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 .
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)(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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogo et al. (PG Pub 2022/0020621).
Regarding claim 5, Ogo teaches an overhead transport vehicle (figure 1, element 100; paragraph 27) to travel on rails (figures 1 and 3, element R; paragraph 29) in which a plurality of first rails extending in a first direction (figure 3, element R1 and D1; paragraph 29) and a plurality of second rails extending in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (figure 3, elements R2 and D2; paragraph 29) are positioned to define a grid pattern (figure 3, elements SYS; paragraphs 5 and 29), the overhead transport vehicle comprising:
a traveling cart (figure 1, element 10; paragraphs 27, 32, and 39) configured to move in the first direction by traveling on a pair of the first rails adjacent to each other in the second direction (figures 3 and 5a-6b), and move in the second direction by traveling on a pair of the second rails adjacent to each other in the first direction (figures 3 and 5a-6b; paragraphs 26, 29, and 31, among others);
a body configured to swivel with respect to the traveling cart (figure 1, elements 18 and 12; paragraphs 33 and 34);
a transfer device configured to swivel together with the body with respect to the traveling cart and to move an article (figure 1, elements 18, 13, and M; paragraphs 34-36); and
a controller (figure 1, element 50; paragraph 32) configured or programmed to swivel the body so that when the traveling cart starts traveling, an orientation of the article held by the transfer device is constant with respect to a travel direction of the traveling cart (paragraphs 32, 37, 49-50; figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 6, Ogo teaches the overhead transport vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the body includes a pair of anti-sway structures (paragraph 36; figure 1, element 13a) configured to hold the article at a first end and a second end in one direction of the body (figure 1, elements 13a hold either end of element Ma); and
the controller is configured or programmed to swivel the body so that the one direction is aligned with the travel direction when the traveling cart starts traveling (figure 4, element AX1 allows for 270 degrees of rotation; paragraphs 39-42).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogo et al. (PG Pub 2022/0020621) in view of Kinugawa et al. (PG Pub 2017/0183154).
Regarding claim 7, Ogo teaches the overhead transport vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to swivel the body so that a detection area of an obstacle sensor faces forward in the travel direction of the traveling cart when the traveling cart starts traveling (figure 4, element AX1 allows for 270 degrees of rotation so that the cart may face all four directions; paragraphs 39-42. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.).
Ogo is silent as to the wherein the body includes an obstacle sensor configured to detect an obstacle located ahead in a travel direction of the traveling cart.
Kinugawa teaches wherein the body includes an obstacle sensor configured to detect an obstacle located ahead in a travel direction of the traveling cart (paragraph 57; figure 3, elements 3, 4, and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the overhead transport system of Ogo with the sensors of Kinugawa since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, sensors for detecting obstacles are well known in many arts including in factories, as described in Kinugawa in paragraph 3, and in self-driving vehicles or amusement park rides. Applying these known sensors in order to prevent collisions between a moving object and a stationary obstruction would be a known technique that could be applied to the transport system of Ogo.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Ogo teaches the overhead transport vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to swivel, according to a travel direction when the traveling cart starts traveling, the body so that a detection area of one of the first sensor and the second sensor is directed forward in the travel direction of the traveling cart (figure 4, element AX1 allows for 270 degrees of rotation; paragraphs 39-42. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.).
Ogo is silent as to wherein the obstacle sensor includes a first sensor capable of detecting the obstacle on one side of the body in a predetermined direction, and a second sensor capable of detecting the obstacle on another side in the predetermined direction, and to disable detection of the obstacle in the other of the first sensor and the second sensor.
Kinugawa teaches wherein the obstacle sensor includes a first sensor capable of detecting the obstacle on one side of the body in a predetermined direction (paragraph 57; figure 3, elements 3, 4, and 5), and a second sensor capable of detecting the obstacle on another side in the predetermined direction (paragraph 57; figure 3, elements 3 and 6), and to disable detection of the obstacle in the other of the first sensor and the second sensor (paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the overhead transport system of Ogo with the sensors of Kinugawa since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, sensors for detecting obstacles are well known in many arts including in factories, as described in Kinugawa in paragraph 3, and in self-driving vehicles or amusement park rides. Applying these known sensors in order to prevent collisions between a moving object and a stationary obstruction would be a known technique that could be applied to the transport system of Ogo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN E SCHARPF whose telephone number is (571)270-5304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Pat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/Susan E Scharpf/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights