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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2019/0241415 A1) in view of Masayuki (JP 2007099424 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches, a transport vehicle (1A) for transporting articles by traveling along a front side of a storage rack (31),
comprising a plurality of shelves (31a) arranged vertically for storing the articles (fig. 4B – plurality of shelves (31a) arranged vertically),
the transport vehicle comprising:
a traveler (3) configured to travel along a travel path (fig. 1A – masts (12) form travel path);
a transfer device (13) configured to transfer an article (fig. 4A/4B – transfer device transferring article)
and a controller configured to control the transfer device ([0028] – controllers controls movement of carriage and transfer device),
and wherein: the transfer device comprises:
a mast (12) fixed to the traveler and extending vertically (fig. 1a – masts (12) extend vertically),
a lift (13) configured to ascend and descend along the mast fig. 4A/4B – lift moves vertically to transfer),
and a transferrer (14) supported by the lift,
the transferrer comprises a holder (26) configured to hold the article fig. 3A/3B – shows holder (26)),
the transferrer configured to transfer the article between the holder and the shelves by moving the article in a transfer direction intersecting with, when viewed vertically, a vehicle front-rear direction in which the traveler travels (fig. 3A/3B – transferrer moves front-rear direction)
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches, the transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
the traveler has a dimension in a vehicle width direction less than or equal to half a dimension of the traveler in the vehicle front-rear direction (fig. 1A/1B – width is less than 1/2 of vehicle length) ,
and the vehicle width direction is perpendicular to the vehicle front-rear direction when viewed vertically (fig. 1A/1B – width is perpendicular to front rear direction),
and a vertical dimension from a lower end of the traveler to an upper end of the mast is greater than or equal to twice the dimension of the traveler in the vehicle width direction (See figure below – dimension (Sh) of traveler is more than 2x width of vehicle).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka fails to teach,
and the controller is configured to perform, in response to the lift being in an area above a predetermined reference height within a lift range of the lift, acceleration limit control to set an upper limit for acceleration of the article moved in the transfer direction by the transferrer to be lower than a case of the lift being in an area below the reference height.
However, Masayuki teaches,
and the controller is configured to perform, in response to the lift being in an area above a predetermined reference height within a lift range of the lift, acceleration limit control to set an upper limit for acceleration of the article moved in the transfer direction by the transferrer to be lower than a case of the lift being in an area below the reference height ([0050] – fig. 8 – acceleration of extension/retraction of transfer unit is reduced/raised in stepwise function based on the longitudinal position of central mast).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka fails to teach, the transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein;
the controller sets a same upper limit for a speed of the article moved in the transfer direction by the transferrer in the area above the reference height and the area below the reference height
However, Masayuki teaches, the transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein;
the controller sets a same upper limit for a speed of the article moved in the transfer direction by the transferrer in the area above the reference height and the area below the reference height (fig. 5 – max limit of speed is unchanged based on acceleration limit control)
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka fails to teach, the transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
The reference height is set based on a height of a center of gravity of the transport vehicle.
However, Masayuki teaches, The transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
The reference height is set based on a height of a center of gravity of the transport vehicle ([0055] [0051]– center of gravity of article on fork (24) affects force acting on elevating mast (11) and affect reference heights of acceleration parameters).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka fails to teach, the transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
The controller sets the upper limit for acceleration of the article moved in the transfer direction to be lower at higher positions from a lower end of at least part of the lift range.
However, Masayuki teaches, the transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
The controller sets the upper limit for acceleration of the article moved in the transfer direction to be lower at higher positions from a lower end of at least part of the lift range (fig. 8 – acceleration is gradually lowered as transferrer approaches middle of lift range).
Tanaka and Masayuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of storage devices and stacker crane control. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka’s stacker crane to include the control which performs acceleration limit control on the transferring of articles based on a reference height predetermined using the center of gravity of the transport vehicle. Tanaka discloses [0003] that acceleration of the traveling carriage causes increases the stress and moment applied to the connecting part of the mast and traveling carriage, and as a result limits acceleration during transport, it would have been obvious to further combine this acceleration limit with the transfer acceleration limit control taught by Masayuki, as disclosed by Masayuki [0013] implementing acceleration control suppresses vibration of the lifting mast, which allows articles to be accurately transferred to an appropriate position .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not disclose a transport vehicle wherein the transferrer includes an engagement member, a mover assembly, an advancement retraction assembly and a holder, wherein the controller perform acceleration limit control over movement of the advancement retraction assembly and holder but does not perform acceleration limit control over movement of the engagement member and mover assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure
Tsukamoto (US 20190119040) – transport vehicle with stacker crane
Avitan (US 4942529) – vertical lift truck with height and center of gravity-based acceleration and velocity control
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
