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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-19, and 22 are pending. Claims 1, 13, 15, and 17 are the independent claims. Claims 1, 8, 12-13, 15, 17, 19, and 22 have been amended. Claim 21 has been cancelled. Claims 2, 6-7, 20, and 23-24 had been previously cancelled. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 06/04/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/04/2026, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims filed on 06/04/2026, claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C § 112(f) was removed, and the rejection of claims 13-14, 17-18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) were withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 13, 15, 17, 19 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b), the amended claims do not overcome the claims indefiniteness, because the terms “higher position than the upper end of the transfer target” and “positioned at the same height as the detection object” render the claim indefinite (See rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in office action below). Also, amended claim 22 necessitates a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b).
Further, applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 22, under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that the art relied upon in non-final office action filed on 03/04/2026, fails to disclose claimed features as currently amended. In particular, applicant argued that the two-level sensing architecture for detecting position of the target object by the first distance sensor and detecting the posture of the target object by the second distance device, with the claimed sensors arrangement, have not been taught by the art. The office respectfully disagrees because the combination of the prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant argues that the detecting part in Wei’s disclosure detects the position of an object through fiducial-mark or image identification a position management system while in the claimed invention, the detecting part is a distance sensor (as newly added to claim 1) and detects the position of an object based on the distance between the mobile device and the target object. However, this is the office stance that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art to substitute the object identification device in Wei with a distance sensor (as also referred as a method in paragraph [0006] of Wei) in view of the teaching of Maki and Takao. Therefore, the combination of art would arrive at the claimed feature.
Further, Applicant’s argument with respect to Maki reference has been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the sensors in Maki are arranged to address a different problem and do not teach the upper sensor detecting a position and lower sensor detecting a posture of a target object. The argument is unpersuasive because Maki was relied upon for the teaching of the detection range of the detecting part (i.e. distance sensor) being two dimensional and horizontal and also for teaching of the physical placement of two different distance sensors on the mobile body when one is located lower than the other. Examiner was not relied on Maki for teaching of different functions of the two sensors in Maki’s disclosure. Therefore, although Maki’s sensors installation serves a different purpose, the fact that the applicant has a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that using it in a prior art device would been prima facia obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference. In re Lintner, 173 USPQ 560. Therefore, although the purpose of sensor installation is different in Maki, but Maki teaches the sensor arrangement. Also Maki teaches using a distance sensor to detect the position of an object.
Further, Applicant argues that Takao does not teach two-level sensing architecture with an upper first distance sensor being used for calculating position of a transfer target and a lower second sensor being used for calculating posture of the transfer target. This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner cited Maki for the teaching of the first sensor calculating position a transfer target, and Takao for using a distance sensor on a mobile body to calculate posture of a transfer target/object. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Maki and Takao to employ two different sensors on a mobile body for separately calculating the position and posture of an object. Therefore, the office maintains that the rejections are proper. However, to advance prosecution, a new alternative reference to Takao is added in the office action below.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 22 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.
With respects to claims 1, 13, 15, 17, and 19 , the limitations “[…] located at a higher position than an upper end of the transfer target”, and “located at a higher position than and upper end of the transfer target when referenced to the surface”, and “positioned at the same height as the detection object” in claims 1, 13, 15, 17, and 19 , render the claim indefinite because of the terms “higher than the upper end of the transfer target” and “same height as the detection object” “higher position than an upper end of the transfer target” and “positioned at the same height” are not defined by the claim, because the range of height which would be included in “higher than the upper part of the target object” are variable based on the height of the target object. The height of the target object is variable since it is not currently defined. Therefore, terms higher than an upper end of .. or same height as ... , are relative term; See MPEP2173.05(b) section II (See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki). Also, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, the limitation “higher position than the upper end of the transfer object” and “same height as the detection object” are indefinite given that the transfer target's height/position is variable and not definitely defined in the claims in that this relationship/positioning is in reference to some undefined height/shape of "transfer object". Therefore, the aforementioned claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(b).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, the term located at a higher position than an upper end of the transfer target has been interpreted as any location on top of the transfer target or any other location that is above the transfer target.
Claims 3-5, 8-12, 14, 16, 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) as being dependent on the indefinite claims.
With respect to claim 22, it is recited “wherein the first detecting part includes a laser rangefinder”. It is unclear to the examiner whether the first detecting part has both the first distance sensor of claim 1 and the laser rangefinder of claim 22 as separate elements, or the distance sensor/detecting part is a laser rangefinder. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as the distance sensor (i.e. first detecting part) being a laser rangefinder.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al., US 20180253678 A1, hereinafter “Wei”, in view of Maki, WO 2021220331 A1, hereinafter “Maki”, further in view of Takao, US 20230348247 A1, hereinafter “Takao” (or, in alternative rejection, Hiroki et al., US20220289538A1, hereinafter “Hiroki”).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a transfer system ([0002], [0008]) comprising: a mobile body configured to travel and to transfer a transfer object ([0008], “transporting device with a carried object”, “mobile robot”); a detection object mounted to the transfer object, the detection object being located at a higher position than the upper end of the transfer object when referenced to a surface on which the mobile body travels ([0081], “fiducial mark 31”, “fiducial mark 31 is provided on the top of carried object 3.”, __fiducial mark on top of the carried object reads on detection object mounted to the object at a higher position than the object __); a first detecting part located at a higher position than the upper end of transfer target when referenced to the surface, ([0081], “Carried object identification device 4 can be a fiducial mark identification device 41, used for identifying fiducial mark 31”, “Fiducial mark identification device 41 is provided on the top of work space 1 […] located above the top of carried object 3”, __identification device reads on first detecting part__), a control device including at least one processor and a memory device and configured to control the mobile body ([0020]-[0023], [0008]-[0009], “storing the coordinate [] into a position management system”, [0034]), the control device being configured to receive a first detection result of the detection object (__Note: since the calculation of the position of the transfer target is based on the first detecting result, position is interpreted as coordinate/location of the transfer target__, [0081], “acquiring the coordinate of at least one carried object 3 according to the information carried by fiducial mark 31.”, __acquiring the coordinate of the carried object according to the fiducial mark information obtained from fiducial mark identification device, reads on calculating the position of the transfer target based on the first detection result(which is obtained from first detecting part)__, claim 10, “calculating the optimized path for the transporting device traveling to the carried object according to the topological positions of the carried object”, Claim 14., “acquiring a coordinate of the target position”), and control the travel of the mobile body based on calculation results of the position and ([0009], “transporting device to travel to the position of the carried object according to the travel instruction; ”[0031], [0034], [0072], “identifying the coordinate of at least one carried object 3”, “transporting device 2 travels to the position of carried object 3 ”).
According to at least cited paragraph, Wei discloses determining position of a transfer target by detecting a fiducial mark installed on a transfer target and also according to paragraph [0006], Wei refers to using distance sensor for detecting the deviation between the cargos and the target positions and correcting the position of the vehicle body after detecting deviations, however, Wei doesn’t explicitly disclose calculation position and posture of a transfer target, respectively, from a first distance sensor and a second reference sensor. Therefore, Wei is silent about the following limitations:
the first detecting part including a first distance sensor;
the first distance sensor being configured to have a first horizontal two-dimensional detection range positioned at the same height as the detection object and detect the detection object;
a second detecting part mounted to the mobile body and located at a lower position than the first detecting part, the second detecting part including a second distance sensor, the second distance sensor being configured to have a second horizontal two-dimensional detection range and detect at least one side surface of the transfer target;
receive a first detection result of the detection object from the first distance sensor and calculate a position of the transfer target based on the first detection result
receive a second detection result of the at least one side surface of the transfer target from the second distance sensor and calculate a posture of the transfer target based on the second detection result, and receive a first detection result of the detection object from the first distance sensor and calculate a position of the transfer target based on the first detection result, and control travel of the mobile body based on calculation results of the position and the posture.
However, Maki discloses a technique for mobile device applied to an environment such as a factory (at least [0014]) and suggests calculating a position of an object (reads on transfer target in the claim) using a distance sensor mounted on a mobile body. Maki teaches the first detecting part including a first distance sensor the first distance sensor being configured to have a first horizontal two-dimensional detection range positioned at the same height as the detection object and detect the detection object (at least Fig. 1, [0018], “two sensors 2 (2A, 2B) are installed in the moving body 1”, “each sensor 2 is a distance measuring sensor, and in particular, a two-dimensional laser scanner (laser range finder: sometimes referred to as LRF or the like)”, “The two-dimensional meaning is that the distance to the object can be detected in a plane (horizontal plane in this example) centered on the direction of the sensor 2. ”), a second detecting part mounted to the mobile body (at least [0018] and Fig. 2A, __sensor 2A and 2B__), and located at a lower position than the first detecting part (Fig 2A, __sensor 2B reads on second detecting part which is located at a lower position than sensor 2A which reads on first detecting par); the second detecting part including a second distance sensor, the second distance sensor configured to have a second horizontal two-dimensional detection range (at least Fig. 1, [0018], “two sensors 2 (2A, 2B) are installed in the moving body 1”, “each sensor 2 is a distance measuring sensor, and in particular, a two-dimensional laser scanner (laser range finder: sometimes referred to as LRF or the like)”, “The two-dimensional meaning is that the distance to the object can be detected in a plane (horizontal plane in this example) centered on the direction of the sensor 2. ”).
Further, Takao teaches the ([0051], [0068], [0070], “The target object information acquisition unit 74 shown in FIG. 5 acquires the detection result of the position information of the pallet P as a target object from the sensor 26 of the mobile machine 10 at the starting position AR1.”, __pallet in Takao disclosure is the transfer target__, ([0067], “a position indicates two-dimensional coordinates in the region A unless otherwise described.”, [0070], “scanning in the lateral direction (horizontal direction) while the mobile machine 10 is running on the route R.”); receive a ([0051], “The sensor 26 detects at least one of a position and a direction of an object present around the vehicle body 20. It can also be said that the sensor 26 detects the position of the object with respect to the mobile machine 10 and the direction of the object with respect to the mobile machine 10.”, “The sensor 26 is, for example, a sensor that emits laser light. The sensor 26 emits laser light while scanning in one direction (here, a lateral direction) and detects the position and the direction of the object from reflected light of the emitted laser light.”, [0071], “The direction of the pallet P indicates a direction in which the pallet P faces the mobile machine 10, and more specifically, indicates a direction in which the front surface Pa of the pallet P faces the starting position AR1.”, [101], “detect the position and the direction of the pallet P from the side,”, __Note: according to at least paragraph [0051], a sensor is a laser sensor that reads on a distance sensor) and calculate a posture of the transfer target based on the second detection result ([0134], “The sensor 26 emits laser light while scanning in one direction (here, a lateral direction) and detects the position and the posture of the object from reflected light of emitted laser light”, [0155]), and control travel of the mobile body based on calculation results of the position and the posture ([0135], “The control device 28 controls the movement of the mobile machine 10.”, [0148], “The control device 28 sets the trajectory TR1 to the target position/posture AR2 based on the detection result of the position or on the posture of the pallet P in the sensor 26 of the mobile machine 10.”).
Takao uses laser sensor to detect the position and posture of the pallet based the reflected light from the pallet received by sensor (according to at least paragraph [0070]) which is a form of a distance sensor (as also recited in claim 22 of the present application), however, for the purpose of compact prosecution, in alternative rejection, Hiroki, more explicitly teaches determining attitude (reads on posture in the claim) of a target object, using distance sensor (See Hiroki, at least [0036]-[0037], [0046]).
Accordingly, calculating position and posture of an object using the results of distance sensors are taught in the art. Therefore, although Wei doesn’t disclose that the detecting part (identification device) for detecting is a distance sensor (e.g. laser rangefinder as further defined in claim 22), However, Maki teaches a detecting part being a laser range finder (See the rejection of claim 22), and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to substitute a visual sensor taught by Wei, to detect an object (by detecting a marker installed on the object) with a distance sensor (laser rangefinder) as taught by Maki to detect the detection objects/markers, for the object detections
With respect to the specific placement of sensors as recited in the claim (i.e using first sensor and second sensor in predefined locations, to calculate position and posture of a transfer target), in view of the cased law In Re Japikse in that the currently level of generality claimed, the specific placement of the sensors does not affect the unlaying principles of operation of those sensor/of the device. Therefore, the claimed specific placement is merely a matter of routine design choice and does not impart patentable weight or novelty over the cited references.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transporting device with first and second detecting parts as taught by Wei and substitute it with a first and second detecting part/sensors (at least according to paragraph [0018] and Fig. 1 of Maki), with distance sensor/laser range finder with two-dimensional detection range as taught by Maki, and further modified it to use the second detecting part to calculate the posture of the target object (transfer object) as taught by Takao or Hiroki, and control the transporting device base on the results of the calculated position and posture of the target object as taught by Wei in view of Takao, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and precision of controlling mobile body by increasing the accuracy of detecting the target object in a two dimensional detection range, by knowing the object’s orientation and position that allows the mobile device to align itself properly for picking, moving, etc. of the target object and it ensures accurate, safe and efficient transfer.
Regarding claim 3, Wei discloses the control device causes the mobile body to travel toward the transfer target to which the detected detection object is mounted. ([0009], “transporting device to travel to the position of the carried object according to the travel instruction; ”[0031], [0034], [0072], “identifying the coordinate of at least one carried object 3”, “transporting device 2 travels to the position of carried object 3 ”, ([0081], “Carried object identification device 4 can be a fiducial mark identification device 41, used for identifying fiducial mark 31”, [0008], “fiducial mark is provided on the top of the carried object”).
Regarding claim 9, Wei in view of Maki teaches the system according to claim 1, however, Wei doesn’t teach wherein the first detecting part is mounted to the mobile body.
Maki teaches the first detecting part is mounted to the mobile body. (Fig 1, __sensor 2A__, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transporting device as taught by modified Wei, to include the detecting part mounted to the mobile body, as taught by Maki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation to increase the accuracy and efficiency in the performance of the transferring system.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Wei discloses a control device comprising at least one processor and a memory device and configured to (and a method for controlling) control a mobile body that travels and transfers a transfer target ([0020]-[0023], [0008]-[0009], “transporting device with a carried object” “storing the coordinate [] into a position management system”, “mobile robot”, [0034]), the control device being configured to: receive a detection result of a detection object from a first detecting part, ([0081], “fiducial mark identification device 41, used for identifying fiducial mark 31, and acquiring the coordinate of at least one carried object 3 according to the information carried by fiducial mark 31.”, [0084]) , the detection object being mounted to the transfer target transferred by the mobile body (([0081], “fiducial mark 31”, “fiducial mark 31 is provided on the top of carried object 3.”), the detection object and ([0081], “fiducial mark 31”, “fiducial mark 31 is provided on the top of carried object 3.”, __fiducial mark on top of the carried object reads on detection object mounted to the object at a higher position than the object __), calculate a position of the transfer target based on the first detection result (__Note: since the calculation of the position of the transfer target is based on the first detecting result, position is interpreted as coordinate/location of the transfer target__, [0081], “acquiring the coordinate of at least one carried object 3 according to the information carried by fiducial mark 31.”, __acquiring the coordinate of the carried object according to the fiducial mark information obtained from fiducial mark identification device, reads on calculating the position of the transfer target based on the first detection result(which is obtained from first detecting part)__, claim 10, “calculating the optimized path for the transporting device traveling to the carried object according to the topological positions of the carried object”, Claim 14., “acquiring a coordinate of the target position”), and control the travel of the mobile body based on calculation results of the position and the posture ([0009], “transporting device to travel to the position of the carried object according to the travel instruction; ”[0031], [0034], [0072], “identifying the coordinate of at least one carried object 3”, “transporting device 2 travels to the position of carried object 3 ”).
