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 Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-17, 19, 21-24, and 27-30 of US Application No. 18/333,295 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13, and 22-24, added claims 28-30, and cancelled claims 11, 25, and 26. Applicant previously canceled claims 4, 8-10, 12, 18, and 20.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-17, 19, 21-23, and 27-30 allowed.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-17, 19, 21-23, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thode (US 2018/0059682 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2024/0075620 A1, “Park”).
Regarding claim 24, Thode discloses materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification and teaches:
one or more processors; and a data store configured to store computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (computing device 200 having a processor 205 and computer-readable medium 210 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]), configure the one or more processors to:
obtain data indicative of a mobile machine operating at a worksite (dynamic exterior boundary 13 having portions that approximate articulation boundaries 17 of a vehicle – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0039]);
generate a dynamic boundary output corresponding to the mobile machine, the dynamic boundary output indicative of a predictive boundary of the mobile machine at a location along a predictive path of the mobile machine at the worksite (dynamic exterior boundary 13 is configured to match the operational parameters of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0073]; path validation logic 240 predicts the position of the vehicle around a path in a warehouse at any point along the path, where the vehicle is defined by the dynamic exterior boundary – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0055]; clearance polygons for each pose of the vehicle as it traverses the path – see at least ¶ [0056]; dynamic exterior boundary represented by polygon – see at least ¶ [0038]);
generate a confidence band surrounding an area of the worksite to which the predictive boundary of the mobile machine corresponds (dynamic clearance boundary 19 offset from dynamic exterior boundary 13 to provide for an additional margin for error – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0060]), wherein the confidence band is generated based on [ ]:
machine sensor data indicative of one or more sensed characteristics of the mobile machine,
machine configuration data indicative of one or more configuration characteristics of the mobile machine,
georeferenced worksite data indicative of one or more georeferenced characteristics of the worksite, or
machine operation plan data indicative of one or more characteristics of an operation being performed by the mobile machine at the worksite (dynamic exterior boundary 13 may be determined based on articulation boundaries 17 of the vehicle – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0039]); and
control a machine subsystem based on the confidence band (path validation tool may use the clearance boundary 19 polygon first – see at least ¶ [0058]; at 1316, the proposed path may be modified based on impingement of the dynamic vehicle boundary with other obstacles determined at 1314 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084]-[0085]; at 1318, drive unit D, steering unit S, localization module L and navigation module N cooperate to direct the vehicle along the modified proposed travel path – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0003]).
Thode fails to teach but Park discloses an apparatus and method for generating dynamic safety zone of mobile robot
wherein the confidence band (sub safety areas 2010, 2020 – see at least Fig. 16 and ¶ [0128]) is generated based on [ ]:
machine sensor data indicative of one or more sensed characteristics of the mobile machine (attributes, e.g., size, shape, location, of the safety area may be determined in consideration of motion information of the mobile robot or environment information acquired from the sensor – see at least Fig. 16 and ¶ [0135]-[0136]),
machine configuration data indicative of one or more configuration characteristics of the mobile machine,
georeferenced worksite data indicative of one or more georeferenced characteristics of the worksite.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification of Thode to have provided the confidence band based on additional factors such as machine sensor data indicative of sensed characteristics of the machine, as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve safety of the machine by generating a safety zone according to a speed of the machine (Park at ¶ [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-17, 19, 21-23, and 27-30 allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights