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 .
Amended claims 1, 2 and 4 thru 15 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/12/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because translated copies of the “operating instructions” were not provided. The other cited NPL documents have been considered by the examiner. The lined through documents have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification overcome the specification objection from the previous office action (9/23/2025). The specification objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 regarding the U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections related to the 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to Figures 2A thru 2C and the specification do provide the reference number “9” as the claimed control apparatus and data processing unit. But the amendments merely provide a box in the Figures identified as “9” and the amended specification recites, “a control apparatus 9 having a data processing unit” (see spec amendment of 2/20/2026). These amendments still do not clearly identify a structure to the claimed control apparatus and data processing unit. Although it is well known in the art that software, hardware or firmware, can be configured to carry out the claimed functions, such as control the driver unit and ignore the obstacle recognition signal (claim 1), and functions recited throughout the specification. The amended Figures 2A thru 2C provide a reference number “9” for the control apparatus having a data processing unit but still lacks the structure element/component. The specification requires additional description to clear interpret a structure to the claimed control apparatus and data processing unit of claim 1. Therefore, the interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f) remains, and the associated rejections under 112(a) and 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 regarding the prior art rejections (103) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim amendments have caused additional citations in the previously cited prior art regarding the “placement process” and the obstacle recognition device controls the first sensor unit to limit its monitored field to the free placement area that has not yet been traveled over” (claim 1). And, for similar limitations in amended claim 15. The other amended limitation of claim 1 (part b) is not required because the claim language requires either part a) or part b). The current 103 rejection is directed to part a) “claimed deactivation of the monitored field”. The claimed part a) has not been amended, therefore the 103 rejection of this limitation for the office action of 9/23/2025 is maintained.
Regarding the part a) limitation, the applicant argues that the secondary reference of Takano et al do not teach the claimed deactivation of the obstacle recognition device during travel to a free placement area (argument page 13 response section). The examiner agrees that Roethling et al do not teach the claimed deactivation of the obstacle recognition device, but do teach the changing the sensor protection field during travel to a free placement area. The change in the warning field 25 to be a narrower protection field 24 while the industrial truck 1 moves to an free placement area (see Figures 4a thru 4e), this equates to the claimed deactivation of the obstacle recognition device during travel to a free placement area, but lacks the deactivation. The narrowing of the field acts as a partial deactivation of the sensor coverage area, but it is not the claimed deactivation.
The secondary reference of Takano et al is cited for turning off the sensor signal (claimed deactivation). The turning off by Takano et al would be applied to the narrowing of Roethling et al. Roethling et al do not teach away from the claimed limitations because it is trying to place loads or pallets as close together as possible (to reduce required space (P[0005], P[0066]). The sensor field is narrowed in order to not be triggered by the obstacles (pallets) located to the left and right of the free placement area, the sensors of Roethling et al continue to search for an enclosed obstacle in the narrow field area. It the area is confirmed to be clear of obstacles, it would be obvious to turn off the sensor (Takano et al, and claimed deactivation) an apply it to Roethling et al. The field size of Roethling et al are switched from a warning field 25 to a narrower protective field 24 while the vehicle is moving into the free space. This is a change in mode for a changed situation. A situation that verifies the free area is clear of obstacles could further narrow the detection area to have a “zero” width (turning off of Takano et al). Roethling et al still continues moving to the placement area (Figure 4e), so it is still determining the proper placement of the pallet/cart. The act of turning off sensors when not needed is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and is not novel in the art of pallet placement (see Takano et al). Takano et al turns off sensors signals when there is a detection that there is no obstacle. The detection of no obstacle would be a verification applied to Roethling et al that it could narrow the detection field to zero because there are no obstacles. Based on new citations for the amendments, the above responses to the arguments and the below rejections, the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 thru 15 are maintained.
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 pick-up apparatus for picking up, first sensor unit is configured to generate, control apparatus is configured to control, obstacle recognition device is configured to deactivate, data processing unit is configured to ignore in claim 1; encoder unit is configured to continuously determine in line 4; and a drive unit controlling in claim 15.
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. The pick-up apparatus is interpreted as forks (i.e. on a fork lift) per the limitations of claim 10 and specification page 5 line 20. The first sensor unit is interpreted as an optical sensor, an acoustic sensor or an electromagnetic sensor per the limitations of claim 8, specification page 5 lines 14 and 15, and page 9 lines 21 and 22. The control apparatus includes a data processing unit and an obstacle recognition device having a first sensor unit (specification page 2 lines 2 thru 4). The structure of the data processing unit is not recited in the disclosure (merely part of the control apparatus 9 of Figures 2A thru 2C). The obstacle recognition device is interpreted as comprising a second sensor unit (specification page 6 lines 10 and 11) or both the first and second sensor units (specification page 8 lines 11 and 12, and page 9 lines 11 and 12), the second sensor unit is interpreted as the same types of sensors as the first sensor unit. The encoder unit is interpreted as a rotary encoder (specification page 11 lines 14 and 15). The drive unit is interpreted as having a drive shaft (specification page 4 lines 22 and 23) and is an electrical drive unit (specification page 6 lines 17). The examiner interprets this as a typical motor or engine to move the vehicle and is well known in the art.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 thru 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, the control apparatus configured to control and the data processing unit configured to ignore are both interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see above). The specification does not provide structure of either the control apparatus or the data processing unit. The specification recites that the control apparatus 9 has a data processing unit (see amended specification of 2/20/2026). There is no evidence in any of the disclosure (drawing, specification, claims) of structure or material that can be clearly identified as the claimed control apparatus and the data processing unit. There is no way to interpret whether the structure of the control apparatus and data processing unit is software, hardware, firmware, or a combination.
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.
Claim limitations “control apparatus configured to control” and “data processing unit configured to ignore” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide structure of either the control apparatus or the data processing unit. The specification recites that the control apparatus 9 has a data processing unit (see amended specification of 2/20/2026). There is no evidence in any of the disclosure (drawing, specification, claims) of structure or material that can be clearly identified as the claimed control apparatus and the data processing unit. There is no way to interpret whether the structure of the control apparatus and data processing unit is software, hardware, firmware, or a combination. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. (Claims 1, 2 and 4 thru 14 are subject to the rejection.)
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 2, 4, 6 thru 9, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethling et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0101789 A1 in view of Takano et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP H08217246 A (provided translation cited).
Regarding claim 1 Roethling et al teach the claimed autonomously moving transport system for transporting pallets or pallet cages, “An industrial truck, configured for driverless, autonomously-acting operation for a load to be transported, includes at least a control system configured to control and to steer the industrial truck, and an evaluation unit configured to generate a signal for stopping the industrial truck.” (abstract), and the load can be a pallet P[0012], wherein the transport system comprises,
the claimed pick-up apparatus for picking up the pallet or pallet cage in a placement process, “FIG. 3 shows a side view of the industrial truck 1 according to FIG. 1 having a loaded load 2. The load 2 consists here of a cargo 21 and a transport cart 22, using which the cargo 21 can be transported.” (P[0051] and Figure 3), the transport cart equates to the claimed pick-up apparatus, and the transport cart may be a dolly P[0060], and the protective field 24 enables placement of the transport cart 22 P[0062],
the claimed drive unit and control apparatus, “The industrial truck 1 provided here, having a cargo area 1.1 for a load 2 to be transported (see FIG. 3), comprises at least the control system 3, which controls and steers the industrial truck 1, and an evaluation unit 4 (see FIG. 2), which also generates, for example, a signal for stopping the industrial truck 1.” (P[0049] and Figure 1), the control system equates to the claimed control apparatus, and “A first motor for the travel movement of the industrial truck 1 is identified by 12 and a second motor for the vertical adjustment of a raising and lowering device 14 (see FIG. 2) is identified by 13.” (P[0049] and Figure 2), the motors equate to the claimed drive unit, wherein the control apparatus comprises,
the claimed data processing unit and obstacle recognition device have a first sensor unit, “The control system 3 comprises a first control unit 9 for the desired travel direction and the velocity, a second control unit 10 for the movement, and a third control unit 11 for the safety of the industrial truck 1.” (P[0049] and Figure 1), “The second control unit 10 relays the desired travel direction to the third control unit 11, calculates the target speeds, and specifies them to the motors.” P[0055] (claimed data processing unit), and “The third control unit 11 recognizes if the warning field 25 of the rear laser scanner 8 triggers and switches this laser scanner 8 to a narrower protective field 24.” P[0057], the third control unit equates to the claimed obstacle recognition device, and the laser scanner equates to the claimed first sensor unit, wherein
the claimed first sensor unit generates a monitored field in order to examine a free placement area for the pallet or pallet cage between other pallets for obstacles, “a broad warning field of the laser scanner 8 is identified by 25” (P[0052] and Figure 4a), the load on the transport cart 22 is moved between transport carts 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 (Figures 4a thru 4e), the transport carts equate to the claimed pallets or pallet cages, and the area between the transport carts equates to the claimed free placement area, wherein
the claimed control apparatus controls the drive unit to adopt a placement operating mode and moves the pallet or pallet cage into the free placement area for placement in the absence of an obstacle, “The control system 3 comprises a first control unit 9 for the desired travel direction and the velocity, a second control unit 10 for the movement, and a third control unit 11 for the safety of the industrial truck 1. A first motor for the travel movement of the industrial truck 1 is identified by 12 and a second motor for the vertical adjustment of a raising and lowering device 14 (see FIG. 2) is identified by 13.” P[0049], “After entering the supermarket, a warning field 25 is added in addition to the protective field 24, by which the unloading position or the closest transport cart 22 (dolly) already located in the supermarket is to be recognized (FIG. 4a).” (P[0060] and Figure 4a), and “The industrial truck 1 travels in reverse until the warning field 25 triggers.” (P[0062] and Figure 4b),
the claimed obstacle recognition device controls the first sensor unit to limit its monitored field to a part of the free placement area that has not yet been traveled over, “The industrial truck 1 travels in reverse until the warning field 25 triggers. It then switches to a narrower protective field 24. This protective field 24 enables both the recognition of enclosed persons and also the placement of the transport cart 22 at the already provided (stationary) transport cart 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, because the protective field 24 looks under it in the normal case (FIGS. 4b, 4c).” (P[0062] and Figures 4b and 4c).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roethling Figure 4b
PNG
media_image2.png
268
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Roethling Figure 4c (claimed first sensor unit to limit its monitored field, and claimed free placement area that has not yet been traveled over). The sensor area changes from 25 to 24 and the vehicle is traveling in the direction of the arrow to an open space.
Roethling et al do not explicitly teach the claimed in the placement operating mode, the obstacle recognition device deactivates the monitored field or not outputs the obstacle recognition signal during travel to the free placement area, but do teach that the third control unit (SCU) activates and deactivates the protective fields P[0027], and “Multiple protective fields (regions in front of, behind, or adjacent to the vehicle) are predefined in the laser scanner and may be activated or deactivated by the safety control unit.” P[0028]. The systems of Roethling et al are capable of being deactivated. Takano et al teach, a device for stacking pallets (abstract, claimed placement operating mode), and “If the obstacle is not detected, the height sensor 26 outputs an off signal.” (translation page 8 paragraph 7), the obstacle not detected equates to the claimed travel to the free placement area, and the sensor outputting an off signal equates to the claimed deactivate the field or not output the signal. If there is an area that does not have obstacles, then there is not a need to monitor and detect in that area with the sensors. The turning off of the sensor of Takano et al would be implemented with Roethling et al when there are not obstacles in the way of placing the pallet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous industrial truck of Roethling et al with the turning off of the sensor when there are no detected obstacles of Takano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide pallet stacking work that can be performed efficiently (Takano et al translation page 13 paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 2 Roethling et al teach the claimed control apparatus controls the drive unit to travel in a cleared region of the free placement area in the placement operating mode, “In the normal case (no enclosed person), the narrower protective field 24 “looks” under the transported material (transport cart 22) on which the loaded transported material is placed” P[0065].
Regarding claim 4 Roethling et al teach the claimed transport system comprises an encoder unit, “The second control unit 10 is connected via the first speed encoder 15 (target speed) to the motor 12. The second speed encoder 16 is connected to the third control unit 11.” (P[0050] and Figure 2), and “Safe SIL2 rotary encoders transmit the actual speeds of the motors to the third control unit 11.” P[0056], wherein the encoder unit is configured to,
the claimed continuously determine a distance traveled in the placement operating mode, “The third control unit 11 calculates the travel distance (safe wheel odometry) from the actual speeds and sets the velocity to v=0 mm/s via the second control unit 10 when the predetermined travel distance (Y) is reached.” P[0058], and wherein
the claimed obstacle recognition device continuously limits the monitored field based on the distance determined, “The third control unit 11 recognizes if the warning field 25 of the rear laser scanner 8 triggers and switches this laser scanner 8 to a narrower protective field 24.” P[0057].