According to at least cited paragraph, Wei discloses determining position of a transfer target by detecting a fiducial mark installed on a transfer target and also according to paragraph [0006], Wei refers to using distance sensor for detecting the deviation between the cargos and the target positions and correcting the position of the vehicle body after detecting deviations, however, Wei doesn’t explicitly disclose calculation position and posture of a transfer target, respectively, from a first distance sensor and a second reference sensor. Therefore, Wei is silent about the following limitations:
the first detecting part including a first distance sensor;
the first distance sensor being configured to have a first horizontal two-dimensional detection range positioned at the same height as the detection object and detect the detection object;
receive a second detection result of at least one side surface of the transfer target from a second detecting part, the second detecting part including a second distance sensor, the second distance sensor being mounted to the mobile body and located at a lower position than the first distance sensor, the second distance sensor being configured to have a second horizontal two-dimensional detection range and detect at least one side surface of the transfer target, calculate a posture of the transfer target based on the second detection result,
control the travel of the mobile body based on calculation results of the position and the posture
However, Maki discloses a technique for mobile device applied to an environment such as a factory (at least [0014]) and suggests calculating a position of an object (reads on transfer target in the claim) using a distance sensor mounted on a mobile body. Maki teaches the first detecting part including a first distance sensor the first distance sensor being configured to have a first horizontal two-dimensional detection range positioned at the same height as the detection object and detect the detection object (at least Fig. 1, [0018], “two sensors 2 (2A, 2B) are installed in the moving body 1”, “each sensor 2 is a distance measuring sensor, and in particular, a two-dimensional laser scanner (laser range finder: sometimes referred to as LRF or the like)”, “The two-dimensional meaning is that the distance to the object can be detected in a plane (horizontal plane in this example) centered on the direction of the sensor 2. ”),
Further, Takao teaches the ([0051], [0068], [0070], “The target object information acquisition unit 74 shown in FIG. 5 acquires the detection result of the position information of the pallet P as a target object from the sensor 26 of the mobile machine 10 at the starting position AR1.”, __pallet in Takao disclosure is the transfer target__, [0067], “a position indicates two-dimensional coordinates in the region A unless otherwise described.”, [0070], “scanning in the lateral direction (horizontal direction) while the mobile machine 10 is running on the route R.”); receive a second detection result of the at least one side surface of the transfer target from the second distance sensor ([0051], “The sensor 26 detects at least one of a position and a direction of an object present around the vehicle body 20. It can also be said that the sensor 26 detects the position of the object with respect to the mobile machine 10 and the direction of the object with respect to the mobile machine 10.”, “The sensor 26 is, for example, a sensor that emits laser light. The sensor 26 emits laser light while scanning in one direction (here, a lateral direction) and detects the position and the direction of the object from reflected light of the emitted laser light.”, [0071], “The direction of the pallet P indicates a direction in which the pallet P faces the mobile machine 10, and more specifically, indicates a direction in which the front surface Pa of the pallet P faces the starting position AR1.”, [101], “detect the position and the direction of the pallet P from the side,”, __Note: according to at least paragraph [0051], a sensor is a laser sensor that reads on a distance sensor) and calculate a posture of the transfer target based on the second detection result ([0134], “The sensor 26 emits laser light while scanning in one direction (here, a lateral direction) and detects the position and the posture of the object from reflected light of emitted laser light”, [0155]), and control travel of the mobile body based on calculation results of the position and the posture ([0135], “The control device 28 controls the movement of the mobile machine 10.”, [0148], “The control device 28 sets the trajectory TR1 to the target position/posture AR2 based on the detection result of the position or on the posture of the pallet P in the sensor 26 of the mobile machine 10.”).
Takao uses laser sensor to detect the position and posture of the pallet based the reflected light from the pallet received by sensor (according to at least paragraph [0070]) which is a form of a distance sensor (as also recited in claim 22 of the present application), however, for the purpose of compact prosecution, in alternative rejection, Hiroki, explicitly teaches determining attitude (reads on posture in the claim) of a target object, using distance sensor (See Hiroki, at least [0036]-[0037], [0046]).
Accordingly, calculating position and posture of an object using the results of distance sensors are taught in the art. Therefore, although Wei doesn’t disclose that the detecting part (identification device) for detecting is a distance sensor (e.g. laser rangefinder as further defined in claim 22), However, Maki teaches a detecting part being a laser range finder (See the rejection of claim 22), and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to substitute a visual sensor taught by Wei, to detect an object (by detecting a marker installed on the object) with a distance sensor (laser rangefinder) as taught by Maki to detect the detection objects/markers, for the object detections
With respect to the specific placement of sensors as recited in the claim (i.e using first sensor and second sensor in predefined locations, to calculate position and posture of a transfer target), in view of the cased law In Re Japikse in that the currently level of generality claimed, the specific placement of the sensors does not affect the unlaying principles of operation of those sensor/of the device. Therefore, the claimed specific placement is merely a matter of routine design choice and does not impart patentable weight or novelty over the cited references.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transporting device with first and second detecting parts as taught by Wei and substitute it with a first and second detecting part/sensors (at least according to paragraph [0018] and Fig. 1 of Maki), with distance sensor/laser range finder with two-dimensional detection range as taught by Maki, and further modified it to use the second detecting part to calculate the posture of the target object (transfer object) as taught by Takao or Hiroki, and control the transporting device base on the results of the calculated position and posture of the target object as taught by Wei in view of Takao, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and precision of controlling mobile body by increasing the accuracy of detecting the target object in a two dimensional detection range, by knowing the object’s orientation and position that allows the mobile device to align itself properly for picking, moving, etc. of the target object and it ensures accurate, safe and efficient transfer.
Regarding claim 15, Wei discloses A mobile body that travels ([0008], “transporting device with a carried object”, “mobile robot,) with similar limitation as recited in claim 1 (See the rejection for claim 1 for the rejection mapping).
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations are similar to claims 13 and 17 for a non-transitory medium. Therefore, all the limitations are rejected based on the same mapping used for the rejections of claims 13 and 17 (See rejections for claims 13 and 17). Further, regarding claim 19, Wei doesn’t explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, that causes a computer to control a mobile body that travels. However, Wei refers to storing data in paragraphs (e.g., [0008], “identifying the fiducial mark and acquiring the coordinate of the carried object, and storing the coordinate of the carried object into a position management system.”) and also recites terms like “automatically” (e.g., [0034], “the transporting device can automatically adjust direction”) or “robot”. One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention would understand that these functions would routinely and conventionally be performed by a computer. Also, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is a common and well-known component of a conventional computer. Furthermore, Maki also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Maki, [0066] “The memory 603 stores a control program 630”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transporting device as taught by modified Wei, with non-transitory medium storing a program as a common part of a controlling device and also as taught by Maki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with motivation of storing a control device computer program.
Regarding claim 22, Wei in view of Maki teaches the system according to claim 1, however, however, although Wei teaches identification device for identifying the fiducial marker being a visual laser(at least paragraph [0008]), but, Wei doesn’t teach wherein the first detecting part is a laser rangefinder, and the laser rangefinder scans a laser beam ([0018], “a two-dimensional laser scanner (laser range finder: sometimes called LRF or the like”) and receives the reflected light reflected from the detection object.
Maki teaches the first detecting part is a laser rangefinder ([0018], “a laser range finder”), and the laser rangefinder is configured to scan a laser beam and receives the reflected light reflected from the detection object ([0038], “The sensor 2 emits laser light while scanning […] and the laser light returning from that characteristic point”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transporting device as taught by modified Wei with the laser rangefinder as taught by Maki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of measuring distance data to the surfaces of physical objects in the surrounding area at multiple points in order to have precise measurements and improve the performance of the transporting device.
Claims 4, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wei in view of Maki and Takao (or Hiroki), further in view of Diankov, US 11648676 B2, hereinafter “Diankov”.
Regarding claim 4, Wei in view of Maki teaches the system according to claim 1, however, Wei in view of Maki and Takao doesn’t explicitly disclose when the mobile body transfers an other transfer target, the control device causes the mobile body to travel to a position next to the transfer target to which the detected detection object is mounted.
However, Diankov teaches when the mobile body transfers an other transfer target, the control device causes the mobile body to travel to a position next to the transfer target to which the detected detection object is mounted. (Page 25 Col 10, Line 41-44, “The robotic system 100 can place the new target object 402 at a designated location, which can be adjacent to and/or over the previously placed/targeted object 112.”, __new target object reads on another object__, Page 28, Col 16, Line 53-57), “the robotic system 100 can move the transfer tray 506 […] to locations adjacent to and/or over the source container 304”, Page 32, Col 23, Line 32-34, “the transfer tray 506 can include an identification sensor (e.g., the RFID sensor or the visual code sensor) that identifies the object placed on the tray. ”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transporting system as taught by modified Wei, to include the control device cause the mobile device which carry another object to travel to a position next to the object to which detected detection object is mounted, as taught by Diankov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation to increase the accuracy and efficiency in the performance of the transferring system.
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 18, Wei in view of Maki and Takao discloses wherein the mobile body is caused to travel toward the transfer target to which the detected detection object is mounted ([0009], “transporting device to travel to the position of the carried object according to the travel instruction; ”[0031], [0034], [0072], “identifying the coordinate of at least one carried object 3”, “transporting device 2 travels to the position of carried object 3 ”, ([0081], “Carried object identification device 4 can be a fiducial mark identification device 41, used for identifying fiducial mark 31”, [0008], “fiducial mark is provided on the top of the carried object”).
Wei in view of Maki doesn’t teach when the mobile body transfers an other transfer target, the mobile body is caused to travel to a position next to the transfer target to which the detected detection object is mounted.
However, Diankov teaches when the mobile body transfers an other transfer target, the control device causes the mobile body to travel to a position next to the object to which the detected detection object is mounted. (Page 25 Col 10, Line 41-44, “The robotic system 100 can place the new target object 402 at a designated location, which can be adjacent to and/or over the previously placed/targeted object 112.”, __new target object reads on another object__, Page 28, Col 16, Line 53-57), “the robotic system 100 can move the transfer tray 506 […] to locations adjacent to and/or over the source container 304”, Page 32, Col 23, Line 32-34, “the transfer tray 506 can include an identification sensor (e.g., the RFID sensor or the visual code sensor) that identifies the object placed on the tray. ”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transporting system as taught by modified Wei, to include the control device cause the mobile device which carry another object to travel to a position next to the object to which detected detection object is mounted, as taught by Diankov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation to increase the accuracy and efficiency in the performance of the transferring system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Maki and Takao (or Hiroki), further in view of Matsumoto et al., US 20090012667 A1, hereinafter “Matsumoto”.
Regarding claim 5, Wei in view of Maki teaches the system according to claim 1, however, Wein in view of Maki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control device determines an existence or absence of the transfer target at a position of the detected detection object by comparing the position of the detection object with a stop position of the transfer target on a map.
However, Matsumoto teaches wherein the control device determines an existence or absence of the transfer target at a position of the detected detection object by comparing the position of the detection object with a stop position of the object on a map ([0059], [0061], [0081], [0085], [0087], [0094], [0155]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of controlling a transporting device as taught by modified Wei, to include the step of comparing the position of the detection object obtained from the sensor with the position of the object in the map as taught by Matsumoto and use it in determining whether the detection object is actually located at the position of the detected detection object in order to prevent the system from mis-detecting any other object (rather than the target detection object) located in the position of detected detection object (as described in paragraph [0058] of the present application), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation to increase the accuracy and efficiency in the performance of the mobile device in the transferring system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Maki and Takao (or Hiroki), further in view of Frapsauce, US 20170321468, hereinafter “Frapsauce”.
Regarding claim 8, Wei discloses a plurality of the detection objects is mounted to the transfer target ([0081], “each carried object 3 is provided with at least one fiducial mark 31”).
Wei doesn’t teach the transfer target includes a door, the door being openable and closable, one of the plurality of detection objects is mounted to the door, and the control device calculates a state of the door based on detection results of the plurality of detection objects from the first distance sensor.
However, Frapsauce teaches the transfer target includes a door, the door being openable and closable, one of the plurality of detection objects is mounted to the door, and the control device calculates a state of the door based on detection results of the plurality of detection objects from the first distance sensor (at least Abstract, [0004], [0009]-[0011])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transporting device as taught by modified Wei to include the plurality of detection objects mounted to a door as taught by Frapsauce, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the safety and efficiency of the transfer system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Maki and Takao (or Hiroki), further in view of Prasad, US 20240303598 A1, hereinafter “Prasad”.
Regarding claim 10, Wei in view of Maki teaches the system according to claim 1, however, Wei doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the detection object is mounted by a human to the transfer target determined to be transferred.
Nevertheless, the claim is a product by process claim and the limitation of the detection object is mounted to the transfer target by a human doesn’t add any real limitation unless it impacts the structure/functionality of the device. In other words, whether the detection object is mounted by a person or by a machine, doesn’t make any difference in the structure.
However, for the purpose of compact persecution, this feature is taught by Prasad. Prasad teaches the detection object is mounted to the transfer target by a human ([0100], “operator places the new labels on the item.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transfer system as taught by Kawaguchi to include the plurality of detection objects mounted on the object as taught by Wei and the detection objects being mounted on the object by a human as taught by Prasad, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of having a real-person control by using an operator in order to selectively mount the objection detection on the objects that are scheduled to be transferred by the mobile device.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Maki (or Hiroki), further in view of Kitano, US 20200401158 A1, hereinafter “Kitano”.
Regarding claim 11, Wei in view of Maki teaches the system according to claim 1, however, Wei doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the detection object includes a reflective material. Maki teaches the laser light hits the object and is reflected; however, Maki doesn’t explicitly teach the detection object includes a reflective material.
However, Kitano teaches wherein the detection object includes a reflective material. ([0011] “marker including first cells capable of reflecting emitted light”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transporting device as taught by modified Wei to include detection objects as a reflective material as taught by Kitano, with a reasonable expectation of success, because using a detection object with a reflective material mounted on the object enhances detection accuracy and reliability, especially in low-light or visually complex environment.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Wei teaches the system according to claim 1, however, Maki teaches a plurality of the first distance sensors (see rejection of claim 1), however, modified Wei doesn’t teach wherein when the detection object is detected by the plurality of first detecting parts, the control device controls the travel of the mobile body based on a detection result from the first detecting part most proximate to the detection object.
However, Kitano teaches wherein when the detection object is detected by the plurality of first distance sensors, the control device controls the travel of the mobile body based on a detection result from a first distance sensor most proximate to the detection object. ([0011], “the calculator selects the detection object at a position nearest to the detector,”, “Selection of the marker serving as the detection object at the position nearest to the detector by the calculator is determined based on the distance between the detector and the selected marker.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transporting device as taught by modified Wei to include the control device which controls the travel of the mobile body based on a detection result from the first detecting part most proximate to the detection object as taught by Kitano, with the reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the accuracy and efficiency of the transfer mobile device performance.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujishima et al., US20220332554A1, discloses a mobile object that moves along a path and detects a position and attitude of a target object.
Hitoshi et al., JP5297727B2, discloses a method for estimating the position and orientation of an object using distance sensor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights