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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, with regards to a pair of bay posts, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but are found to be unpersuasive at this time.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed toward McCabe;
McCabe discloses a system for navigating a robotic vehicle in a warehouse according to markers and various predetermined/assigned work paths [0044-45] associated with autonomous driving paths and further comprising GPS and a consideration for other guidance techniques. McCabe is relied upon for teaching a consideration for autonomous robotic navigation within a warehouse according to markers, such as fiducials. For more information regarding the modified system of McCabe, as modified by the sets of bay posts (fiducials) taught by Aliaga, please see the rejection below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 and 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 7 and 23; “based on the vehicle position data and the center point between…” seems to contain a typographical error. It is suggested that the claim language be changed to recite; “based on the vehicle position data and a center point between…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a sensor unit” (Claim(s) 1 and 15, described in P0040). The limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) due to the presence of a generic placeholder and the use of functional language as disclosed. The limitation is further defined within the present application as designed for recording vehicle position data of the industrial truck, which represent a relative or absolute current position of the industrial truck. In the embodiment shown here, the sensor unit 12 can comprise an RFID reader. Therefore, the limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) and further interpreted as any sensor or device designed for recording positional data, an RFID reader, hardware or any combination of software and hardware, or equivalence thereof.
“a bay post determination unit” (Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 15). The limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) due to the presence of a generic placeholder and the use of functional language as disclosed. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as an executable software program, module, hardware or any combination of software and hardware or equivalence thereof.
“a computing unit” (Claim(s) 1, 5, 15, 29). The limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) due to the presence of a generic placeholder and the use of functional language as disclosed. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as an executable software program, module, hardware or any combination of software and hardware or equivalence thereof.
“a control unit” (Claim(s) 1, 12, 15). The limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) due to the presence of a generic placeholder and the use of functional language as disclosed. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as an executable software program, module, hardware or any combination of software and hardware or equivalence thereof.
“a contour recording unit” (Claim(s) 2-3, 13, described in P0022). The limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) due to the presence of a generic placeholder and the use of functional language as disclosed. The limitation is further defined within the present application as preferably formed by a single sensor which is preferably a laser scanner. Therefore, the limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) and further interpreted as a laser scanner or equivalence thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 11-12, 15-18, 21-22, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), and Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), in view of Magens (US-20170107055-A1).
In re claim 1. (Currently Amended) McCabe US-20120239224-A1 discloses
A system for guiding an industrial truck ([FIG.1, 3-4] industrial vehicle) in a high-bay store ([FIG.4] storage area (202)), wherein the high-bay store comprises a plurality of bay posts [0039] (e.g. pillars), the system comprising:
(McCabe [0036] A plurality of industrial vehicles 210 travel around the warehouse 100 unloading delivery trucks 208, placing the goods on the pallets 204, and subsequently removing the goods from a storage area and loading them onto other delivery trucks.)
(McCabe [FIG.4; 0039] The fiducials 218 may be placed on the warehouse floor, walls, pillars, and shelves)
a sensor unit configured to record vehicle position data (e.g. GPS) that represent a relative current position or an absolute current position of the industrial truck
(McCabe [0018] Industrial vehicle 10 further includes a guidance and navigation system (GANS) 13… Any commercially available guidance and navigation system may be used… can determine its location and the travel path by sensing a buried wire, tape on the building floor, or magnetic markers adjacent the path, i.e. environmental conditions... employ a laser scanner… has one or more video cameras…)
(McCabe [0024-25] The load sensor 58, may be, for example, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reader, a Rubee™ device that complies with IEEE standard 1902.1, a bar code reader, or other device capable of reading corresponding identifiers on the goods or the pallet that holds the goods… The GANS 13 either directly knows the present location of the vehicle or receives that location from the LPS or the GPS receiver 63.),
a bay post determination unit configured to determine (A) ***markers*** expected in an event of further travel of the industrial truck [0039], and (B) **** position data ****, ****;
(McCabe [0039] …sensors on the GANS 13 detect the position of the vehicle relative to the assigned path 216. In one types of GANS, video camera or laser scanners detect fiducials 218 that are placed periodically along various paths in the warehouse.)
(McCabe [0039] Each fiducial 218 has unique appearance or optically readable code, e.g. a unique barcode, thereby enabling the GANS 13 to determine the present position of the vehicle and the direction to take to reach the next fiducial 218 along the assigned path 216.),
Aliaga US-20040239756-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for robot navigation planning using environmental markers such as “…at least two pairs of bay post (e.g. fiducials)… and (B) bay post position data that represent a relative position or an absolute position of the at least two pairs of bay posts that are to be expected [0091];
(Aliaga [0082] In step 610, from all pairs of tracked fiducials, the algorithm triangulates the position and orientation (pose) of the camera relative to the static fiducials placed in the environment.)
(Aliaga [0005] For example, techniques may rely upon matching environment features (e.g., edges) to an existing geometric model or visual map. To obtain robust and accurate pose estimates, the model or map must contain sufficient detail to ensure correspondences at all times. Another class of passive methods, self-tracking methods, use optical flow to calculate changes in position and orientation
(Aliaga [0009] a pose estimate of the camera is determined based on projections of the fiducials in the captured images. Using an analytic error model, the invention can bound the pose estimation error. Given a set of fiducial positions, the invention can provide bounds on the pose estimation error for viewpoints within the environment. Conversely, given an error bound, the invention can suggest a set of optimal fiducial positions.)
(Aliaga [0022, 0068] Robot navigation has several applications within exploration, reconnaissance, and machine automation… The pose estimation algorithm obtains position and orientation estimates by triangulating the camera with pairs of tracked fiducials that are within distance D from the camera and subtend an angle greater than or equal to A degrees. If the number of tracked fiducials is T, then the algorithm obtains at most 2 R = ( T 2 )… algorithm solves an over-determined triangulation to obtain the camera's position and orientation relative to the fiducial pair.
(Aliaga [0091] …The global optimization begins with approximate fiducial locations and obtains optimal position estimates for the fiducials. Nevertheless, there may still be uncertainty in their positioning. Since camera pose is triangulated from their 3D positions, this directly affects the accuracy of camera pose.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include at least two pairs of bay posts with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Aliaga, for the benefit of providing navigational markers used in robot control system and pose estimation.
Schulz US-20180143624-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for “…wherein the bay post determination unit is configured to retrieve the bay post position data from a memory without having to record the at least two pairs of bay posts using sensors”;
(Schulz [0005] obtaining location information concerning the industrial truck by a location system and storage bins/shelves in a warehouse wherein [0021]…during a storage or retrieval operation, …position information about vertical shelf supports may be obtained and stored in the database…The position of the vertical shelf supports may be of interest for the automatic management of the warehouse. In particular, they can be used for the described first optimization step, since they can provide information about the rack structure. )
(Schulz [claim 10] …during the storage/retrieval operation, image data of a plurality of storage bins are obtained by a front 3D camera which is directed in the direction of travel, and obtaining and storing position data of a vertical shelf support based on the image data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include position data from a memory without using sensors with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Schulz, for the benefit of providing guidance systems with a position of a vertical shelf supports which may be of interest for the automatic management of the warehouse. In particular, they can be used for the described first optimization step, since they can provide information about the rack structure [0021].
a computing unit configured to calculate a plurality of desired travel routes between expected ***markers***, without having to use sensors to record any of the plurality of bay posts, and instead calculate the plurality of desired travel routes based on each of the vehicle position data received from the sensor unit and an expected position of expected ***markers*** accessed from the bay post determination unit, wherein calculating the plurality of desired travel routes comprises:
(McCabe [0039] Each fiducial 218 has unique appearance or optically readable code, e.g. a unique barcode, thereby enabling the GANS 13 to determine the present position of the vehicle and the direction to take to reach the next fiducial 218 along the assigned path 216.)
(McCabe [0028] The guidance and navigation system (GANS) 13 also is coupled to the vehicle controller 21 to provide control signals…)
(McCabe [0025] The GANS 13 either directly knows the present location of the vehicle or receives that location from the LPS or the GPS receiver 63. [0038-39] Thus, the vehicle controller 21 receives commands from the GANS 13 that indicate the speed and direction at which the traction motor 43 should be driven and the direction and degree to which the steer motor 47 should turn the steerable wheel 49 in order to propel the vehicle along the assigned path…. As the industrial vehicle 214 travels in the autonomous mode, sensors on the GANS 13 detect the position of the vehicle relative to the assigned path 216…;)
(McCabe [0044] enters commands into the user data input device 61 to indicate path 222 for the vehicle to travel to staging area A and initiates the autonomous mode. After the second operator exits the operator compartment 11, the industrial vehicle 214 commences traveling along path 222 to point A. Upon arriving at staging area A, the industrial vehicle stops and waits for another operator to control the vehicle manually. Note that the industrial vehicles also can be assigned to travel between staging areas B and C in the autonomous mode in order to obtain goods from storage closer to staging area B.)
(McCabe [0064] GANS is able to determine the path to use to travel to the recharging area either directly or by traveling sequentially to a series in known intermediate points in the warehouse. For example, if the industrial vehicle 214 in FIG. 4 has a deplete battery, it may first travel along path 216 to staging area C. From staging area C, the GANS may have the path to the battery recharging station 101 stored in its internal memory.)
Aliaga US-20040239756-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for robot navigation planning using environmental markers such as “…at least two pairs of bay post (e.g. fiducials)”;
(Aliaga [0009] a pose estimate of the camera is determined based on projections of the fiducials in the captured images. Using an analytic error model, the invention can bound the pose estimation error. Given a set of fiducial positions, the invention can provide bounds on the pose estimation error for viewpoints within the environment. Conversely, given an error bound, the invention can suggest a set of optimal fiducial positions.)
(Aliaga [0082] In step 610, from all pairs of tracked fiducials, the algorithm triangulates the position and orientation (pose) of the camera relative to the static fiducials placed in the environment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include at least two pairs of bay posts with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Aliaga, for the benefit of providing navigational markers used in robot control system and pose estimation.
calculating a first desired travel route of the plurality of desired travel routes based on an expected position of ***markers***; and upon reaching the first pair of bay posts, calculating a second desired travel route of the plurality of desired travel routes based on an expected position of ***markers***;
(McCabe [0039] Each fiducial 218 has unique appearance or optically readable code, e.g. a unique barcode, thereby enabling the GANS 13 to determine the present position of the vehicle and the direction to take to reach the next fiducial 218 along the assigned path 216.)
(McCabe [0044-0045] At this time, the second operator enters commands into the user data input device 61 to indicate path 222 for the vehicle to travel to staging area A and initiates the autonomous mode. After the second operator exits the operator compartment 11, the industrial vehicle 214 commences traveling along path 222 to point A. … the industrial vehicle 10, operating in the autonomous mode, travels to a designated position and interfaces with the automatic loading equipment under the control of the GANS 13. After a load has been picked up on the load carrier 18, the industrial vehicle 10 travels autonomously along an assigned path to a destination at which the automatic unloading equipment is located. The vehicle interfaces with that equipment and deposits the load. Thereafter the industrial vehicle 10 autonomously travels to another assigned location to pick up another load. In this case, the work assignments may be received from the asset management computer 104 and the operation of the vehicle in the autonomous mode is governed by the GANS 13.)
Aliaga US-20040239756-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for robot navigation planning using environmental markers such as “…at least two pairs of bay post (e.g. fiducials)”;
(Aliaga [0009] a pose estimate of the camera is determined based on projections of the fiducials in the captured images. Using an analytic error model, the invention can bound the pose estimation error. Given a set of fiducial positions, the invention can provide bounds on the pose estimation error for viewpoints within the environment. Conversely, given an error bound, the invention can suggest a set of optimal fiducial positions.)
(Aliaga [0082] In step 610, from all pairs of tracked fiducials, the algorithm triangulates the position and orientation (pose) of the camera relative to the static fiducials placed in the environment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include at least two pairs of bay posts with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Aliaga, for the benefit of providing navigational markers used in robot control system and pose estimation.
a control unit configured to guide the industrial truck based on the plurality of desired travel route; and
(McCabe [0020] The control system 20 comprises a vehicle controller 21 which is a microcomputer based device …executes a software program that responds to commands from either operator controls 17 or the GANS 13 and operates vehicle components that propel the industrial vehicle and handle loads being transported… [0049] In addition, the vehicle controller 21 receives information from the guidance and navigation system 13)
a contour recording unit configured to record contours of bays ****, further configured to communicate with the computing unit, wherein the computing unit is further configured to receive recorded contours from the contour recording unit and adjust the plurality of desired travel route based on the recorded contours
(McCabe [0018] Alternatively, the GANS 13 can employ a laser scanner to sense fiducials placed throughout the warehouse to define desired paths. Yet another commercially available GANS 13 has one or more video cameras… [0039] In one types of GANS, video camera or laser scanners detect fiducials 218 that are placed periodically along various paths in the warehouse. The fiducials 218 may be placed on the warehouse floor, walls, pillars, and shelves… enabling the GANS 13 to determine the present position of the vehicle and the direction to take to reach the next fiducial 218 along the assigned path 216…)
(McCabe [0040] Additional sensors such as cameras and laser scanners are placed on the load carrier 18 or the vehicle to detect the particular storage location at which the desired goods are stored.),
(McCabe [0018] …the output signals from which are processed by image recognition software to sense the environmental conditions. A dead reckoning guidance technique also may be utilized. For systems using video cameras or dead reckoning guidance techniques, the industrial vehicle is taught each path by manually driving the vehicle while the GANS 13 “learns” the path…)
(McCabe [0039-0046] For example, if the autonomous guided vehicle (AGV) encountered an obstacle in its path, the guidance system sensors would detect that object and stop the vehicle before a collision occurred…)
(McCabe [Claim11] …wherein the operational data indicates presence of an obstacle in the first path and movement of the industrial vehicle along a second path avoids the obstacle).)
Magens US-20170107055-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a contour recording unit to record “...at least one object received in the bays”;
(Magens [0059] c1) detecting the position of the load units located on the order pallet and/or the contour of the order pallet using images recorded by a camera. [0066] d1) detecting the position of the load units located on the order pallet and the selection pallet and/or the contour of the order pallet and the selection pallet using images recorded by a camera.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include a contour recording unit configured to record contours of at least one object received in the bays with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Magens, for the benefit of an ([0066]) evaluation of recordings from a camera, which can be advantageously developed by adding the triggering of a disturbance and/or alarm function to the step in the case of inadmissible position and/or contour changes and/or values of the order pallet or the selection pallet. This is advantageous in that employees can react accordingly even upon relatively small disturbances and relatively great damage is avoided.
In re claim 4. (Currently Amended) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) lacks The system of claim 1, wherein the bay post determination unit is configured to communicate with memory comprises a store management system or a store navigation system, wherein the bay post determination unit is further configured to determine (a) the at least one ***marker*** and/or (b) the bay post position data using the memory.
Aliaga US-20040239756-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for robot navigation planning using environmental markers such as “…at least two pairs of bay post (e.g. fiducials)”;
(Aliaga [0009] a pose estimate of the camera is determined based on projections of the fiducials in the captured images. Using an analytic error model, the invention can bound the pose estimation error. Given a set of fiducial positions, the invention can provide bounds on the pose estimation error for viewpoints within the environment. Conversely, given an error bound, the invention can suggest a set of optimal fiducial positions.)
(Aliaga [0082] In step 610, from all pairs of tracked fiducials, the algorithm triangulates the position and orientation (pose) of the camera relative to the static fiducials placed in the environment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include at least two pairs of bay posts with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Aliaga, for the benefit of providing navigational markers used in robot control system and pose estimation.
Schulz (US-20180143624-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a method and industrial truck for ascertaining and representing the position of the vehicle [0005] obtaining location information concerning the industrial truck by a location system and storage bins/shelves in a warehouse wherein [0021; claim 10]…during a storage or retrieval operation, image data of a storage …position information about vertical shelf supports may be obtained and stored in the database…The position of the vertical shelf supports may be of interest for the automatic management of the warehouse. In particular, they can be used for the described first optimization step, since they can provide information about the rack structure. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand Schulz discloses a consideration for wherein the bay post determination unit is configured to communicate with memory [0021] position information about vertical shelf supports may be obtained and stored in the database comprises a store management system or a store navigation system [0006] In this way, the position information may be available at any time for an industrial truck employed in the management of the warehouse. The database may be disposed in a computing unit of the industrial truck itself. However, it is also possible to provide remote access via a radio link to an external database of an all-purpose computer/processing unit, wherein the bay post determination unit is further configured to determine (a) the at least one bay post [0021] position of the vertical shelf supports may be of interest for the automatic management of the warehouse and/or (b) the bay post position data using the memory [0021-22] …position information about vertical shelf supports may be obtained and stored in the database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include wherein memory comprises a store management system or a store navigation system, wherein the bay post determination unit is further configured to determine (a) the at least one bay post and/or (b) the bay post position data using the memory with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Schulz, for the benefit of providing guidance systems with a position of a vertical shelf supports which may be of interest for the automatic management of the warehouse. In particular, they can be used for the described first optimization step, since they can provide information about the rack structure [0021].
In re claim 5. (Currently Amended) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The system of claim 1, wherein the computing unit ([0028] The guidance and navigation system (GANS) 13 also is coupled to the vehicle controller 21 to provide control signals…) is configured to calculate the plurality of desired travel route ([0037-39] path assignment is transferred to the guidance and navigation system 13 for use in operating the vehicle in the autonomous mode… As the industrial vehicle 214 travels in the autonomous mode, sensors on the GANS 13 detect the position of the vehicle relative to the assigned path 216.) such that the desired travel route and the at least one ***marker*** are at a predefined spacing from one another ([0046] For example, if the autonomous guided vehicle (AGV) encountered an obstacle in its path, the guidance system sensors would detect that object and stop the vehicle before a collision occurred. Examiner’s Note: It should be noted that while McCabe is silent as to distinctly discloses a measurement or threshold for a distance between a bay post and a vehicle system; one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the system of McCabe is configured to include collision avoidance during travel upon a route and in so doing determines a predefined spacing between a vehicle and identified objects as to prevent impact. Furthermore, it should be noted McCabe discloses a consideration for a system [0008] limited to traveling along a fixed path defined by that wire, and as such limited to a predefined spacing during travel route.).
Aliaga US-20040239756-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for robot navigation planning using environmental markers such as “…at least two pairs of bay post (e.g. fiducials)”;
(Aliaga [0009] a pose estimate of the camera is determined based on projections of the fiducials in the captured images. Using an analytic error model, the invention can bound the pose estimation error. Given a set of fiducial positions, the invention can provide bounds on the pose estimation error for viewpoints within the environment. Conversely, given an error bound, the invention can suggest a set of optimal fiducial positions.)
(Aliaga [0082] In step 610, from all pairs of tracked fiducials, the algorithm triangulates the position and orientation (pose) of the camera relative to the static fiducials placed in the environment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include at least two pairs of bay posts with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Aliaga, for the benefit of providing navigational markers used in robot control system and pose estimation.
In re claim 11. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The system of claim1, wherein the sensor unit comprises a radio frequency identifier (RFID) reader ([0049, 0024] A load sensor 58 obtains an identification of the goods being transported. The load sensor 58, may be, for example, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reader, a Rubee™ device that complies with IEEE standard 1902.1, a bar code reader, or other device capable of reading corresponding identifiers on the goods or the pallet that holds the goods.).
In re claim 12. (Currently Amended) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The system of claim1, further comprising an anti- collision sensor configured to record objects in a vicinity ([0010] the guidance and navigation system may have a camera that produces an image of the obstacle), of the anti-collision sensor, wherein the control unit is further configured to brake the industrial truck ([0046] For example, if the autonomous guided vehicle (AGV) encountered an obstacle in its path, the guidance system sensors would detect that object and stop the vehicle before a collision occurred.), or to deflect the industrial truck from the plurality of desired travel route ([Claim11] …wherein the operational data indicates presence of an obstacle in the first path and movement of the industrial vehicle along a second path avoids the obstacle), if an object is recorded, to prevent a collision of the industrial truck with the object ([0046]… stop the vehicle before a collision occurred.).
In re claim 15; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 1.
In re claim 16. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) lacks, The industrial truck of claim 15, wherein guiding the industrial truck is based in part on geometric data of the industrial truck.
Regarding the lacking limitation; Magens (US-20170107055-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a geometric data used in the operation of a vehicle ([0015] Robots can virtually only be used if a corresponding free space is available above the selection pallet so that a robot can detect the load unit to be picked with respect to its position and geometry and can move it using corresponding means…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include guiding the industrial truck is based in part on geometric data of the industrial truck, as taught by Magens, for the benefit of a taking into account a position and geometry of a robotic vehicle during operations in order to account for space consumption during selections for achieving as high a packing density as possible in the warehouse for reasons of economy [0015].
In re claim 17. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) lacks, The industrial truck of claim 15, wherein the industrial truck is a narrow aisle stacker.
Regarding the lacking limitation; Magens (US-20170107055-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration wherein the industrial truck is a narrow aisle stacker ([0020] It should be pointed out here that a vehicle is, in particular, to be taken to mean all known types of vehicle conventional in the field of warehouse operation, in particular including low-platform vehicles, narrow aisle vehicles or storage and retrieval units.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include wherein the industrial truck is a narrow aisle stacker with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Magens, for the benefit of being [0044] designed in the form of a narrow aisle vehicle for use in a ground-level or else multi-level pallet warehouse
In re claim 18; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 1.
In re claim 21; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 4 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 4.
In re claim 22; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 6 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 6.
In re claim 26; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 12 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 12.
In re claim 27. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The method of claim18, further comprising:
guiding the industrial truck by means of a navigation system ([0049] In addition, the vehicle controller 21 receives information from the guidance and navigation system 13 via the second communication network 70.), as far as a specified starting transfer point ([0036; FIG.4] Then the industrial vehicle is driven to a staging area A. At staging area A, the first operator employs the user data input device 61 to place the industrial vehicle 214 in the autonomous mode with instruction to travel along path 216 to staging area C… Thereafter, the industrial vehicle commences autonomous operation traveling along the path 216 to staging area C.) comprising the relative current position or an absolute current position of the industrial truck ([0049] information can include the location of the vehicle as a supplement to any information received from the GPS receiver 63).
In re claim 28. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The method of claim18, wherein guiding the industrial truck, comprises guiding the industrial truck as far as a specified end transfer point ([0044; FIG.4] At this time, the second operator enters commands into the user data input device 61 to indicate path 222 for the vehicle to travel to staging area A and initiates the autonomous mode.), and further comprising:
guiding the industrial truck from the specified end point by means of a navigation system ([0049] In addition, the vehicle controller 21 receives information from the guidance and navigation system 13 via the second communication network 70.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), and Magens (US-20170107055-A1), as applied to claim 1 and 22 above and further in view of Jammoussi US-20200257297-A1.
In re claim 7. (Currently Amended) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The system of claim 1, wherein each desired travel route of the plurality of desired travel routes of the industrial truck is calculated based on the vehicle position data ***and marker data***
(McCabe [0037-39] path assignment is transferred to the guidance and navigation system 13 for use in operating the vehicle in the autonomous mode… As the industrial vehicle 214 travels in the autonomous mode, sensors on the GANS 13 detect the position of the vehicle relative to the assigned path 216.) and the fiducials ([0039] Each fiducial 218 has unique appearance or optically readable code, e.g. a unique barcode, thereby enabling the GANS 13 to determine the present position of the vehicle and the direction to take to reach the next fiducial 218 along the assigned path 216.).
Jammoussi US-20200257297-A1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for vehicle navigation planning using markers to achieve wherein “…travel routes … calculated based on the vehicle position data and the center point between ….”;
(Jammoussi [0024] A computing device 115 in vehicle 110 can operate vehicle 110 on a roadway 202 by determining a vehicle path based on x, y coordinates …., attempting to follow, the determined vehicle path. The vehicle path can be determined by determining locations, in x, y coordinates 208, of lane markers 206b, 206c with respect to vehicle 110, for example. Locations of lane markers 206B, 206c with respect to vehicle 110 can be determined from data acquired by computing device 115 from sensors 116, including one or more of video sensors, radar sensors and lidar sensors. Computing device 115 can determine a vehicle path upon which to operate vehicle 110 based on locations of lane marker 206b, 206c that maintains vehicle 110 location in the middle of a lane 204b, for example.)
(Jammoussi [0035] At block 508, computing device 115 can operate a vehicle 110 on a roadway 202 based on lane marker 206 locations H.sub.L and H.sub.R. Computing device 115 can determine a vehicle path upon which to operate a vehicle 110 that maintains vehicle 110 at locations between lane marker 206 locations H.sub.L and H.sub.R in the middle of a lane 204. For example, a vehicle can determine a nominal vehicle path, where the nominal vehicle path is a vehicle path upon which vehicle 110 is most preferably traveling. The nominal vehicle path can be located in the center of a lane 204 as defined by lane marker locations H.sub.L and H.sub.R, for example. Computing device 115 can determine a vehicle location based on vehicle sensors such as GPS and IMU and determine a vehicle path defined by a polynomial function that can be used to direct vehicle 110 from operating at a current location to operating along the nominal path. The polynomial function can be determined by a control process that inputs vehicle locations and output vehicle location predictions, for example a proportional, integrating, derivative (PID) control process or an alpha, beta, gamma control process, as are known in the art.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include travel routes calculated based on the vehicle position data and the center point between markers with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Jammoussi, for the benefit of providing navigational markers used in robot control system and pose estimation.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), and Magens (US-20170107055-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Criswell (US-20090110525-A1).
In re claim 8. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The system of claim1, wherein the sensor unit comprises a sensor ([0039] In one types of GANS, video camera or laser scanners detect fiducials 218 that are placed periodically along various paths in the warehouse) configured to record travel between the industrial truck and a reference object ([0039] enabling the GANS 13 to determine the present position of the vehicle and the direction to take to reach the next fiducial 218 along the assigned path 216. This information about the vehicle's environment enables the GANS 13 to ascertain when and how to turn the steerable wheel 49 so that the industrial vehicle 214 travels along the assigned path 216.).
Regarding the lacking limitation; “…a distance sensor... configured to record a spacing between”, Criswell (US-20090110525-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a distance sensor ([0027] under the supervision of distance measurement sensors, the automatic case loader 10 maneuvers and drives automatically.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include a distance sensor with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Criswell, for the benefit of a system which ([0036]) measures distance and determines the presence of objects within a detection space 172 which is located in front of the front end 64.
In re claim 9. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) lacks, wherein the distance sensor comprises a time-of-flight sensor.
Regarding the lacking limitation; “…wherein the distance sensor comprises a time-of-flight sensor”, Schulz (US-20180143624-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a time-of-flight sensor ([0013; Claim 2] In one embodiment, the lateral 3D camera may be a time-of-flight camera.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include a time-of-flight sensor with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Schulz, for the benefit of a system which ([0013, 0038]) is configured to measure spatial position of an object during a storage or retrieval operation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), and Magens (US-20170107055-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Baumgartner (US-20170228885-A1).
In re claim 10. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) lacks, wherein the sensor unit is configured to record odometry data of the industrial truck.
Regarding the lacking limitation; Baumgartner (US-20170228885-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for odometry data ([0004] a highly accurate odometry sensor is required, by means of which the movement is determined.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include odometry data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Baumgartner, for the benefit of ([0004]) reconstitution of a single image wherein movement of the object must thus be ascertained and calculated.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), and Magens (US-20170107055-A1), as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Park (US-20180075749-A1).
In re claim 13. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) lacks, The system of claim 12, wherein the anti-collision sensor (please see in re claim 12) and the contour recording unit comprise a single sensor.
Regarding the lacking limitation; “…wherein the anti-collision sensor and the contour recording unit comprise a single sensor”, Park (US-20180075749-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a single sensor (camera) used for measuring contours and provided as a sensor for an anti-collision system ([0022] there is provided a forward collision warning system that detects a forward vehicle and warns of a collision with the forward vehicle, the forward collision warning system comprising: a camera configured to take an image of a forward situation of a vehicle; a contour candidate point extraction unit configured to extract a contour candidate point of an object considered as a forward vehicle from the image taken by the camera.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include wherein the anti-collision sensor and the contour recording unit comprise a single sensor, as taught by Park, for the benefit of providing a simplified design and reducing power consumption cost.
Regarding the lacking limitation; “…a contour recording unit”, Magens (US-20170107055-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a contour recording unit ([0059] c1) detecting the position of the load units located on the order pallet and/or the contour of the order pallet using images recorded by a camera. [0066] d1) detecting the position of the load units located on the order pallet and the selection pallet and/or the contour of the order pallet and the selection pallet using images recorded by a camera.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of McCabe to include a contour recording unit with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Magens, for the benefit of an ([0066]) evaluation of recordings from a camera, which can be advantageously developed by adding the triggering of a disturbance and/or alarm function to the step in the case of inadmissible position and/or contour changes and/or values of the order pallet or the selection pallet. This is advantageous in that employees can react accordingly even upon relatively small disturbances and relatively great damage is avoided.
Regarding the lacking limitation; “…wherein the anti-collision sensor and the contour recording unit comprise a single sensor.”, It should be noted that the system of McCabe discloses a consideration for an anti-collision sensor (as discussed in re claim 12) comprises a laser sensor but is silent as to distinctly disclosing wherein the anti-collision sensor and the contour recording unit (as taught by Magens) comprise a single sensor; However, As discussed in MPEP § 2144.04, in re Larson, the court upheld that even though the reference did not disclose a singularity of parts, the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. As such, while the modified system of McCabe discloses a consideration for an anti- collision sensor and a contour recording unit separately, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing that the sensors (discussed above) could have been constructed within a singular piece for the benefit of providing a simplified design and reducing power consumption cost.
In re claim 14. (Previously Presented) McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) discloses, The system of claim 13, wherein the single sensor comprises a laser scanner ([0039] sensors on the GANS 13 detect the position of the vehicle relative to the assigned path 216. In one types of GANS, video camera or laser scanners detect fiducials 218 that are placed periodically along various paths in the warehouse)
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), and Magens (US-20170107055-A1), as applied to claim 22 above and further in view of Jammoussi US-20200257297-A1.
In re claim 23; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 7 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 7.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), and Magens (US-20170107055-A1), as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Criswell (US-20090110525-A1).
In re claim 24; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 8 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 8.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1), Aliaga (US-20040239756-A1), Schulz (US-20180143624-A1), and Magens (US-20170107055-A1), as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Baumgartner (US-20170228885-A1).
In re claim 25; the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 10 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. For more information, please see in re claim(s) 10.
Conclusion
It should be noted that there exists prior art which is pertinent to significant though unclaimed features of the defined invention or directed to the state of art. The following is a brief description of relevant prior art cited but not applied:
MECKLINGER (US-20160231751-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for “… Claim 1. A transport vehicle for transporting storage shelves by partially autonomous operation and without interference in factory buildings, the transport vehicle having the following features: [0014] a) a vehicle body (9) having a support plate for receiving and transporting a storage shelf (1) having transported goods (2), having two separately driven drive wheels on both sides of one in each case individually mounted rotation axle (32) in the center of the vehicle body (9), wherein in each case at least one support wheel (8) is provided on the front side and on the rear side of the vehicle body (9), [0015] b) a transverse link (13) which connects the drive wheels (5) which are in each case by way of an angular lever (31) pivotable about the rotation axle (32) such that said drive wheels (5) may execute mutually independent vertical movements, [0016] c) a centrally disposed control member (17) which by way of a lift-and-rotate lever (38) and by way of a push rod (35) connected to the latter may move two front lifting rods (40) and two rear lifting rods (26) for lifting or lowering the support plate (4), [0017] d) a system for supplying energy to the vehicle body (9) either by way of inductive lines installed in the floor, or by way of energy supply stations which are for feeding electrical, liquid, or gaseous energy and are accessible when stationary, wherein installation space (16) for corresponding energy storage units is provided in the vehicle body (9), [0018] e) at least one 3-D scanner (3) and at least one light-field sensor (6) in the front region of the vehicle body (9).”;
See PTO-892: Notice of references cited.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights