DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 7-8 that Clayton fails to “teach the recited communication units.” This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the sensor 112 of Clayton “is not described as capable communicating with the tracking marker. Nor is the tracking marker described as carrying configurable data.” The claims fail to recite any limitations requiring the carrying of configurable data. Additionally, claim 1 does not require that the control device is capable of communicating with the industrial truck; instead, the control device must simply be capable of receiving communications from the industrial truck. In Clayton, the use of the maker on the industrial truck communicates the position of the truck to the control device. Regarding claims 7 and 11, that the control system of Clayton receives a communication from the industrial truck still satisfies the claim limitation that the control device communicates with the communication unit on the industrial truck. Applicant further argues that “[t]he tracking marker serves as a reference point in the sensor’s field of view, rather than facilitating any electronic exchange or carrying programmable information.” This argument is not persuasive, because the claims lack any recitation of “facilitating any electronic exchange or carrying programmable information”. Applicant has chosen to vaguely and generically claim communication units without reciting any structure for said communication units, and further, to vaguely and generically claim receiving communications and communicating with communication units, without reciting any particular steps for communication or the complexity of information that is communicated. Under a broad, reasonable interpretation of these claim limitations, a sensor receiving a signal from a marker satisfies these claim limitations.
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.
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 control device in claims 1 and 7, disclosed as a general-purpose computer 20 configured to execute programs stored in a memory; and
The evaluation unit in claims 1 and 7, disclosed as the control device 20 in some embodiments.
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.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clayton et al., US 2019/0331474 A1 (hereinafter Clayton).
Regarding claim 1, Clayton teaches a device for checking a contour of a load received on an industrial truck, comprising:
a substrate travelable by the industrial truck (unlabeled surface upon which truck 102 sits, Fig. 1);
two or more sensor units (106, 110, Fig. 1);
wherein the two or more sensor units are configured for recording two-dimensional data and are arranged such that a substantially vertical detection area is spanned (vertical dimensions of slices 202, Fig. 2);
a control device configured to determine a relative position of the industrial truck located on the travelable substrate with respect to the substantially vertical detection area (14) (Central NUC, Fig. 4A), wherein the control device comprises a communication unit for receiving communications from the industrial truck (“one or more tracking markers (not shown) are affixed to (or painted on, printed on, etc.) the moving freight 102, or on the forklift or other mechanism transporting the moving freight,” ¶ 0022 – in this instance the marker communicates the position of the truck); and
at least one evaluation unit configured to evaluate data recorded by the two or more sensor units to determine, based on the relative position, that the area occupied by one or more of the industrial truck or the load carried by the industrial truck in the detection area meets a predetermined condition (Central NUC, Fig. 4A; “Furthermore, dimensions of the freight can be compared to expected dimensions of the freight to evaluate damage to the freight or to determine whether a customer was correctly charged for the actual volume of the freight,” ¶ 0017).
Regarding claim 2, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the two or more sensor units comprise are designed as laser scanners (“laser line generators 106,” ¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 3, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clayton also teaches wherein two of the two or more sensor units are oriented relative to one another in such a way that the detection area is configured as a rectangle, wherein the two sensor units are located in two mutually opposite corners of the rectangle (Rectangular slices 202, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the at least one evaluation unit or the two or more sensor units is configured to carry out a segmentation of the detection area in the vertical direction to carry out a division of the load received by the industrial truck into one of at least two value ranges (Rectangular slices 202 divide load, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the control device and the at least one evaluation unit are formed by a common data processing unit (Central NUC, Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 6, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Clayton also teaches a further sensor unit configured to detect a speed of the industrial truck traveling on the substrate and is operatively coupled to one or more of the control device or the evaluation unit (“the dimensioning system 100 includes a positioning sensor 112, e.g. (such as, e.g., a camera, motion detector, or other suitable image detector), positioned above the path 104 of the moving freight 102 and oriented toward the path 104 of the moving freight 102, and configured to detect the position, orientation and/or speed of the moving freight 102 as it passes through the laser curtain 108,” ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 7, Clayton teaches a system for checking a load received on an industrial truck, comprising:
at least one industrial truck configured to carry a load on a load handling means (102, Fig. 1), wherein the industrial truck comprises a first communication unit (“one or more tracking markers (not shown) are affixed to (or painted on, printed on, etc.) the moving freight 102, or on the forklift or other mechanism transporting the moving freight,” ¶ 0022 – in this instance the marker communicates the position of the truck); and
two or more sensor units, wherein the two or more sensor units are configured for recording two-dimensional data and are arranged such that a substantially vertical detection area is spanned (106, 110, Fig. 1);
a control device configured to determine the relative position of the at least one industrial truck located on a travelable subsurface with respect to the substantially vertical detection area (Central NUC, Fig. 4A), wherein the control device comprises a second communication unit for communicating with the first communication unit (“one or more tracking markers (not shown) are affixed to (or painted on, printed on, etc.) the moving freight 102, or on the forklift or other mechanism transporting the moving freight,” ¶ 0022 – in this instance the marker communicates the position of the truck); and
at least one evaluation unit configured to evaluate data recorded by the two or more sensor units to determine, based on a relative position, that the area occupied by one or more of the industrial truck or the load carried by the industrial truck in the detection area meets a predetermined condition (Central NUC 4A determines slices 202 which contain information on predetermined conditions, Figs. 2 and 4A;“Furthermore, dimensions of the freight can be compared to expected dimensions of the freight to evaluate damage to the freight or to determine whether a customer was correctly charged for the actual volume of the freight,” ¶ 0017).
Regarding claim 9, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above. Clayton also teaches a control system configured to transmit work instructions to the at least one industrial truck, wherein the control system communicates with the at least one industrial truck (computing system 402 capable of communicating through network 408, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the at least one industrial truck is configured to determine an absolute position or a relative position of the at least one industrial truck using a position sensor unit and is further configured to transmit the determined absolute position or the determined relative position to the control device (“The positioning sensor 112 captures data indicative of a current position of the moving freight 102 corresponding to each image is captured by the cameras 110,”; “one or more tracking markers (not shown) are affixed to (or painted on, printed on, etc.) the moving freight 102, or on the forklift or other mechanism transporting the moving freight,” ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 11, Clayton teaches a method for checking a contour of a load received on an industrial truck, comprising:
passing the industrial truck through a detection area of a control device on a drivable substrate, wherein the industrial truck is configured to carry the load on a load handling means (truck 102 drives past sensors 106, 110, Fig. 1) and includes a first communication unit, and further wherein the control device comprises a second communication unit for communicating with the first communication unit (“one or more tracking markers (not shown) are affixed to (or painted on, printed on, etc.) the moving freight 102, or on the forklift or other mechanism transporting the moving freight,” ¶ 0022 – in this instance the marker communicates the position of the truck);
determine, using the control device, a relative position of the industrial truck located on the drivable substrate with respect to the detection area (“The positioning sensor 112 captures data indicative of a current position of the moving freight 102 corresponding to each image is captured by the cameras 110,”; “one or more tracking markers (not shown) are affixed to (or painted on, printed on, etc.) the moving freight 102, or on the forklift or other mechanism transporting the moving freight,” ¶ 0022); and
determine, based on the relative position, that the area occupied by one or more of the industrial truck or the load carried by the industrial truck in the detection area meets a predetermined condition (slices 202 contain information corresponding to predetermined conditions, such as shape and dimensions of load on truck 102, Figs. 1 and 2;“Furthermore, dimensions of the freight can be compared to expected dimensions of the freight to evaluate damage to the freight or to determine whether a customer was correctly charged for the actual volume of the freight,” ¶ 0017).
Regarding claim 12, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above. Clayton also teaches moving the load handling means to a predetermined height (load 102 must be at predetermined height, which predetermined height is determined by the height of sensors 106 and 110, Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 14, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above. Clayton also teaches determining a position of the load relative to the load handling means (“The positioning sensor 112 captures data indicative of a current position of the moving freight 102 corresponding to each image is captured by the cameras 110,”; “one or more tracking markers (not shown) are affixed to (or painted on, printed on, etc.) the moving freight 102, or on the forklift or other mechanism transporting the moving freight,” ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 15, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above. Clayton also teaches adjusting the predetermined condition using one or more of a vehicle type of the industrial truck or a load carrier associated with the load (load 102 can be moved up or down or left or right or forward tilt or reward tilt by fork truck, thereby altering the predetermined conditions of the position and orientation of the load 102, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the at least one industrial truck is configured to carry the load on the load handling means in a height-displaceable manner (load 102 may be raised or lowered by fork truck, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 9, as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the control system further communicates with the control device (controller 402 communicates via network 408 and with sensors 100, Fig. 4).
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 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.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clayton.
Regarding claim 13:
Clayton teaches the invention of claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the industrial truck travels through the detection area at a speed (“For example, the cameras 110 capture one hundred images per second, two hundred images per second, etc. In some instances, the frequency of the cameras' 110 image capture is related to the speed of the moving freight 102. For example, the cameras 110 may capture images with a frequency sufficient to obtain one image for each inch the moving freight 102 travels. In other words, the cameras 110 capture images more frequently when the moving freight 102 passes through the diagonal laser curtain 108 at a higher speed, but less frequently when the moving freight 102 passes through the diagonal laser curtain 108 at a lower speed, in some embodiments. In the illustrated example, a time stamp is recorded each time an image is captured by the cameras 11,” ¶ 0021).
Clayton does not teach wherein the industrial truck travels through the detection area at a speed in a range from 50 to 200 millimeters per second.
It has been held that "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art would know that a standard cargo pallet is roughly 4 ft, or 1.2 m in length and width in the United States. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would know that a certain number of “slices” 202 (Fig. 2) of the cargo pallet will be necessary to accurately determine the dimensions of the pallet. Given that a scan time of 10 s would require a forklift speed of roughly .12 m/s to scan the entire pallet, one having ordinary skill in the art could certainly determine that a speed of .12 m/s is an appropriate speed of the forklift that will predictably allow generation of a sufficient number of slices of the cargo pallet to ensure proper dimensioning, without otherwise altering the operation of the forklift, and without otherwise causing a bottleneck in the operations of the freight facility that could result if the forklift speed was too slow through the scanning region, and/or without causing safety issues that may arise if the forklift speed was too fast through the scanning region.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Clayton to operate the forklift at 1.2 m/s through the scanning region, because this would predictably allow a scan time of roughly 10 s, thereby resulting in wherein the industrial truck travels through the detection area at a speed in a range from 50 to 200 millimeters per second (mm/s).
Regarding claim 16, Clayton teaches the invention of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above. Clayton also teaches wherein the speed is substantially 125 mm/s (as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above).
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 LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
10 June 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights