DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending in this application. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 were amended by preliminary amendment, and claim 5 was canceled.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a computer system with an image processing algorithm to process the transferred images". The transfer process implied by the term “the transferred images” is unclear. The source of these images may be supposed to be the previously introduced camera, but this is not established by the claim, nor is the mechanism by which transfer occurs. This question of source and mechanism amounts to a point of indefiniteness for which further clarification is required in the claim. Claims 2-4 inherit the rejection of parent claim 1. For applicant’s guidance, claim 6, in contrast to claim 1, explicitly discloses transferring images from a camera to a computer system and so is not subject to this rejection.
Further regarding claim 1, claim limitation “said vehicle comprises means for receiving information of number of rails to pass between start and stop positions in x- and y-directions according to the route from a central computer system,” (emphasis added) invokes 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 instant specification merely repeats the “means” of the claim in lines 17-19 on page 4. No structures are disclosed for applicant’s container handling vehicle that might constitute the claimed receiving means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Again, claims 2-4 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 on this additional ground.
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.
6. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan, et al., US 2020/0399060 (hereinafter Whelan) in view of Hognaland, Ingvar, US 2015/0307276 (hereinafter Hognaland) and further in view of Austrheim, Trond, WO 2019206440 (hereinafter Austrheim).
7. Regarding claim 1,
Whelan discloses:
A system for tracking the position of a container handling vehicle (30: fig. 3c) on a grid (14: fig. 1),This is the subject of Whelan’s invention, see abstract.
following a route relative to rails (22: fig. 1) on a frame structure forming a storage grid (14: fig. 1), the vehicle (30: fig. 3c) having first and second sets of wheels (34, 36: fig. 3C) connected to drives (not shown, [0011]) for moving the vehicle in corresponding x- and y-directions on the grid,
However, Whelan does not disclose all aspects of the limitations:
wherein the container handling vehicle has at least one camera (200, 400: fig. 8) mounted underneath to film downwards while the container handling vehicle is in motion a computer system with an image processing algorithm to process the transferred images and detect the rails in the images, and the camera is positioned so as to be able to capture at least one rail in the x-direction and one rail in the y-direction while the container handling vehicle is positioned over a column.While Whelan discloses a plurality of cameras in fig. 8 mounted facing downward so as to capture images of the rails beneath its robot in [0084]-[0085], images that are subsequently processed by an image processing algorithm in [0087], Whelan’s camera sensors are mounted by default near the base of its robot but not actually underneath it. Whelan, however, does not teach away from a possible underneath mounting, reciting in [0053] and [0085] that the sensors may be mounted in other locations not depicted in the figures, including in the inside face of the transporting device. Such a mounting is suggestive of a mounting underneath the vehicle and for this reason we invoke a secondary teaching reference for the camera placement. Regarding the claimed view of both x- and y-direction rails, Whelan discloses that its sensors can detect images of rails in both a first x direction ([0054]) and a second y direction ([0055]). Any robot placement whatsoever on a storage grid structure such as Whelan’s (or applicant’s) is necessarily over a column as the grid is composed of a dense array of columns.
said vehicle comprises means (Whelan, 101: fig. 5) for receiving information of number of rails to pass between start and stop positions in x- and y-directions according to the route from a central computer system,Whelan’s robot is directed to move from one grid cell coordinate to another. This communication of coordinates does not explicitly comprise the number of rails to cross and so is unsatisfactory in disclosing the limitation. However, we note that Whelan is fully capable of performing the given method because the number of rails to cross is computable from the grid coordinates communicated to Whelan’s robot, and moreover Whelan’s robot is capable of detecting the rails it crosses. Whelan’s communication means is disclosed as Receiving Unit 101 in fig. 5 and [0049]-[0050].
Hognaland, an invention in the field of storage system robotics, teaches the missing aspects of the limitation:
wherein the container handling vehicle has at least one camera mounted underneath to film downwards while the container handling vehicle is in motion a computer system with an image processing algorithm to process the transferred images and detect the rails in the images, and the camera is positioned so as to be able to capture at least one rail in the x-direction and one rail in the y-direction while the container handling vehicle is positioned over a column.Hognaland teaches that its image sensors may be located underneath its robotic vehicle in [0014]. For method compatibility with Whelan, Hognaland teaches that the purpose of its sensors is to determine vehicle position on a rail grid in [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Whelan, wherein the container handling vehicle has at least one camera mounted underneath to film downwards while the container handling vehicle is in motion a computer system with an image processing algorithm to process the transferred images and detect the rails in the images, and the camera is positioned so as to be able to capture at least one rail in the x-direction and one rail in the y-direction while the container handling vehicle is positioned over a column, as taught by Hognaland, because a camera position underneath a vehicle plainly allows for an unobstructed view of structures beneath the vehicle.
Austrheim, an invention in the same field of the applicant (and indeed of the same applicant), teaches the limitation:
said vehicle comprises means for receiving information of number of rails to pass between start and stop positions in x- and y-directions according to the route from a central computer system,Austrheim teaches this method in P11/L21-37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Whelan, where said vehicle comprises means for receiving information of number of rails to pass between start and stop positions in x- and y-directions according to the route from a central computer system, as taught by Austrheim because in the absence of any other means of definitely detecting a robot’s grid coordinate position in a dense grid storage system, counting the rails traversed from a known start position fixes the robot’s current position and allows a determination of whether it has reached its destination.
8. Regarding claim 2,
Whelan in view of Hognaland and Austrheim teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one camera is a time-of-flight camera.Whelan teaches the use of a time-of-flight sensor in [0090]. This is a well-known range-finding means that employs a single camera.
9. Regarding claim 3,
Whelan in view of Hognaland and Austrheim teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein two or more cameras are positioned underneath of the container handling vehicle to film downwards while the container handling vehicle is in motion.Whelan discloses in its fig. 8 that at least two different cameras (200, 400) are positioned similarly, on sides of the vehicle at the base. In combination with Hognaland, which teaches camera placement underneath the vehicle in its [0014], Whelan’s cameras would be mounted as claimed. These cameras are fixed, and film downward whether or not the vehicle is in motion.
10. Regarding claim 4,
Whelan in view of Hognaland and Austrheim teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the two or more cameras are pointing in different directions.Whelan discloses in fig. 6 an arrangement of four cameras 200, 300, 400, and 500, pointing in different directions (the angled truncated pyramid forms such as 201 indicate the directional view of the cameras). This is evidently a different arrangement of cameras from that depicted in figs. 7-8. As modified in combination with Hognaland, Whelan’s fig. 6 teaches and suggests its cameras being mounted underneath the robot according to the requirements of claim 1 but still pointing in their respective directions as depicted in fig. 6.
11. Regarding claim 6,
Whelan discloses:
A method for tracking the position of a container handling vehicle (30: fig. 3c) following a route relative to rails (22: fig. 1) laid out on a frame structure forming a storage grid (14: fig. 1), the vehicle having first and second sets of wheels (34, 36: fig. 3C) connected to drives (not shown, [0011]) for moving the vehicle in corresponding x- and y-directions on the grid,
positioning the camera so as to be able to capture at least one rail in the x-direction and one rail in the v-direction while the container handling vehicle is positioned over a column,Whelan discloses that its sensors can detect images of rails in both a first x direction ([0054]) and a second y direction ([0055]). Any robot placement whatsoever on a storage grid structure such as Whelan’s (or applicant’s) is necessarily over a column as the grid is composed of a dense array of columns.
transmitting the images to a computer system (control unit 100: fig. 5, [0046]), using an image processing algorithm to process the transferred images,Whelan discloses that its acquired images are processed by an image processing algorithm in [0087].
detecting the rails in the images,Whelan discloses scanning the rails in [0053].
inferring the position of the container handling vehicle on the basis of the detection of the rails in the images.Whelan discloses the control unit calculating vehicle position in [0051] based on the sensor information received.
However, Whelan does not disclose all aspects of:
detecting and monitoring rails passed when moving the vehicle in the x- and y- directions according to the route by means of filming downwards using at least one camera mounted underneath the container handling vehicle while the container handling vehicle is in motion,While Whelan discloses a plurality of cameras (200, 400: fig. 8) mounted facing downward so as to capture images of the rails beneath its robot in [0084]-[0085], images that are subsequently processed by an image processing algorithm in [0087], Whelan’s camera sensors are mounted by default near the base of its robot but not actually underneath it. Whelan, however, does not teach away from a possible underneath mounting, reciting in [0053] and [0085] that the sensors may be mounted in other locations not depicted in the figures, including in the inside face of the transporting device. Such a mounting is suggestive of a mounting underneath the vehicle and so is compatible with the explicit teaching of reference Hognaland below. Whelan’s camera sensors can scan its rails whether or not the robotic vehicle is in motion.
comprising: receiving information of a total number of rails to pass between start and stop positions in x- and y-directions according to the set route,Whelan’s robot is directed to move from one grid cell coordinate to another. This communication of coordinates does not explicitly comprise the number of rails to cross and so is unsatisfactory in disclosing the limitation. However, we note that Whelan is fully capable of performing the given method because the number of rails to cross is computable from the grid coordinates communicated to Whelan’s robot, and moreover Whelan’s robot is capable of detecting the rails it crosses.
Hognaland, an invention in the field of storage system robotics, teaches the missing aspects of the limitation:
detecting and monitoring rails passed when moving the vehicle in the x- and y- directions according to the route by means of filming downwards using at least one camera mounted underneath the container handling vehicle while the container handling vehicle is in motion,Hognaland teaches that its image sensors may be located underneath its robotic vehicle in [0014]. For method compatibility with Whelan, Hognaland teaches that the purpose of its sensors is to determine vehicle position on a rail grid in [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Whelan, detecting and monitoring rails passed when moving the vehicle in the x- and y- directions according to the route by means of filming downwards using at least one camera mounted underneath the container handling vehicle while the container handling vehicle is in motion, as taught by Hognaland, because a camera position underneath a vehicle plainly allows for an unobstructed view of structures beneath the vehicle.
Austrheim, an invention in the same field of the applicant (and indeed of the same applicant), teaches the limitation:
comprising: receiving information of a total number of rails to pass between start and stop positions in x- and y-directions according to the set route,,Austrheim teaches this method in P11/L21-37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Whelan, where said vehicle comprises means for receiving information of number of rails to pass between start and stop positions in x- and y-directions according to the route from a central computer system, as taught by Austrheim, because in the absence of any other means of definitely detecting a robot’s grid coordinate position in a dense grid storage system, counting the rails traversed from a known start position fixes the robot’s current position and allows a determination of whether it has reached its destination.
12. Regarding claim 7,
Whelan in view of Hognaland and Austrheim teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
using a 3D time of flight camera positioned underneath the container handling vehicle in order to detect the position of the container handling vehicle on the grid.Whelan teaches the use of a time-of-flight sensor in [0090]. This is a well-known range-finding means that employs a single camera.
13. Regarding claim 8,
Whelan in view of Hognaland and Austrheim teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
using two or more cameras to detect the position of the container handling vehicle on the grid.Whelan discloses in its fig. 8 that at least two different cameras (200, 400) are positioned similarly, on sides of the vehicle at the base. In combination with Hognaland, which teaches camera placement underneath the vehicle in its [0014], Whelan’s cameras would be mounted as claimed. These cameras are fixed, and film downward whether or not the vehicle is in motion.
14. Regarding claim 9,
Whelan in view of Hognaland and Austrheim teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
filming underneath the container handling vehicle in two or more directions using two or more cameras.Whelan discloses in fig. 6 an arrangement of four cameras 200, 300, 400, and 500, pointing in different directions (the angled truncated pyramid forms such as 201 indicate the directional view of the cameras). This is evidently a different arrangement of cameras from that depicted in figs. 7-8. As modified in combination with Hognaland, Whelan’s fig. 6 teaches and suggests its cameras being mounted underneath the robot according to the requirements of claim 1 but still pointing in their respective directions as depicted in fig. 6.
15. Regarding claim 10,
Whelan in view of Hognaland and Austrheim teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
transmitting the images to either/or a central computer system (control unit 100: fig. 1) or a computer system located on the container handling vehicle. Whelan teaches in [0046] that its control unit 100 receives information from the vehicle sensor 200, as well as from other vehicles, which determines that it is a central computer system and not a vehicle-mounted computer system. However, we note that all robots known to the art feature integrated computer systems at least in the form of programmable controllers, and that this on-board computer must necessarily receive image data from the robot’s camera as well as part of the process of passing the information onto a central computer for analysis.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0274390 is one of many examples of prior art that teach the use of two cameras pointing in different directions for the purpose of stereoscopic range-finding, a well-known range-finding method that is an alternative to the use of time of flight sensors. While applicant does not disclose the purpose of claim 4 and 9’s cameras pointing in different directions, range-finding is a possible motivation. US 2021/0032034 teaches a robotic vehicle that counts rail crossings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655