Regarding claim 6 Roethling et al teach the claimed obstacle recognition device limits the monitored field by adjusting a radiation angle of the first sensor unit, “The third control unit 11 recognizes if the warning field 25 of the rear laser scanner 8 triggers and switches this laser scanner 8 to a narrower protective field 24.” P[0057], and “The industrial truck 1 travels in reverse until the warning field 25 triggers. It then switches to a narrower protective field 24.” P[0062].
Regarding claim 7 Roethling et al teach the claimed obstacle recognition device limits the monitored field by masking certain regions, “The industrial truck 1 travels in reverse until the warning field 25 triggers. It then switches to a narrower protective field 24.” P[0062], and the change from the warning field 25 to the protective field 24 (Figure 4b to Figure 4c) has the left and right sides of the protective field not being scanned as they were for the warning field (claimed masking certain regions).
Regarding claim 8 Roethling et al teach the claimed first sensor unit is an optical sensor, an acoustic sensor or an electromagnetic sensor, the sensors may be laser scanners, inductive proximity sensors, ultrasonic sensors, and/or 3D cameras P[0080].
Regarding claim 9 Roethling et al teach the claimed optical sensor is a ToF sensor or a laser scanner, “the detector device 5 comprises a laser scanner 8” (P[0049] and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11 Roethling et al teach the claimed first sensor unit is arranged at a lower region of the transport system, “The laser scanner 8 is attached at the rear of the industrial truck 1. The laser field of view 8.1 is oriented in the direction away from the industrial truck 1.” P[0051], and the laser scanner 8 is at a lower part of the truck (Figure 3), wherein
the claimed control apparatus controls the pick-up apparatus to raise the pallet or pallet cage so that the monitored field of the first sensor extends below the pallet or pallet cage in the direction of the free placement area to examine for obstacles, “The load can also comprise the cargo and a transport device for the cargo, for example, a transport cart, a pallet, a floor roller, etc. “Load handling” which can be executed by the industrial truck is understood in particular as raising, lowering, load transfer, and/or load processing.” P[0012], “the second motor 13 for the drive of the raising and lowering device 14 is connected to the control system 3. The detector device 5 can also be used to recognize the position of the raising and lowering unit 14.” P[0050], “The laser field of view 8.1 is oriented in the direction away from the industrial truck 1.” P[0051], a projection of the field of view 8.1 would extend downward (Figure 3), and “the narrower protective field 24 “looks” under the transported material (transport cart 22) on which the loaded transported material is placed” P[0065].
Regarding claim 15 Roethling et al disclose the claimed method of operating an autonomously moving transport system for transporting pallets or pallet cages in a placement process, “An industrial truck, configured for driverless, autonomously-acting operation for a load to be transported, includes at least a control system configured to control and to steer the industrial truck, and an evaluation unit configured to generate a signal for stopping the industrial truck.” (abstract), the load can be a pallet P[0012] and used in operation sequence P[0059] thru P[0065], and the protective field 24 enables placement of the transport cart 22 P[0062], comprising method steps:
the claimed generating a monitored field to examine a free placement area for a pallet or pallet cage to be placed between other pallets for obstacles, “a broad warning field of the laser scanner 8 is identified by 25” (P[0052] and Figure 4a), the load on the transport cart 22 is moved between transport carts 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 (Figures 4a thru 4e), the transport carts equate to the claimed pallets or pallet cages, and the area between the transport carts equates to the claimed free placement area,
the claimed controlling a drive unit so that the transport system adopts a placement operating mode and moves the pallet or pallet cage into the free placement area for placement in the absence of an obstacle, “The control system 3 comprises a first control unit 9 for the desired travel direction and the velocity, a second control unit 10 for the movement, and a third control unit 11 for the safety of the industrial truck 1. A first motor for the travel movement of the industrial truck 1 is identified by 12 and a second motor for the vertical adjustment of a raising and lowering device 14 (see FIG. 2) is identified by 13.” P[0049], “After entering the supermarket, a warning field 25 is added in addition to the protective field 24, by which the unloading position or the closest transport cart 22 (dolly) already located in the supermarket is to be recognized (FIG. 4a).” (P[0060] and Figure 4a), and “The industrial truck 1 travels in reverse until the warning field 25 triggers.” (P[0062] and Figure 4b), and
the claimed responding to the obstacle recognition signal so as to limit the monitored field to a part of the free placement area that not yet been traveled over and avoiding triggering obstacle recognition device that interrupts the placement process to place the pallets close to one another, “The industrial truck 1 travels in reverse until the warning field 25 triggers. It then switches to a narrower protective field 24. This protective field 24 enables both the recognition of enclosed persons and also the placement of the transport cart 22 at the already provided (stationary) transport cart 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, because the protective field 24 looks under it in the normal case (FIGS. 4b, 4c).” (P[0062] and Figures 4b and 4c), and “omitting an additional emergency stop button, and/or reducing the space requirement” P[0005], the reducing the space requirement equates to the claimed place the pallets close to one another, and the vehicle stops for obstacles means that it would not stop when there are no obstacles (claimed avoiding triggering obstacle recognition device that interrupts the placement process).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roethling Figure 4b
PNG
media_image2.png
268
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Roethling Figure 4c (claimed limit the monitored field, and claimed free placement area that has not yet been traveled over). The sensor area changes from 25 to 24 and the vehicle is traveling in the direction of the arrow to an open space.
Roethling et al do not explicitly teach the claimed deactivating the monitored field or preventing the obstacle recognition signal from being output or ignoring an obstacle recognition signal as long as the transport system is in the placement operating mode, but do teach that the third control unit (SCU) activates and deactivates the protective fields P[0027], and “Multiple protective fields (regions in front of, behind, or adjacent to the vehicle) are predefined in the laser scanner and may be activated or deactivated by the safety control unit.” P[0028]. The systems of Roethling et al are capable of being deactivated. Takano et al teach, a device for stacking pallets (abstract, claimed placement operating mode), and “If the obstacle is not detected, the height sensor 26 outputs an off signal.” (translation page 8 paragraph 7), the sensor outputting an off signal equates to the claimed deactivate the field or preventing/ignoring a signal. If there is an area that does not have obstacles, then there is not a need to monitor and detect in that area with the sensors. The turning off of the sensor of Takano et al would be implemented with Roethling et al when there are not obstacles in the way of placing the pallet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous industrial truck of Roethling et al with the turning off of the sensor when there are no detected obstacles of Takano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide pallet stacking work that can be performed efficiently (Takano et al translation page 13 paragraph 7).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethling et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0101789 A1 and Takano et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP H08217246 A (provided translation cited), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and in further view of Raetze et al Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0034908 A1.
Regarding claim 5 Roethling et al do not explicitly teach the claimed encoder is arranged on a drive shaft of the drive unit, but the placement of the encoder on the drive shaft is common and well known in the art. An encoder may be placed anywhere on the powertrain to obtain speed and distance. Raetze et al teach, “a drive shaft 203 rotates the encoder 201 and the encoder 201 signals the direction of travel and the distance covered by the trolley 1” P[0119], the trolley (Raetze et al Figure 1) equates to the industrial truck of Roethling et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous industrial truck of Roethling et al and the turning off of the sensor when there are no detected obstacles of Takano et al with the placement of the encoder on the driver shaft for distance and direction of travel signals of Raetze et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, minimize the chance of a collision and provide efficient usage of a container (Raetze et al P[0002]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethling et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0101789 A1 and Takano et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP H08217246 A (provided translation cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ji Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0177222 A1.
Regarding claim 10 Roethling et al do not explicitly teach the claimed pick-up apparatus comprise forks, and the claimed first sensor unit is arranged at one end of at least one fork. Roethling et al do teach that the load carrier may be a dolly P[0010] and a dolly typically has forks, and the load handling of industrial truck raises and lowers the load P[0012], typically performed by a forklift. Roethling et al do teach that the sensors may be attached or positioned freely and selected according to the technical conditions P[0033]. These sensors may be installed any on part the industrial truck.
Ji teaches,
the claimed pick-up apparatus comprise forks, the automatic forklift includes a first pallet fork 11 and a second pallet fork 12 (P[0041] thru P[0045] and Figures 3, 4, 5a, 13b); and
the claimed first sensor unit is arranged at one end of at least one fork, “the image collector 2 is arranged on the first pallet fork 11, preferably at a front end of the first pallet fork 11 and is configured to collect positioning information provided on a target stock container to obtain image data that can represent a positional relationship between the pallet fork and a projection image of the positioning information on a specified plane” P[0044], and “the distance sensor 3 is arranged on the second pallet fork 12, preferably at a front end of the second pallet fork 12 and is configured to measure a distance between the pallet fork and the target stock container and obtain distance data” P[0045].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous industrial truck of Roethling et al and the turning off of the sensor when there are no detected obstacles of Takano et al with the automatic forklift having sensors placed on the ends of the forks of Ji in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide safe and accurate returning the storage container to a specified position, and improve the efficiency of returning the storage container (Ji P[0041]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethling et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0101789 A1 and Takano et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP H08217246 A (provided translation cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chilson et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0266381 A1.
Regarding claim 12 Roethling et al teach the claimed first sensor unit is arranged at the rear side of the transport system, “The laser scanner 8 is attached at the rear of the industrial truck 1.” (P[0051] and Figure 3).
Roethling et al do not explicitly teach the claimed obstacle recognition device comprises a second sensor that is arranged at the front side of the transport system. Roethling et al do teach that the sensors may be attached or positioned freely and selected according to the technical conditions P[0033]. These sensors may be installed any on part the industrial truck. Chilson et al teach the claimed obstacle recognition device comprises a second sensor that is arranged at the front side of the transport system, “the AGV 10 further includes two sets of distance sensors, rear distance measuring devices 20, and front distance measuring devices 30” (P[0034] and Figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous industrial truck of Roethling et al and the turning off of the sensor when there are no detected obstacles of Takano et al with the AGV having rear and front distance measuring devices of Chilson et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, effectively, efficiently, and accurately use guidance systems to automatically load and unload a transport (Chilson et al P[0013]).
Regarding claim 13 Roethling et al teach the claimed control apparatus reduces a speed at which the transport system travels over the free placement arear compared to a speed at which the transport system is moved when the second sensor unit is arranged at the front in a direction of movement of the transport system, “The control system preferably comprises a control unit for the desired travel direction and the speed, a control unit for the movement, and a control unit for the safety of the industrial truck.” P[0020], and “The third control unit 11 calculates the travel distance (safe wheel odometry) from the actual speeds and sets the velocity to v=0 mm/s via the second control unit 10 when the predetermined travel distance (Y) is reached.” P[0058]. The industrial truck reaching the final position (Figure 4e) and stopping would be a reduced speed compared to the vehicle being driven in the other direction.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethling et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0101789 A1 and Takano et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP H08217246 A (provided translation cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sakai Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0278281 A1.
Regarding claim 14 Roethling et al teach the claimed drive unit is an electrical drive unit, a first motor for the travel movement of the industrial truck 1 P[0049], the first motor is interpreted as an electrical motor. Roethling et al do not teach the claimed control apparatus monitors a power consumption of the drive unit, and the claimed when the power consumption exceeds a threshold value then the control apparatus stops the transport system.
Sakai teaches,
the claimed control apparatus monitors a power consumption of the drive unit, “the MCU 14a measures the remaining battery power” (P[0140], Figures 5a, 11 thru 15), and “the notification indicates the remaining battery power Pi or Pj” (P[0168] and Figure 15 step S506), wherein
the claimed when the power consumption exceeds a threshold value then the control apparatus stops the transport system, “the management device 50 determines whether the remaining battery power Pi is greater than the threshold value A (at step S507). If Pi>A, the processing returns to step S503. If Pi≤A, the processing proceeds to step S505, where the management device 50 issues the alert and transmits a stop instruction to the AGV 10.” (P[0168] and Figure 15 steps S507 and S505).
The monitoring and control of the AGV to stop for low power situations of Sakai would be combined with Roethling et al to control the industrial truck to stop when it has low power. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous industrial truck of Roethling et al and the turning off of the sensor when there are no detected obstacles of Takano et al with the AGV being stopped when it is in a low power condition of Sakai in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce the risk that the remaining battery power may become insufficient in the middle of the travel (Sakai P[0144]).
Related Art
The examiner points to Jacobus et al PGPub 2014/0277691 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Jacobus et al is directed to autonomous fork trucks with sensors for identifying obstacles (abstract) and performs pallet engagement and disengagement for placing pallets in particular locations (P[0106] thru P[0110] and Figure 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662