down mechanisms 30 which move the wheels up and down [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. Any one of these may be regarded as a “second wheel support”).
However, Suzuki does not explicitly teach or suggest the vehicle wherein at least one second sensor of the one or more sensors is attached to the second wheel support.
However, Hognaland does teach the vehicle wherein at least one second sensor of the one or more sensors is attached to the second wheel support (See at least Fig. 9 in Hognaland: Hognaland teaches that To allow determination of the robot position it is considered advantageous to equip each robot 1 with one or more position sensors 16, for example optical sensors [See at least Hognaland, 0033]. Hognaland further teaches that Such sensors should 16 preferably be mounted in one or more areas of the robot 1 which ensures that the sensors 16 have both non-obstructed view to the underlying supporting rails 13 and that they pass directly above or close to the positions on the vehicle support 14 in which the rails 13 are crossing [See at least Hognaland, 0033]. Hognaland further teaches that The readings from the sensors 16 may inter alia dictate the further movement of the robot 1 and/or the operation of the vehicle lifting device 9 [See at least Hognaland, 0033]. From Fig. 9, it is visible that some of the sensors 16 appear on wheel support 5a, while others of the sensors 16 appear on wheel support 5b). Both Suzuki and Hognaland teach methods for operating vehicles which move through a track system and detect crossings. However, only Hognaland explicitly teaches where different sensors used to detect the crossings may be mounted to multiple different wheel supports.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount these track crossing detection sensors to every wheel support, as in Hognaland. Doing so allows the sensors to easily detect the crossings.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki in view of Hognaland teaches The vehicle of Claim 12, wherein the second wheel support is operable between an active state, in which the second set of wheels are engaged with the tracks, and a passive state, in which the second set of wheels are disengaged from the tracks (See at least Figs. 5-6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the up and down mechanism 30 moves the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b upward and downward to switch a traveling state between a first traveling state in which the wheels 32a travel along the first rail 9 of Fig. 4 and a second traveling state in which the wheels 32b travel along the second rail 11 of Fig. 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. Suzuki further discloses that, at any given time, the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b come into contact with the guide 10 of the first rail 9 or the guide 12 of the second rail 11 so that the travel part 24 travels along the first rail 9 or the second rail 11 (emphasis added) [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. The state in which one set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “active state”, whereas the state in which that same set of wheels is deactivated but another set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “passive state”), wherein the second wheel support is operable in the active state when the first wheel support is in the passive state, and wherein the second wheel support is operable in the passive state when the first wheel support is in the active state (See at least Figs. 5-6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the up and down mechanism 30 moves the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b upward and downward to switch a traveling state between a first traveling state in which the wheels 32a travel along the first rail 9 of Fig. 4 and a second traveling state in which the wheels 32b travel along the second rail 11 of Fig. 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. Suzuki further discloses that, at any given time, the wheels 32a or the wheels 32b come into contact with the guide 10 of the first rail 9 or the guide 12 of the second rail 11 so that the travel part 24 travels along the first rail 9 or the second rail 11 (emphasis added) [See at least Suzuki, 0052]. The state in which one set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “active state”, whereas the state in which that same set of wheels is deactivated but another set of wheels is activated may be regarded as applicant’s “passive state”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15-16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record for claims 3, 11, and 15-16 is Suzuki (US 20190047786 A1). The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 2.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the vehicle wherein the first sensor of the one or more sensors is directed in the second direction, and wherein the second sensor of the one or more sensors is directed in the first direction. Suzuki comes closest to teaching this missing limitation, since Fig. 6 of Suzuki and [Suzuki, 0053] teaches the existence of sensor which detect track crossings (See at least Fig. 6 of Suzuki and [Suzuki, 0053]). However, nowhere in Suzuki is no indication that these sensors 36 which detect that track crossings are directed in any possible traveling direction of the vehicle. Instead, they are located at the corners of the vehicle and it is not clear exactly which direction they are facing in order to detect the crossings. Therefore, Suzuki is silent as to the missing limitations and cannot read on them.
None of the other prior art of record resolves these deficiencies of Suzuki.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 3 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 10.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the vehicle wherein the at least one sensor attached to the first wheel support does not detect the one or more track crossings when the first wheel support is in the passive state.
Suzuki comes closest to teaching this missing limitation, since Fig. 6 of Suzuki and [Suzuki, 0053] teaches the existence of sensor which detect track crossings (See at least Fig. 6 of Suzuki and [Suzuki, 0053]). However, Suzuki is silent as to shutting off the ability of a sensor to perform this type of detection based on the state of a support mechanism of the vehicle’s wheels. Therefore, Suzuki is silent as to the missing limitation and cannot read on it.
None of the other prior art of record resolves this deficiency of Suzuki.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 11 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki discloses The method of Claim 14, wherein the method further comprises moving the vehicle in the first direction (See at least Fig. 14 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that the vehicle 8 moves to the position “2” on the lower side in the figure along the Y direction and thereafter moves to the position denoted by “3” on the right side in the figure along the X direction [See at least Suzuki, 0068]. It will therefore be appreciated that the vehicle can stop and start moving in either direction: X or Y) while detecting the one or more track crossings by a first sensor of the one or more sensors (See at least Fig. 4 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that The travel part 24 stops based on the cross point 14 detected by the sensor 36 such that the center of the travel part 24 is located at the center of the cell 16 of the travel rail 4 [See at least Suzuki, 0053]).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein the first sensor of the one or more sensors is directed in the second direction.
Suzuki comes closest to teaching this missing limitation, since Fig. 6 of Suzuki and [Suzuki, 0053] teaches the existence of sensor which detect track crossings (See at least Fig. 6 of Suzuki and [Suzuki, 0053]). However, nowhere in Suzuki is no indication that these sensors 36 which detect that track crossings are directed in any possible traveling direction of the vehicle. Instead, they are located at the corners of the vehicle and it is not clear exactly which direction they are facing in order to detect the crossings. Therefore, Suzuki is silent as to the missing limitations and cannot read on them.
None of the other prior art of record resolves these deficiencies of Suzuki.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 15 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is also allowed over the prior art of record at least by virtue of its dependence from claim 15.
The closest prior art of record for claims 7 and 19 is Suzuki (US 20190047786 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 4593239 A) in further view of Hognaland (US 20150307276 A1), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki, Yamamoto, and Hognaland, respectively. The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Suzuki discloses The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises:
drives configured to drive the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels (See at least Figs. 5-6 in Suzuki: Suzuki discloses that each travel unit 35 has a plurality of (two in this example) wheels 32a or wheels 32b, a travel motor 34, and an up and down mechanism (switch) 30 [See at least Suzuki, 0051]. Suzuki further discloses that the travel motor 34 drives the wheels 32a, 32b [See at least Suzuki, 0051]).
Yamamoto teaches a vehicle wherein the vehicle further comprises:
a receiver configured to receive a total number of track features between a start position and a stop position of the route (See at least Figs. 2 and 7 in Yamamoto: Yamamoto discloses that an automatic guided vehicle 1 detects marks located on a plurality of points along a route it travels using at least three sensors, selects the number of marks detected from each individual sensor as a reference value in accordance with the logic of majority, and stops when the reference value agrees with a predetermined value [See at least Yamamoto, Abstract; and Yamamoto, Col 3, line 63-Col 4, line 46]);
a controller configured to control the drives based on a number of track features detected by at least one sensor of the one or more sensors (See at least Figs. 2 and 7 in Yamamoto: Yamamoto discloses that an automatic guided vehicle 1 detects marks located on a plurality of points along a route it travels using at least three sensors, selects the number of marks detected from each individual sensor as a reference value in accordance with the logic of majority, and stops when the reference value agrees with a predetermined value [See at least Yamamoto, Abstract; and Yamamoto, Col 3, line 63-Col 4, line 46]).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests where the features which are counted are track crossings. The process for detecting and keeping track of the number of track crossings is more complicated that the process of keeping track of mere markers along a route of Yamamoto. Yamamoto is therefore non-analogous to the claimed invention and cannot read on it.
Hognaland also comes somewhat close to teaching the claimed invention, since Hognaland teaches using an optical sensor to detect track crossings by a vehicle in a storage system (See at least Fig. 9 in Hognaland: Hognaland teaches that To allow determination of the robot position it is considered advantageous to equip each robot 1 with one or more position sensors 16, for example optical sensors [See at least Hognaland, 0033]. Hognaland further teaches that Such sensors should 16 preferably be mounted in one or more areas of the robot 1 which ensures that the sensors 16 have both non-obstructed view to the underlying supporting rails 13 and that they pass directly above or close to the positions on the vehicle support 14 in which the rails 13 are crossing [See at least Hognaland, 0033]. Hognaland further teaches that The readings from the sensors 16 may inter alia dictate the further movement of the robot 1 and/or the operation of the vehicle lifting device 9 [See at least Hognaland, 0033]). However, Hognaland does not explicitly teach or suggest keeping track of the number of crossings detected. Instead, much like Suzuki, Hognaland simply teaches detecting the crossings. Therefore, Hognaland also cannot read on the missing claim limitations.
None of the other prior art of record resolves these deficiencies of Yamamoto.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 7 and 19 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668