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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on February 24, 2026. Claim 20 has been amended. No claims have been newly added/cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on February 24, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are found partially persuasive.
Regarding the statement that Paterson as applied in claim 1 may not be modified by any reference that includes a pivot maneuver as a result of changing Paterson’s principle of operation which requires a specific fork configuration (Remarks, Section I on Page 7 and Section IV on Page 10, “…to do so would change the principle of operation of Paterson to not have the perpendicular forks”), the examiner respectfully disagrees. While Figure 3 shows MHV 60 operating with a fork assembly in a perpendicular direction, Paterson does not expressly require this configuration and further describes the fork assembly as being rotatable around a mast 72 (Paragraph 0027, “In the illustrated embodiment, the fork assembly 70 may be…pivotally rotatable relative to the mast 72 (see FIG. 3)”) which reasonably allows other orientations for the fork assembly. While the Examiner understands that a rotatable fork assembly may allow for various applications such as side-loading, Paterson does not expressly prohibit using the rotatable fork assembly for conventional loading (e.g. such as when the forks are facing a forward direction) nor non-lateral vehicle movements. The examiner also notes that Paterson describes its features as being adaptable to various industrial vehicles (Paragraph 0037, “Although the methods are described with reference to the load handling module 100 and material handling vehicle 60 of FIGS. 1-5, the same or similar methods may be used with other material handling vehicles and/or load handling modules”), which appear to further indicate that the perpendicular configuration as shown in Figure 3 is not required for operation.
Regarding the statement that Akahori as applied in claim 1 does not require sensors for determining whether a location is empty (Remarks, Section II on Page 8), the examiner respectfully notes that one cannot show non-obviousness by addressing references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references (see MPEP 2145(IV)).
Regarding the statement that Hiroshi as applied in claim 1 does not teach the limitation “confirming, while the pivot maneuver is in progress, that the putaway location is empty” because Hiroshi is concerned only with backing into a space (Remarks, Section III on Page 9), while the examiner respectfully considers Hiroshi to teach features for checking whether a putaway location remains empty while performing a turn, which still reasonably include short turns (e.g. as currently claimed a pivot maneuver is not limited to being without traverse except in dependent claim 13), the examiner understands the concerns against explicitly teaching a pivot rotation. Therefore, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been made in view of newly cited art Yeo et al. (US20210316975A1).
Regarding the statement that the prior art cannot be combined (Remarks, Section IV on Page 10), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously discussed above, Paterson does not require a perpendicular fork configuration for its principle of operation. Therefore, a proposed modification to allow sensing in a traveling direction (e.g. via fork tip sensors) or improved maneuvering for the benefit of operating in narrow aisles would not require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the Paterson reference to allow these features, as the fork assembly is reasonably described as rotatable to face a perpendicular or forward direction.
Regarding independent claim 14 (Remarks, Page 10), this claim recites substantially similar subject matter as independent claim 1, and is addressed with the same reasons stated above.
Regarding claims 2-10, 13, 15-20 (Remarks, Page 11), these claims are ultimately dependent on claims 1 or 14, and stand rejected as described above.
Regarding claims 11-12 (Remarks, Page 11), these claims are ultimately dependent on claim 1, and stand rejected as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson et al. (US20200317483A1; hereinafter Paterson) in view of Akahori (US20140308097A1; hereinafter Akahori) and Yeo et al. (US20210316975A1; hereinafter Yeo).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14 (independent), which recite substantially similar subject matter, Paterson teaches an industrial vehicle (see at least Abstract) comprising:
(from claim 14) a frame (Paragraph 0026, “The MHV 60 may comprise a mast 72 and the fork assembly 70 coupled to the mast 72”);
(from claim 14) a load-handling feature coupled to the frame (Paragraph 0026, “The fork assembly 70 can include two forks 74 (i.e., load supporting members) that are laterally separated from one another. Each fork 74 may extend from a front side 76 of a load backrest 78 to a respective fork tip 80 of opposite the load backrest 78. The forks 74 can be positioned proximate a bottom side 82 of the fork assembly 70 such that top surfaces 84 of the forks 74 are generally horizontal and coplanar”);
(from claim 14) a sensor, wherein the sensor senses objects to a side of the industrial vehicle (Paragraph 0012 and Figure 2, “FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the load handling module and material handling vehicle of FIG. 1 with a first camera field of view, a second camera field of view, and the fork tip sensor fields of view according to aspects of the present disclosure; Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436”; Examiner notes that Figure 2 shows that second camera 108 is directed to the side of MHV 60, and not in the travel path of MHV 60);
(from claim 14) a processor (Paragraph 0062, “Instructions may reside in computer readable medium wherein those instructions are executed by a processor to perform one or more of processes or steps described herein”);
a process, performed by an industrial vehicle, for aligning the industrial vehicle for putaway operation (Paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, “FIG. 10 illustrates a method 400 for dropping off a load onto a rack or raised platform using the MHV 60 with the load handling module 100 described above with reference to FIGS. 1-5”), the process comprising:
traveling to a position associated with a putaway location in an industrial environment (Paragraph 0049, “Similar to method 300 described above, load drop-off coordinates (e.g., an X-Y position and height of a drop-off location) may be provided wirelessly to the controller 150 from, for example, a WMS at step 404. Accordingly, the MHV 60 may travel autonomously to the X-Y position of the drop-off location”),
determining, via a sensor mounted to the industrial vehicle, whether the putaway location is empty / determine, via the sensor mounted to the industrial vehicle, whether the putaway location is empty, wherein the sensor is not directed in a travel path of the industrial vehicle (Paragraph 0012 and Figure 2, “FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the load handling module and material handling vehicle of FIG. 1 with a first camera field of view, a second camera field of view, and the fork tip sensor fields of view according to aspects of the present disclosure”; Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, “Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436”; Examiner notes that Figure 2 shows that second camera 108 is directed to the side of MHV 60, and not in the travel path of MHV 60).
While Paterson further discloses a placement procedure after determining that the putaway location is empty (Paragraphs 0053-0054 and Figure 10, “…verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436…the forks 74 may traverse (i.e., extend) into the rack to place the load at step 448”), Paterson does not explicitly disclose performing a pivot maneuver after determining that the putaway location is empty. Nevertheless, Akahori teaches an alignment procedure for an automated forklift truck (Paragraph 0024, “FIG. 4 shows an operation of the forklift truck 2 performed in the automated warehouse 20”) capable of:
performing a pivot maneuver such that a portion of the industrial vehicle is inside the putaway location while the pivot maneuver is in progress (Paragraph 0025 and Figure 4, “The frames 4, 6, and 8 are at positions lower than the shelf supports 26, and thus it is another pallet and the pillars 24 that interfere with each other. The panel portion 15 also interferes with the shelf supports 26. Then, making a spin turn about the turning center O in FIG. 4 enables storage and retrieval using the path 28 having a width smaller than the vehicle body length of the forklift truck 2”; Examiner notes that a portion of the forklift truck is inside the putaway location as the spin turn is being performed, as shown in Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Paterson invention to expand the features for positioning the industrial vehicle (Paragraphs 0049) to allow a pivot maneuver such that a portion of the vehicle is inside the putaway location while the pivot maneuver is in progress, as taught by Akahori, for the benefit of maneuvering in narrow aisles where there may be less space for an industrial vehicle to perform a conventional pivot maneuver (Akahori, Paragraph 0009, “Also, with the use of this forklift truck, an automated warehouse configured to perform storage and retrieval in a narrow path may be obtained because the forklift truck may make spin turns using portions of the space inside the rack”).
While Paterson as currently modified teaches features for confirming that a putaway location is empty (Paragraphs 0035 and 0053), Paterson as currently modified does not explicitly teach: confirming, while the pivot maneuver is in progress, that the putaway location remains empty; and finishing the pivot maneuver if the putaway location remains empty (Examiner notes that the limitation “finishing the pivot maneuver if the putaway location remains empty” as currently claimed is being interpreted to comprise continuing a pivot maneuver if the putaway location is empty, which is consistent with the closest support found in the instant specification (see Paragraph 0027 “the sensor(s) can scan the location before the pivot maneuver is started or while the pivot maneuver is completing. However, the scan must be completed before the pivot maneuver is completed. The sensor scan is discussed in greater detail below in reference to FIG. 4 . If there is an object detected in the putaway location, the industrial vehicle does not complete the pivot maneuver”)).
Nevertheless, Yeo teaches an autonomous forklift (see at least Abstract) capable of:
confirming, while the pivot maneuver is in progress, that the putaway location remains empty (Paragraphs 0051-0053, “The rotating operation refers to an operation of the autonomous forklift truck rotating in place, and the rotating operation is required when loading or unloading the pallet. For the rotating operation of the autonomous forklift truck, first, the control unit receives angle of arrival information from the autonomous forklift truck control server (S601). The angle of arrival refers to a target angle of rotation of the autonomous forklift truck. The control unit rotates the autonomous forklift truck by the angle of arrival by controlling the steering motor based on the angle of arrival information (S602) (S603). While the autonomous forklift truck rotates to the angle of arrival, it is necessary to detect whether there is an obstacle, and the presence or absence of an obstacle during the rotating operation is detected by the third sensor 16. As described above, the third sensor 16 is equipped on each of the left/right rear bumpers 17, and the third sensor 16 equipped on each of the left/right rear bumpers 17 plays a role in detecting an obstacle on the path of rotation when the autonomous forklift truck rotates in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction”; Examiner notes that path of rotation reasonably includes the target rotation angle (wherein target angle of rotation is reasonably indicative of the loading/unloading location)) and
finishing the pivot maneuver if the putaway location remains empty (Paragraph 0054, “When an obstacle on the path of rotation is detected by the third sensor 16, the control unit temporarily stops the rotating operation of the autonomous forklift truck, and when the obstacle is removed, re-starts the rotating operation”; Examiner notes that the rotation is completed only when the loading/unloading location remains empty)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Paterson invention to expand the features for confirming a putaway location is empty (Paragraphs 0035 and 0053) to include confirmation that such a location is empty during a pivot maneuver, as taught by Yeo, for the benefit of avoiding obstacles while operating (Yeo, Paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 2, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 1. Paterson further discloses:
wherein traveling to a position associated with a putaway location further comprises receiving an instruction to perform a putaway operation at the putaway location (Paragraph 0054 and Figure 10, “With the forks 74 arranged at a predefined offset above the transition height value or the drop-off height, the forks 74 may traverse (i.e., extend) into the rack to place the load at step 448”; Examiner notes that a putaway operation is performed after entering a drop-off location, which reasonably indicates that MHV 60 was instructed to perform said putaway operation).
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Paterson as currently modified teaches claims 2 and 14. Paterson further discloses:
wherein receiving an instruction to perform a putaway operation at the putaway location comprises receiving the instruction to perform a putaway operation at the putaway location, wherein the putaway location includes a rack height (Paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, “Similar to method 300 described above, load drop-off coordinates (e.g., an X-Y position and height of a drop-off location) may be provided wirelessly to the controller 150 from, for example, a WMS at step 404”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Paterson as currently modified teaches claims 3 and 17. Paterson further discloses:
ensuring a load-bearing feature of the industrial vehicle is at a height associated with the rack height before determining whether the putaway location is empty (Paragraph 0050 and Figure 10, “If the destination height is not at or above the current height of the second camera 108 (i.e., the second camera 108 is above the destination height), the forks 74 may adjust to arrive at a predefined distance above the drop-off height (e.g., one foot above the drop-off height) at step 412. From the predefined distance above the drop-off height, the forks 74 may be further lowered to a predefined offset value above the drop-off height at step 416. As the forks 714 are lowered to the predefined offset above the drop-off height, the fork tip sensor(s) 128 can indicate whether the location on the rack is vacant and able to receive a load”; Examiner notes that forks 74 may be adjusted to a height associated with the rack height before checking whether a drop-off location is empty).
Regarding Claim 5, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 4. Paterson further discloses:
wherein ensuring a load-bearing feature of the industrial vehicle is at a height associated with the rack height comprises:
determining that the load-bearing feature is not at the height associated with the rack height; and adjusting the load-bearing feature to be at the height associated with the rack height (Paragraph 0050 and Figure 10, “If the destination height is not at or above the current height of the second camera 108 (i.e., the second camera 108 is above the destination height), the forks 74 may adjust to arrive at a predefined distance above the drop-off height (e.g., one foot above the drop-off height) at step 412. From the predefined distance above the drop-off height, the forks 74 may be further lowered to a predefined offset value above the drop-off height at step 416. As the forks 714 are lowered to the predefined offset above the drop-off height, the fork tip sensor(s) 128 can indicate whether the location on the rack is vacant and able to receive a load”; Examiner notes that adjusting the height of forks 74 reasonably indicates that forks 74 was determined to initially not be at a height associated with the rack height).
Regarding Claim 6, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 4. Paterson further discloses:
wherein ensuring a load-bearing feature of the industrial vehicle is at a height associated with the rack height comprises:
determining that the load-bearing feature is at the height associated with the rack height (Paragraph 0050 and Figure 10, “If the destination height is not at or above the current height of the second camera 108 (i.e., the second camera 108 is above the destination height), the forks 74 may adjust to arrive at a predefined distance above the drop-off height (e.g., one foot above the drop-off height) at step 412. From the predefined distance above the drop-off height, the forks 74 may be further lowered to a predefined offset value above the drop-off height at step 416. As the forks 714 are lowered to the predefined offset above the drop-off height, the fork tip sensor(s) 128 can indicate whether the location on the rack is vacant and able to receive a load”; Examiner notes that using fork tip sensor(s) 128 to determine whether the rack is vacant reasonably requires determining that forks 74 is at a height associated with the rack height).
Regarding Claim 7, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 1. Paterson further discloses:
wherein determining, via a sensor mounted to the industrial vehicle, whether the putaway location is empty comprises determining, via a camera mounted to the industrial vehicle, whether the putaway location is empty, wherein the camera is not directed in a travel path of the industrial vehicle (Paragraph 0012 and Figure 2, “FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the load handling module and material handling vehicle of FIG. 1 with a first camera field of view, a second camera field of view, and the fork tip sensor fields of view according to aspects of the present disclosure; Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436”; Examiner notes that second camera 108 is not directed in a travel path of the vehicle, as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 7. Paterson further discloses:
wherein determining, via a camera mounted to the industrial vehicle, whether the putaway location is empty comprises determining, via a camera mounted to a side of the industrial vehicle, whether the putaway location is empty (Paragraph 0012 and Figure 2, “FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the load handling module and material handling vehicle of FIG. 1 with a first camera field of view, a second camera field of view, and the fork tip sensor fields of view according to aspects of the present disclosure; Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436”; Examiner notes that second camera 108 is mounted to a side of the industrial vehicle, as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 1. Paterson further discloses:
wherein determining, via a sensor mounted to the industrial vehicle, whether the putaway location is empty further comprises
detecting a physical portion of the putaway location (Paragraph 0052 and Figure 10, “At step 428, the second camera 108 may be used to identify features on the rack, such as, e.g., a horizontal load bar, an upright beam, or an adjacent load (i.e., a load next to the desired drop-off location on the rack”)); and
scanning an area adjacent to the physical portion of the putaway location to determine that the putaway location is free from obstacles (Paragraph 0052-0053, “However, if the rack is identified, one or more of the identified features may be used to quantify a minimum volume of interest and a maximum volume of interest at step 432… Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436. If an object or another structure is detected (e.g., by the presence of a predetermined amount of pixels having an intensity indicative of an object/structure), the controller 150 may set an error code or send an error message”; Examiner notes that the search volume includes an area adjacent to the identified physical feature of the drop-off location).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Paterson as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 14. Paterson further discloses:
performing a predetermined action if the putaway location is not empty (Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, “Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436. If an object or another structure is detected (e.g., by the presence of a predetermined amount of pixels having an intensity indicative of an object/structure), the controller 150 may set an error code or send an error message”).
Regarding Claim 13, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 1. While Paterson further discloses a placement procedure after determining that the putaway location is empty (Paragraphs 0053-0054 and Figure 10, “…verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436…the forks 74 may traverse (i.e., extend) into the rack to place the load at step 448”), Paterson does not explicitly disclose completing a pivot maneuver further comprises performing the pivot maneuver without traversing during the pivot maneuver.
Nevertheless, Akahori further teaches:
completing a pivot maneuver further comprises performing the pivot maneuver without traversing during the pivot maneuver (Paragraph 0025 and Figure 4, “The frames 4, 6, and 8 are at positions lower than the shelf supports 26, and thus it is another pallet and the pillars 24 that interfere with each other. The panel portion 15 also interferes with the shelf supports 26. Then, making a spin turn about the turning center O in FIG. 4 enables storage and retrieval using the path 28 having a width smaller than the vehicle body length of the forklift truck 2”; Examiner notes that the spin turn is performed without traversing during the spin turn).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Paterson invention to expand the features for positioning the industrial vehicle (Paragraphs 0049) to allow a pivot maneuver without traversing, as taught by Akahori, for the benefit of maneuvering in narrow aisles where there may be less space for an industrial vehicle (Akahori, Paragraph 0009, “Also, with the use of this forklift truck, an automated warehouse configured to perform storage and retrieval in a narrow path may be obtained because the forklift truck may make spin turns using portions of the space inside the rack”).
Regarding Claim 15, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 14. Paterson further discloses:
wherein the sensor is a camera (Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, “Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436”).
Regarding Claim 16, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 14. Paterson further discloses:
wherein the load-handling feature is a set of forks (Paragraph 0026, “The MHV 60 may comprise a mast 72 and the fork assembly 70 coupled to the mast 72. The fork assembly 70 can include two forks 74 (i.e., load supporting members) that are laterally separated from one another. Each fork 74 may extend from a front side 76 of a load backrest 78 to a respective fork tip 80 of opposite the load backrest 78. The forks 74 can be positioned proximate a bottom side 82 of the fork assembly 70 such that top surfaces 84 of the forks 74 are generally horizontal and coplanar”).
Regarding Claim 20, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 14. Paterson further discloses:
wherein the sensor is coupled to the load-handling feature (Paragraph 0036, “For example, a second camera 508 of the load handling module 500 may be included in (or on) a tower 512 mounted on the load backrest 78. The tower 512 may further include an actuator 560 coupled to a movable section 564 of the tower 512. The actuator 560 can be an electric actuator, a hydraulic actuator, or any other type of actuating system or device, and can be configured to selectively move the movable section 564 of the tower 512 including the second camera 508 relative to the fork assembly 70”).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson in view of Akahori, Yeo and Pan (US20190244316A1; hereinafter Pan).
Regarding Claim 11, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 10. While the combination teaches performing a predetermined action if the putaway location is not empty (Paterson, Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, “Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436. If an object or another structure is detected (e.g., by the presence of a predetermined amount of pixels having an intensity indicative of an object/structure), the controller 150 may set an error code or send an error message”) the combination does not explicitly teach that the predetermined action may include traveling to a different location. Nevertheless, Pan teaches a process for transporting packages in a warehouse (Abstract, “Disclosed a controlling method and a controlling system (100) for material transfer. The method includes the following operations: controlling a transporter to transport the material according to a preset path (10); reserving a storage location before the transporter stores the material, and obtaining a result storage location that stores the material according to a reservation result fed back by the storage location (20); and controlling the transporter to store the material in the result storage location (30)”) which:
comprises traveling to another location of the industrial environment (Paragraph 0058, “After the transporter travels for a period of time on the transport path, the controller makes a reservation to the storage location before depositing the material, and obtains a storage condition of the storage location. In the case that the storage location has space, the material is stored in a storage space of the storage location. If there is no space, the material is stored in a storage space of other storage locations that having space”; Examiner notes that the transporter travels to another location of the industrial environment when determining that the intended storage space is not empty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Paterson invention to expand the features for responding to an occupied putaway location (Paragraphs 0053) to allow traveling to another location of the warehouse when it is determined that the intended putaway location is not empty, as taught by Pan, for the benefit of reducing the need for manual intervention whenever there is an occupied drop-off location.
Regarding Claim 12, Paterson as currently modified teaches claim 10. While the combination teaches performing a predetermined action if the putaway location is not empty (Paterson, Paragraph 0053 and Figure 10, “Once the minimum and maximum volumes of interest have been quantified, and it has been determined that the load may fit therein, the second camera 108 may verify that the search volume is empty (e.g., by analyzing pixels in an image for indications of an object) at step 436. If an object or another structure is detected (e.g., by the presence of a predetermined amount of pixels having an intensity indicative of an object/structure), the controller 150 may set an error code or send an error message”) the combination does not explicitly teach that the predetermined action may include traveling to a different location. Nevertheless, Pan teaches a process for transporting packages in a warehouse (Abstract, “Disclosed a controlling method and a controlling system (100) for material transfer. The method includes the following operations: controlling a transporter to transport the material according to a preset path (10); reserving a storage location before the transporter stores the material, and obtaining a result storage location that stores the material according to a reservation result fed back by the storage location (20); and controlling the transporter to store the material in the result storage location (30)”) which:
comprises performing the putaway operation at another location of the industrial environment (Paragraph 0058, “After the transporter travels for a period of time on the transport path, the controller makes a reservation to the storage location before depositing the material, and obtains a storage condition of the storage location. In the case that the storage location has space, the material is stored in a storage space of the storage location. If there is no space, the material is stored in a storage space of other storage locations that having space”; Examiner notes that the transporter performs a putaway operation at another storage location when determining that the intended storage space is not empty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Paterson invention to expand the features for responding to an occupied putaway location (Paragraphs 0053) to allow traveling to another location of the warehouse when it is determined that the intended putaway location is not empty, as taught by Pan, for the benefit of reducing the need for manual intervention whenever there is an occupied drop-off location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Weiss et al. (US20220281728A1) teaches an autonomous industrial vehicle (see at least Abstract and Paragraph 0099) configured to perform a pivot maneuver for the benefit of operating in narrow aisles (Figure 21 and Paragraph 0100, “FIG. 21 shows an alternate path that may be utilized to approach the pallet or drop location 148 with reduced aisle width requirements. In this example, the path can be composed of a single arc whose radius is equal to the distance from the pivot point to the outside of the base leg. This path may have a reduced aisle width requirement when compared to the path illustrated in FIG. 20”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703) 756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
4/2/26