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 filed 1/26/2026 regarding claim 11 has been fully considered. The highlighted arguments are listed below and will be addressed accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 1/26/2026 was considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
Argument #1 (REMARKS, page 7): Applicant asserts that claim 11 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 because,
“Claims 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly indefinite. Regarding claims 11 and 14, the Office Action alleged that it is not clear how the dimensions of the object are calculated. The applicant traverses this rejection. It is well established that whether a claim is indefinite "requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification." See M.P.E.P. §2173.02. The specification clearly outlines how the embodiments of the claimed invention contemplates calculating the dimensions of the object loaded onto the dimensioning system. See, e.g., Specification at <]{<]{[0058]-[0060], Figs. 1-2. In view of the specification, a person of skill would understand what is claimed by claims 11 and 14. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 is requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner in the Office Action 9/25/2025 highlighted the claim language that is vague and indefinite. It is not clear how the dimensions of the object are calculated. The claim first states that the dimensions are calculated by converting the first and second measurements into the dimensions, and then the claim states that the dimensions are calculated by comparing the first or second characteristics to a list. The Applicant has failed to clarify the claim language, therefore the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Argument #2 (REMARKS, pages 7-8): Applicant asserts that claim 11 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 because,
“Chamberlain describes "an automatic picking validation system/method based on sensing physical aspects of a picked item and providing feedback (i.e., messages, alerts, etc.) to a user based on a comparison between the sensed-physical aspects and expected-physical aspects stored in memory." See id. at 1[0026]. However, Chamberlain simply compares the sensed-physical attributes of an object loaded on a forklift to the expected physical attributes to validate that the correct object has been loaded. See Chamberlain at Abstract, Figure 1, and 1[0006]. Comparing sensed physical attributes as described in Chamberlain does not teach or suggest comparing of the first or second characteristics to a list associating signal characteristics to object dimensions to calculate or estimate one or more dimensions of the object, as provided in the claims. Rather, Chamberlain compares sensed physical attributes against expected physical attributes stored for that item to validate that the correct item has been picked up.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Chamberlain fails to teach or suggest an object dimensioning system for a lift truck comprising control circuity configured to compare the first or second characteristics to a list associating signal characteristics to object dimensions to calculate or estimate one or more dimensions of the object, and does not overcome the deficiencies of Swope.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and indicates that the cited Prior Art reasonably address limitations of the claimed invention. Applicant is reminded that Examiner will interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense, as such, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention.
The applicant has failed to produce evidence that the prior art combination of Swope and Chamberlin does not carry out the steps in claim 11. Chamberlin teaches comparing sensed physical characteristics to expected physical characteristics of objects stored in memory to determine if the dimensions match for the object or updating expected physical attributes, in paragraphs 0017, 0042. Also, Chamberlin teaches position of the pattern elements in the point cloud image are measured and compared to a known pattern, in paragraph 0034. The Applicant has failed to clarify the claim language that distinguishes and overcomes the prior art of Swope and Chamberlin. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Dependent claims 12, 15-20 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claim 11 elements are vague and indefinite because the claim is not clear how the dimensions of the object are calculated:
“convert the first and second measurements into first and second dimensions, respectively, corresponding to one or more surfaces of the object;
compare the first or second characteristics to a list associating signal characteristics to object dimensions to calculate or estimate one or more dimensions of the object;
determine a shape, volume, orientation, or area of the one or more surfaces of the object corresponding to the first and second dimensions.”
The following claim 14 elements are vague and indefinite because the claim is not clear how the dimensions of the object are calculated in claim 14 in light of claim 11.
“14. The object dimensioning system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to compare the first or second dimensions to a list associating dimensions to one or more of a shape, a volume, an orientation, or an area of an object to calculate or estimate the one or more dimensions of the object.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swope et al. (US 2019/0141308) in view of Chamberlin (US 2016/0101936).
Regarding claim 11, Swope teaches an object dimensioning system for a lift truck comprising:
a first sensor arranged on the lift truck and configured to measure a first characteristic of the object (see figure 8, para. 0022, 0032, Swope discusses a forklift vehicle with multiple sensors measuring an object);
a second sensor arranged on the lift truck and configured to measure a second characteristic of the object (see figure 8, para. 0022, 0032, Swope discusses a forklift vehicle with multiple sensors measuring an object); and
control circuitry configured to: receive first and second measurements corresponding to the first and second characteristics, respectively (see figure 8, para. 0022, 0032, Swope discusses a forklift vehicle with multiple sensors measuring an object and calculating point louds of the object);
convert the first and second measurements into first and second dimensions, respectively, corresponding to one or more surfaces of the object (see figure 8, para. 0022, 0032, Swope discusses a forklift vehicle with multiple sensors measuring an object and calculating point louds of the object containing the dimensions of the object); and
determine a shape, volume, orientation, or area of the one or more surfaces of the object corresponding to the first and second dimensions (see figure 8, para. 0072, Swope discusses calculating a bounded three dimensional object representative of the shape the object).
Swope does not expressly disclose compare the first or second characteristics to a list associating signal characteristics to object dimensions to calculate or estimate one or more dimensions of the object.
However, Chamberlin teaches compare the first or second characteristics to a list associating signal characteristics to object dimensions to calculate or estimate one or more dimensions of the object (see para. 0117, Chamberlin sensors include a dimensioning system, a scale, and a digital camera, the sensed-physical attributes can include (i) a 1D, 2D, and/or 3D measurement of the item's shape/size, (ii) the item's weight, and (iii) the item's visual appearance; see para. 0034, Chamberlin discusses the position of the pattern elements in the point cloud image are measured and compared to a known pattern; see para. 0017, 0042, Chamberlin discusses comparing sensed physical characteristics to expected physical characteristics of objects stored in memory to determine if the dimensions match for the object or updating expected physical attributes).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope with Chamberlin to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Swope in this manner in order to improve forklift object transportation and object handling by comparing features detected in sensor data to calculate the dimensions of objects. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Swope, while the teaching of Chamberlin continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating features in sensor data to calculate dimensions of objects. The Swope and Chamberlin systems perform object detection using as lift truck, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 12, Swope teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to calculate or estimate a shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object based on the determined shape, volume, orientation, or area of the one or more surfaces (see figure 8, para. 0072, Swope discusses calculating a bounded three dimensional object representative of the shape the object).
The same motivation of claim 11 is applied to claim 12. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope with Chamberlin to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
Regarding claim 14, Swope does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to compare the first or second dimensions to a list associating dimensions to one or more of a shape, a volume, an orientation, or an area of an object to calculate or estimate the one or more dimensions of the object (see para. 0117, Chamberlin sensors include a dimensioning system, a scale, and a digital camera, and in this case, the sensed-physical attributes can include (i) a 1D, 2D, and/or 3D measurement of the item's shape/size, (ii) the item's weight, and (iii) the item's visual appearance; see para. 0034, Chamberlin discusses the position of the pattern elements in the point cloud image are measured and compared to a known pattern; see para. 0017, 0042, Chamberlin discusses comparing sensed physical characteristics to expected physical characteristics of objects stored in memory to determine if the dimensions match for the object or updating expected physical attributes).
The same motivation of claim 11 is applied to claim 14. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope with Chamberlin to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
Regarding claim 20, Swope teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: calculate or estimate a first shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object based on the first measurements; (see figure 8, para. 0072, Swope a first point cloud);
calculate or estimate a second shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object based on the second measurements (see figure 8, para. 0072, Swope a second point cloud);
map the first shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object to the second shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object (see figure 8, para. 0072, Swope combining point clouds); and
generate a composite shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object based on the first and second measurements (see figure 8, para. 0072, Swope discusses combining point clouds to create a composite three dimensional object representative of the shape the object).
The same motivation of claim 11 is applied to claim 20. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope with Chamberlin to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swope et al. (US 2019/0141308) in view of Chamberlin (US 2016/0101936) in view of Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785).
Regarding claim 15, Swope and Chamberlin do not expressly disclose wherein the first sensor is arranged at a first location on the lift truck, and the second sensor is arranged at a second location on the lift truck. However, Romano reaches wherein the first sensor is arranged at a first location on the lift truck, and the second sensor is arranged at a second location on the lift truck (see para. 0063-0064, Romano discusses multiple sensors mounted on the lift truck).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope and Chamberlin with Romano to derive at the invention of claim 15. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Swope and Chamberlin in this manner in order to improve forklift object transportation and object handling by implementing multiple sensors to properly detect a sufficient number of features to calculate the dimensions of objects. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Swope and Chamberlin, while the teaching of Romano continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of using multiple sensors to acquire data to calculate dimensions of objects. The Swope, Chamberlin, and Romano systems perform object detection using as lift truck, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 16, Swope and Chamberlin do not expressly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to transmit one or more of dimensions, shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object to a remote computing system. However, Romano reaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to transmit one or more of dimensions, shape, volume, orientation, or area of the object to a remote computing system (see para. 0084, 0210, Romano discusses wirelessly transmitting sensor data).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope and Chamberlin with Romano to derive at the invention of claim 16. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Swope and Chamberlin in this manner in order to improve forklift object transportation and object handling by transmitting sensor data to properly calculate the dimensions of objects in a processor. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Swope and Chamberlin, while the teaching of Romano continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of using data transmission to acquire data to properly calculate dimensions of objects. The Swope, Chamberlin, and Romano systems perform object detection using as lift truck, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 17, Swope and Chamberlin do not expressly disclose wherein the first or second sensor comprises one or more of a radar system, an acoustic sensor, an image capture system, a laser based system, an acoustic sensor, a LIDAR system, a microwave system, or a combination thereof. However, Romano reaches wherein the first or second sensor comprises one or more of a radar system, an acoustic sensor, an image capture system, a laser based system, an acoustic sensor, a LIDAR system, a microwave system, or a combination thereof (see para. 0052, Romano discusses implementing several sensors such as cameras, radar, LIDAR, etc.).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope and Chamberlin with Romano to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Swope and Chamberlin in this manner in order to improve forklift object transportation and object handling by implementing multiple sensors to properly detect a sufficient number of features to calculate the dimensions of objects. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Swope and Chamberlin, while the teaching of Romano continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of using multiple sensors to acquire data to properly calculate dimensions of objects. The Swope, Chamberlin, and Romano systems perform object detection using as lift truck, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swope et al. (US 2019/0141308) in view of Chamberlin (US 2016/0101936) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0375080).
Regarding claim 18, Swope and Chamberlin do not expressly disclose wherein the antenna is embedded within a load handling fixture. However, Kumar teaches wherein the antenna is embedded within a load handling fixture (see para. 0062, 0070, Kumar discusses a forklift truck with an antenna placed anywhere on the forklift truck).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope and Chamberlin with Kumar to derive at the invention of claim 18. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Swope and Chamberlin in this manner in order to improve forklift object transportation and object handling by transmitting sensor data using an antenna to properly calculate the dimensions of objects in a processor. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Swope and Chamberlin, while the teaching of Kumar continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of using data transmission using an antenna to properly calculate dimensions of objects at a remote processor. The Swope, Chamberlin, and Kumar systems perform object detection using as lift truck, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swope et al. (US 2019/0141308) in view of Chamberlin (US 2016/0101936) in view of Koga et al. (US 2021/0325529).
Regarding claim 19, Swope and Chamberlin do not expressly disclose wherein the first location corresponds to a lift truck carriage of the lift truck, and the second location corresponds to a cab of the lift truck. However, Koga teaches wherein the first location corresponds to a lift truck carriage of the lift truck, and the second location corresponds to a cab of the lift truck (see para. 0101, Koga discusses multiple sensors coupled at any point location on a vehicle to perform object detection).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Swope and Chamberlin with Koga to derive at the invention of claim 19. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform forklift object transportation and handling.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Swope and Chamberlin in this manner in order to improve forklift object transportation and object handling by implementing multiple sensors to properly detect a sufficient number of features to calculate the dimensions of objects. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Swope and Chamberlin, while the teaching of Koga continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of using multiple sensors to acquire data to properly calculate dimensions of objects. The Swope, Chamberlin, and Koga systems perform object detection using as lift truck, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights