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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1 8, and 11 have been amended. Claim(s) 6 and 10 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-15 are pending examination, and rejected as detailed below.
Applicant has not objected to the 112(f) interpretation of claims 11-15, therefore it is maintained.
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 11, and 15 is improper. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach all amended limitations to the independent claims. Accordingly the independent claims are allowable as are any dependent claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-15 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. While not agreeing that Chilson fails to teach the limitations, the examiner would now rely on newly cited Thompson, US Pat 4,595,331, in addition to other art as cited to teach all limitations of the independent claims. Broadly speaking Thompson teaches an automated loading device for railcars. This automated loading is carried out by AGVs using a series of sensors to continually sense the inside of the railcar, i.e. working area. This is taught in Figs. 4-5; Col. 7, lines 22-33; and Col. 10, lines 4-37. Thompson teaches that during the first loading the AGV will slowly enter the container, i.e. working area, and sense the environment around it, using a series of sensors to scan the container. After doing this it can generate a loading plan to follow as the AGV navigates in the container. The teachings of Thompson, as well as previously cited prior art, would render independent claims 1, 8, 11, and 15 as obvious under 35 USC 103. The incorporation of Thompson would make sense to one of ordinary skill in the art. As Thompson teaches in Col. 2, lines 63-68; and Col 3, lines 1-14. And also in Col. 3, lines 39-68, the use of an automatically generated internal path ensure that the AGV can place loads accurately and according to a loading plan. By using the sensors inside the transport container, rather than dead reckoning alone, the AGV ensures accurate placement in a constrained environment. For a more detailed mapping and explanation, please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson (US PG Pub 2008/0199298) in view of Brown, (US PG Pub 2017/0280125) Jarvis, (US Pat 11,124,401) and Thompson (US Pat 4,595,331).
Regarding claim 1, Chilson teaches a method for automatically controlling a vehicle to transport at least two loads from a load picking-up area to an operating area (Fig. 4 shows multiple loads in a loading area; [0048] teaches the system as picking up a load, of multiple loads, and transporting them form a storage area to a loading area) in which the at least two loads are to be placed in corresponding loading areas, (Fig. 4 and [0051]-[0052] teach loading multiple loads into an operating area) wherein the method comprises the steps of
obtaining information at least about pick-up locations, ([0046] teaches knowing the load location) about the amount ([0053] teaches the system using multiple loads) and
picking up a first load of the at least two loads, ([0041] teaches the load capture mechanism that can be engaged with the first load)
([0057] teaches scanning the transport which would be the operating area)
generating a loading pattern for the transport of the at least two loads from the load picking-up area to the loading areas, ([0051]-[0053] teaches the system as determining a loading pattern for the AGV to use to load the transport vehicle) wherein the loading pattern includes target positions and target orientations of the vehicle to be sequentially reached, (Figs. 4a-4e and [0051] teach the system as determining a loading pattern which would include the location and orientation of the loads to be deposited)
executing the loading pattern until completion of the loading task of transporting the at least two loads to the operating area ([0048]-[0050] teach the execution of loading of a transport from determining the location of a load to placing it into a load vehicle)
wherein scanning the operating area includes obtaining information on at least three corners defining a polygon within which that at least two loads are to be placed ([0057] teaches the system to scan the operating area. This scan is of the side walls, floor, and ceiling of the transport. These taken together would be obvious to be a polygon bounded by the walls and shapes and would have to have multiple corners as a polygon would.) and using a filtering technique ensuring information on the at least three corners for determining loading areas to which a traverse is possible ([0058] teaches determining the loading areas possible within the operating area) with a predefined precision; ([0048] teaches using a defined precision for the transport loading) and
wherein prior to generating the loading pattern two corners of the polygon are used to determine a tilt (a) between the operating area and the pick-up area and optionally a two- dimensional shift (dx, dy) between the operating area and the pick-up area. (Fig. 8 and [0058]-[0059] teach determining a tilt and 2d shift between the loading area and the transport device)
Chilson does not teach the dimensions of the loads to be transported; navigating into the operating area…and scanning the operating area; and wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location.
However, Brown teaches “the dimensions of the loads to be transported” (Fig. 5 and [0026] teaches the use of cameras to determine the dimensions of the freight)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson and Brown; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the loading of cargo onto trucks. As Chilson moves the loads to and from the area it does not teach determining the size of the load or that the size is given. Implicitly it must be known as the system is able to create a loading pattern. However, Brown clarifies the idea of determining the size of the load. As Brown teaches in [0002] “Knowing the dimensions of the freight is also useful for determining the order in which the freight is to be loaded, and to fill as much of the shipping container as possible for efficient handling and distribution.” One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously want to incorporate such a system into their loading method to ensure correct size and placement order.
The combination of Chilson and Brown does not teach navigating into the operating area…and scanning the operating area; and wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location.
However, Jarvis teaches “wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location” (Col. 25, lines 4-10, which teach the automated loading vehicle navigating out of a loading zone to a waiting zone after completion of the loading task.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson and Brown with Jarvis; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. This would be an obvious improvement to the prior art as it allows for the devices to wait as needed and not be in the way of further loading vehicles as the trailer fills up. This standby area and navigation to it removes vehicle traffic from the operational zone.
The combination of Chilson, Brown, and Jarvis does not teach navigating into the operating area…and scanning the operating area.
However, Thompson teaches “navigating into the operating area…and scanning the operating area.” (Figs. 4-5; Col. 7, lines 22-33; and Col. 10, lines 4-37 teach that during the first loading, of a container, the AGV will slowly enter the container, i.e. working area, and sense the environment around it, using a series of sensors to scan the container. After doing this it can generate a loading plan to follow as the AGV navigates in the container.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, and Jarvis with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. As Thompson teaches in Col. 2, lines 63-68; and Col 3, lines 1-14. And also in Col. 3, lines 39-68, the use of an automatically generated internal path ensure that the AGV can place loads accurately and according to a loading plan. By using the sensors inside the transport container, rather than dead reckoning alone, the AGV ensures accurate placement in a constrained environment. This ensures that loads are packed as tightly and accurately as required.
Regarding claim 4, Chilson teaches the method according to claim 1, and wherein the polygon of the operating area is added to the pick-up area prior to generating the loading pattern for the transport of the at least two loads from the load picking-up area to the loading areas. ([0057] teaches adding the trailer to be loaded to the operational travel path to determine the loading sequence)
Regarding claim 5, Chilson teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein optionally range or image data processing is used for determining at least one wall with respect to the polygon of the operating area in relation to which at least one of the at least two loads are to be placed. ([0057] teaches the determination of the side walls of the transport)
Regarding claim 7, Chilson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the loading pattern contains sub-plans in form of trajectories wherein each sub-plan ends with a drop-off action with respect to a load. ([0062] teaches the system determining sub-paths from a location in the bay into and out of the trailer to drop-off loads. This sub-plan would end with the drop-off of the load)
Regarding claim 9, Chilson teaches a control system adapted to execute the method of claim 1. ([0084] teaches a central controller to execute the method of the above claims)
Regarding claim 11, Chilson teaches a vehicle ([003] teaches the use of a vehicle) which is able to automatically transport at least two loads from a load picking-up area to an operating area (Fig. 4 shows multiple loads in a loading area; [0048] teaches the system as picking up a load, of multiple loads, and transporting them form a storage area to a loading area) in which the at least two loads are to be placed in corresponding loading areas, (Fig. 4 and [0051]-[0052] teach loading multiple loads into an operating area) wherein the vehicle comprises:
means for obtaining information at least about pick-up locations, ([0046] teaches knowing the load location) about the amount ([0053] teaches the system using multiple loads) and the ([0057] teaches scanning the transport which would be the operating area)
means for picking-up a first load with the vehicle in the load picking-up area, ([0041] teaches the load capture mechanism that can be engaged with the first load)
means for moving the vehicle, during placement of the first load, in the operating area, ([0039]-[0040] teach the vehicle having a series of wheels and a propulsion system to move the vehicle during placement of the first load)
([0057] teaches scanning the transport which would be the operating area) wherein scanning the operating area includes obtaining information on at least three corners defining a polygon within which that at least two loads are to be placed ([0057] teaches the system to scan the operating area. This scan is of the side walls, floor, and ceiling of the transport. These taken together would be obvious to be a polygon bounded by the walls and shapes and would have to have multiple corners as a polygon would.) and using a filtering technique ensuring information on the at least three corners for determining loading areas to which a traverse is possible ([0058] teaches determining the loading areas possible within the operating area) with a predefined precision; ([0048] teaches using a defined precision for the transport loading) and wherein two corners of the polygon are used to determine a tilt (a) between the operating area and the pick-up area and optionally a two-dimensional shift (dx, dy) between the operating area and the pick-up area. (Fig. 8 and [0058]-[0059] teach determining a tilt and 2d shift between the loading area and the transport device)
means for generating a loading pattern, during placement of the first load, for the transport of the at least two loads from the load picking-up area to the loading areas, ([0051]-[0053] teaches the system as determining a loading pattern for the AGV to use to load the transport vehicle) wherein the loading pattern includes target positions and target orientations of the vehicle to be sequentially reached, (Figs. 4a-4e and [0051] teach the system as determining a loading pattern which would include the location and orientation of the loads to be deposited) and
means for executing the loading pattern to automatically transport the at least two loads to the operating area until completion of the loading task; ([0048]-[0050] teach the execution of loading of a transport from determining the location of a load to placing it into a load vehicle)
Chilson does not teach the dimensions of the loads to be transported; means for scanning the loading area, during placement of the first load; and wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location.
However, Brown teaches “the dimensions of the loads to be transported” (Fig. 5 and [0026] teaches the use of cameras to determine the dimensions of the freight)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson and Brown; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the loading of cargo onto trucks. As Chilson moves the loads to and from the area it does not teach determining the size of the load or that the size is given. Implicitly it must be known as the system is able to create a loading pattern. However, Brown clarifies the idea of determining the size of the load. As Brown teaches in [0002] “Knowing the dimensions of the freight is also useful for determining the order in which the freight is to be loaded, and to fill as much of the shipping container as possible for efficient handling and distribution.” One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously want to incorporate such a system into their loading method to ensure correct size and placement order.
The combination of Chilson and Brown does not teach means for scanning the loading area, during placement of the first load; and wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location.
However, Jarvis teaches “wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location” (Col. 25, lines 4-10, which teach the automated loading vehicle navigating out of a loading zone to a waiting zone after completion of the loading task.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson and Brown with Jarvis; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. This would be an obvious improvement to the prior art as it allows for the devices to wait as needed and not be in the way of further loading vehicles as the trailer fills up. This standby area and navigation to it removes vehicle traffic from the operational zone.
The combination of Chilson, Brown, and Jarvis does not teach means for scanning the loading area, during placement of the first load.
However, Thompson teaches “means for scanning the loading area, during placement of the first load.” (Figs. 4-5; Col. 7, lines 22-33; and Col. 10, lines 4-37 teach that during the first loading, of a container, the AGV will slowly enter the container, i.e. working area, and sense the environment around it, using a series of sensors to scan the container. After doing this it can generate a loading plan to follow as the AGV navigates in the container.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, and Jarvis with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. As Thompson teaches in Col. 2, lines 63-68; and Col 3, lines 1-14. And also in Col. 3, lines 39-68, the use of an automatically generated internal path ensure that the AGV can place loads accurately and according to a loading plan. By using the sensors inside the transport container, rather than dead reckoning alone, the AGV ensures accurate placement in a constrained environment. This ensures that loads are packed as tightly and accurately as required.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson in view of Saboo (US PG Pub 2016/0129592).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson teach the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson does not teach on completion of the loading task, success of the execution of the loading task is reported by the vehicle.
However, Saboo teaches “on completion of the loading task, success of the execution of the loading task is reported by the vehicle” ([0023] teaches the robotic system updating its progress on the task that it is completing)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson with Saboo; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the operation of vehicles in a warehouse. Chilson teaches the use of a central control system that the AGV is connected to, however it does not directly teach reporting progress to it. Saboo teaches this directly in [0023] where “Over time, as robotic devices of the fleet are performing tasks assigned to them by the control system, the robotic devices may provide, or “publish,” task progress data to the control system. Such task progress data may serve as a means to notify the control system of a current status of a task being performed, such as when and where one or more phases of the task have been completed by the robotic devices.” This constant reporting would be obvious to one of ordinary skill as a way to monitor the progress of the AGVs and ensure that the system is operating as intended.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson in view of Jacobus (US PG Pub 2018/0089616).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis and Thompson does not teach if a failure occurs during executing the loading pattern, a recovery behavior for correcting the failure is executed and, if correcting the failure fails, the failure is reported to a server or to a fleet management system.
However, Jacobus teaches “if a failure occurs during executing the loading pattern, a recovery behavior for correcting the failure is executed and, if correcting the failure fails, the failure is reported to a server or to a fleet management system.” (Fig. 23 and [0103] teaches the system to ensure that a load is placed correctly, and if not executing a recovery behavior)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson in view of Jacobus; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the controls of vehicles in a warehouse and loading scenario. Jacobus in Fig. 23 teaches clearly to ensure that a load is placed correctly and if the load is improperly placed the system will remove and redo the loading. It would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill as ensuring that a load is placed correctly ensures that all future loads will be placed in the correct area and prevent further failures in the loading of the packages.
Regarding claim 12, Chilson teaches the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein (Claim 21; teaches the use of a camera or optical vision system to scan the system)
The combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis and Thompson does not teach the means for executing the loading pattern is able to recognize and improper load placement or a problem with inserting a load.
However, Jacobus teaches “the means for executing the loading pattern is able to recognize and improper load placement or a problem with inserting a load.” (Fig. 23 and [0103] teaches the system to ensure that a load is placed correctly, and if not executing a recovery behavior)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson in view of Jacobus; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the controls of vehicles in a warehouse and loading scenario. Jacobus in Fig. 23 teaches clearly to ensure that a load is placed correctly and if the load is improperly placed the system will remove and redo the loading. It would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill as ensuring that a load is placed correctly ensures that all future loads will be placed in the correct area and prevent further failures in the loading of the packages.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson in view of Jarvis, Thompson, and Jacobus (US PG Pub 2018/0089616).
Regarding claim 8, Chilson teaches a method for automatically controlling a vehicle to transport at least two loads from a load picking-up area to an operating area (Fig. 4 shows multiple loads in a loading area; [0048] teaches the system as picking up a load, of multiple loads, and transporting them form a storage area to a loading area) in which the at least two loads are to be placed in corresponding loading areas, (Fig. 4 and [0051]-[0052] teach loading multiple loads into an operating area) wherein the method comprises the steps of
picking-up a first load with the vehicle in the load picking-up area, ([0041] teaches the load capture mechanism that can be engaged with the first load)
guiding the vehicle with the first load by guiding means from the load picking-up area to the operating area, ([0048] teaches guiding the AGV from an initial location to a load and guiding the AGV from the pick-up to the loading location)
([0044] and [0057] teach scanning the transport which would be the operating area; this can occur outside or inside of the transport) wherein mapping the operating area includes obtaining information on at least three corners defining a polygon within which that at least two loads are to be placed ([0057] teaches the system to scan the operating area. This scan is of the side walls, floor, and ceiling of the transport. These taken together would be obvious to be a polygon bounded by the walls and shapes and would have to have multiple corners as a polygon would.) and using a filtering technique ensuring information on the at least three corners for determining loading areas to which a traverse is possible ([0058] teaches determining the loading areas possible within the operating area) with a predefined precision; ([0048] teaches using a defined precision for the transport loading) and wherein two corners of the polygon are used to determine a tilt (a) between the operating area and the pick-up area and optionally a two-dimensional shift (dx, dy) between the operating area and the pick-up area. (Fig. 8 and [0058]-[0059] teach determining a tilt and 2d shift between the loading area and the transport device)
subsequently generating a loading pattern for placing the at least two loads in the corresponding loading areas within the virtual boundaries in the operating area ([0051]-[0053] teaches the system as determining a loading pattern for the AGV to use to load the transport vehicle) and generating travel trajectories which the vehicle has to travel with each of the at least two loads to place the at least two loads in the corresponding loading areas, ([0048] teaches generating trajectories to guide the AGV to the operating area to place the loads)
placing the first load in the corresponding loading area based on the generated loading pattern and the generated travel trajectory for the first load, ([0049] teaches placing the first load as intended in the operating area)
mapping the operating area with the placed first load placed in the corresponding loading area ([0065] teaches mapping the loading area with a package in the system) and
([0095] teaches generating a loading plan based on the scan of the operating area and the location of the load as the AGV moves in the area)
Chilson does not teach moving the vehicle with the first load in the operating area; verifying whether the first load in the corresponding loading area corresponds to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern and if the first load in the corresponding loading area does not correspond to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern, correcting the position and/or orientation of the first load in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern, wherein optionally the steps of moving the vehicle in the operating area and generating a loading pattern occur during the placement operation for the first load, and wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting area.
However, Jacobus teaches “verifying whether the first load in the corresponding loading area corresponds to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern” (Fig. 23 and [0103] teaches the system to ensure that a load is placed correctly, and if not executing a recovery behavior) and “if the first load in the corresponding loading area does not correspond to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern, correcting the position and/or orientation of the first load in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern,” (Fig. 23 and [0103] teaches the system to ensure that a load is placed correctly, and if not executing a recovery behavior)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson with Jacobus; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the controls of vehicles in a warehouse and loading scenario. Jacobus in Fig. 23 teaches clearly to ensure that a load is placed correctly and if the load is improperly placed the system will remove and redo the loading. It would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill as ensuring that a load is placed correctly ensures that all future loads will be placed in the correct area and prevent further failures in the loading of the packages. Chilson talks of ensuring ideal placement of the pallet. And ensuring this ideal placement occurs allows for the system to maintain optimum travel time and minim battery usage [0065]. It would be obvious to ensure that loads are correctly placed and if the load is incorrectly placed according to the loading plan the system would want to correct that.
The combination of Chilson and Jacobus does not teach moving the vehicle with the first load in the operating area; and wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location.
However, Jarvis teaches “wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location” (Col. 25, lines 4-10, which teach the automated loading vehicle navigating out of a loading zone to a waiting zone after completion of the loading task.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson and Jacobus with Jarvis; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. This would be an obvious improvement to the prior art as it allows for the devices to wait as needed and not be in the way of further loading vehicles as the trailer fills up. This standby area and navigation to it removes vehicle traffic from the operational zone.
The combination of Chilson, Jarvis, and Jacobus does not teach moving the vehicle with the first load in the operating area.
However, Thompson teaches “moving the vehicle with the first load in the operating area.” (Figs. 4-5; Col. 7, lines 22-33; and Col. 10, lines 4-37 teach that during the first loading, of a container, the AGV will slowly enter the container, i.e. working area, and sense the environment around it, using a series of sensors to scan the container. After doing this it can generate a loading plan to follow as the AGV navigates in the container.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Jarvis, and Jacobus with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. As Thompson teaches in Col. 2, lines 63-68; and Col 3, lines 1-14. And also in Col. 3, lines 39-68, the use of an automatically generated internal path ensure that the AGV can place loads accurately and according to a loading plan. By using the sensors inside the transport container, rather than dead reckoning alone, the AGV ensures accurate placement in a constrained environment. This ensures that loads are packed as tightly and accurately as required.
Regarding claim 15, Chilson teaches a vehicle ([003] teaches the use of a vehicle) which is able to transport automatically at least two loads from a load picking-up area to an operating area (Fig. 4 shows multiple loads in a loading area; [0048] teaches the system as picking up a load, of multiple loads, and transporting them form a storage area to a loading area) in which the at least two loads are to be placed in corresponding loading areas, (Fig. 4 and [0051]-[0052] teach loading multiple loads into an operating area), wherein the vehicle comprises:
means for picking-up a first load with the vehicle in the load picking-up area, ([0041] teaches the load capture mechanism that can be engaged with the first load)
means for guiding the vehicle with the first load by guiding means from the load picking-up area to the operating area, ([0048] teaches guiding the AGV from an initial location to a load and guiding the AGV from the pick-up to the loading location)
([0044] and [0057] teach scanning the transport which would be the operating area; this can occur outside or inside of the transport) wherein mapping the operating area includes obtaining information on at least three corners defining a polygon within which that at least two loads are to be placed ([0057] teaches the system to scan the operating area. This scan is of the side walls, floor, and ceiling of the transport. These taken together would be obvious to be a polygon bounded by the walls and shapes and would have to have multiple corners as a polygon would.) and using a filtering technique ensuring information on the at least three corners for determining loading areas to which a traverse is possible ([0058] teaches determining the loading areas possible within the operating area) with a predefined precision; ([0048] teaches using a defined precision for the transport loading) and wherein two corners of the polygon are used to determine a tilt (a) between the operating area and the pick-up area and optionally a two-dimensional shift (dx, dy) between the operating area and the pick-up area. (Fig. 8 and [0058]-[0059] teach determining a tilt and 2d shift between the loading area and the transport device)
means for generating, during the placement operation for the first load, a loading pattern for placing the at least two loads in the corresponding loading areas within the vehicle boundaries in the operating area ([0051]-[0053] teaches the system as determining a loading pattern for the AGV to use to load the transport vehicle) and generating travel trajectories which the vehicle has to travel with each of the at least two loads to place the at least two loads in the corresponding loading areas, ([0048] teaches generating trajectories to guide the AGV to the operating area to place the loads),
means for placing the first load in the corresponding loading area based on the generated loading pattern and the generated travel trajectory for the first load, ([0049] teaches placing the first load as intended in the operating area)
means for mapping the operating area with the placed first load placed in the corresponding loading area ([0065] teaches mapping the loading area with a package in the system) and
Chilson does not teach means for moving the vehicle, during the placement operation for the first load, in the operating area; verifying whether the first load in the corresponding loading area corresponds to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern and, means for correcting the position and/or orientation of the first load in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern in the case, that the first load in the corresponding loading area does not correspond to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern; wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location.
However, Jacobus teaches “verifying whether the first load in the corresponding loading area corresponds to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern” (Fig. 23 and [0103] teaches the system to ensure that a load is placed correctly, and if not executing a recovery behavior) and “means for correcting the position and/or orientation of the first load in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern in the case, that the first load in the corresponding loading area does not correspond to the loading pattern in such a manner that the at least one further load is able to be placed according to the loading pattern.” (Fig. 23 and [0103] teaches the system to ensure that a load is placed correctly, and if not executing a recovery behavior)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson with Jacobus; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the controls of vehicles in a warehouse and loading scenario. Jacobus in Fig. 23 teaches clearly to ensure that a load is placed correctly and if the load is improperly placed the system will remove and redo the loading. It would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill as ensuring that a load is placed correctly ensures that all future loads will be placed in the correct area and prevent further failures in the loading of the packages. Chilson talks of ensuring ideal placement of the pallet. And ensuring this ideal placement occurs allows for the system to maintain optimum travel time and minim battery usage [0065]. It would be obvious to ensure that loads are correctly placed and if the load is incorrectly placed according to the loading plan the system would want to correct that.
The combination of Chilson and Jacobus does not teach means for moving the vehicle, during the placement operation for the first load, in the operating area; and wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location.
However, Jarvis teaches “wherein on completion of the loading task the vehicle is navigated to a predefined waiting location” (Col. 25, lines 4-10, which teach the automated loading vehicle navigating out of a loading zone to a waiting zone after completion of the loading task.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson and Jacobus with Jarvis; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. This would be an obvious improvement to the prior art as it allows for the devices to wait as needed and not be in the way of further loading vehicles as the trailer fills up. This standby area and navigation to it removes vehicle traffic from the operational zone.
The combination of Chilson, Jarvis, and Jacobus does not teach means for moving the vehicle, during the placement operation for the first load, in the operating area.
However, Thompson teaches “means for moving the vehicle, during the placement operation for the first load, in the operating area.” (Figs. 4-5; Col. 7, lines 22-33; and Col. 10, lines 4-37 teach that during the first loading, of a container, the AGV will slowly enter the container, i.e. working area, and sense the environment around it, using a series of sensors to scan the container. After doing this it can generate a loading plan to follow as the AGV navigates in the container.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Jarvis, and Jacobus with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of AGVs for loading trailers. As Thompson teaches in Col. 2, lines 63-68; and Col 3, lines 1-14. And also in Col. 3, lines 39-68, the use of an automatically generated internal path ensure that the AGV can place loads accurately and according to a loading plan. By using the sensors inside the transport container, rather than dead reckoning alone, the AGV ensures accurate placement in a constrained environment. This ensures that loads are packed as tightly and accurately as required.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, Jacobus, and Thompson in view of Saboo.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson teaches the vehicle according to claim 12.
The combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, and Thompson does not teaches the means for executing the loading pattern is able to attempt correction of load placement in the case of improper load placement or a problem with inserting a load and is configured in such a manner that if correction fails, failure of correction is able to be communicated to a server or to a supervising fleet management system.
However, Jacobus teaches “the means for executing the loading pattern is able to attempt correction of load placement in the case of improper load placement or a problem with inserting a load.” (Fig. 23 and [0103] teaches the system to ensure that a load is placed correctly, and if not executing a recovery behavior)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, and Jarvis with Jacobus; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the controls of vehicles in a warehouse and loading scenario. Jacobus in Fig. 23 teaches clearly to ensure that a load is placed correctly and if the load is improperly placed the system will remove and redo the loading. It would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill as ensuring that a load is placed correctly ensures that all future loads will be placed in the correct area and prevent further failures in the loading of the packages.
The combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, Thompson and Jacobus does not teach that if correction fails, failure of correction is able to be communicated to a server or to a supervising fleet management system.
However, Saboo teaches “that if correction fails, failure of correction is able to be communicated to a server or to a supervising fleet management system.” ([0023] teaches the robotic system updating its progress on the task that it is completing)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, Jacobus, and Thompson with Saboo; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the operation of vehicles in a warehouse. Chilson teaches the use of a central control system that the AGV is connected to, however it does not directly teach reporting progress to it. Saboo teaches this directly in [0023] where “Over time, as robotic devices of the fleet are performing tasks assigned to them by the control system, the robotic devices may provide, or “publish,” task progress data to the control system. Such task progress data may serve as a means to notify the control system of a current status of a task being performed, such as when and where one or more phases of the task have been completed by the robotic devices.” This constant reporting would be obvious to one of ordinary skill as a way to monitor the progress of the AGVs and ensure that the system is operating as intended.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, Jacobus, and Thompson in view of Russell (US PG Pub 2017/0357270).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, Jacobus, and Thompson teaches the vehicle according to claim 12.
The combination of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, Jacobus, and Thompson does not teach the at least one 3D range or optical camera is actuatable or retractable in order to change the view point on the carried load and/or an adjacent load while executing the loading task.
However, Russell teaches “the at least one 3D range or optical camera is actuatable or retractable in order to change the view point on the carried load and/or an adjacent load while executing the loading task.” ([0089] and Fig. 3C show a movable camera on an AGV)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Chilson, Brown, Jarvis, Thompson, and Jacobus in view of Russell; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the controls of warehouse vehicles and ensuring smooth operations. Have a movable camera system would be an obvious improvement as it would allow the system to see around loads or in areas that are otherwise hard to see. As Russell teaches in [0089] the movable camera allows the system to observe new positions in the environment. One of ordinary skill would see this as an obvious improvement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wicks (US PG Pub 2015/0352721) teaches methods, devices, systems, and non-transitory process-readable storage media for a computing device of a robotic carton unloader to identify items to be unloaded from an unloading area within imagery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665