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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s priority filing: U.S. Provisional Application 63/413,138, filed 10/04/2022.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/23/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 14-15 are amended;
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-13, and 16-20 are cancelled;
Claims 21-35 are newly added.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3, 7, 14-15, and 21-35 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 14 and 27 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1, 3, 7, 14-15 and 21-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "providing the first value for the enable detection parameter and the first value for the target speed parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the enable detection parameter and the first value for the target speed parameter; receiving a second location for the material handling vehicle; identifying a second geofenced zone of the plurality of geofenced zones within the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the second location; and responsive to identifying the second geofenced zone: determining a second value for the enable detection parameter based on the second geofenced zone; determining a second value for the target speed parameter based on the second geofenced zone; and providing the second value for the enable detection parameter and the second value for the target speed parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the enable detection parameter and the second value for the target speed parameter.";
[B.] “Amended claim 1 recites that the circuitry of the controller is configured to control the operation of the material handling vehicle based on (i) when the material handling vehicle is located in a first geofenced zone, both a first value for an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off and a first value for a target speed parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle upon obstacle detection, and (ii) when the material handling vehicle is located in a second geofenced zone, both a second value for the enable detection parameter and a second value for the target speed parameter. Estep, Schulz, and Hagvall, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest at least these features recited in claim 1”;
[C.] “However, the disclosure in Schulz does not pertain to warehouse environments and is generally not focused on automated vehicle operation within warehouse environments. Rather, the disclosure in Schulz focuses on contexts such as mining plants, construction sites, and other similar types of areas with potentially explosive atmospheres ("Ex-zones"). For example, Schulz describes a manned car being routed around an excavator's work area (Fig. 2) and managing RF power for both transmitting stations and base stations around explosive atmosphere zones (Fig. 3)”;
[D.] “However, the disclosure of turning off or changing obstacle detection systems in Hagvall (e.g., [0168]) is event-based control as opposed to location-based control. Specifically, the Action 202 described in Hagvall triggers the relaxation of operational requirements (including potentially turning off or changing obstacle detection) when detecting that the autonomous vehicle is initiating driving in a predefined path. Hagvall then monitors whether the vehicle turns around (Action 203) or has driven a sufficient distance/time (Actions 205, 206) to determine when to re- tighten the operational requirements.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B., C. and D. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 14-15 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hagvall et al. (US 2025/0249894 A1, henceforth Hagvall) and Wellman (US 2008/0154712 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hagvall recites the limitations: a material handling vehicle {truck, heavy-duty vehicle, ¶83, and 1, Fig. 2}, comprising: a sensor for gathering data associated with the material handling vehicle {“autonomous vehicle 1 may comprise any suitable sensor for obtaining measurements or indications”, ¶88}; and a controller comprising circuitry {control unit comprising an electronic control unit, ¶63-64; 70, Fig. 12a, ¶226-237} configured to: determine a first location {10, Fig. 1} of the material handling vehicle within a facility using the data from the sensor {implementation of localization, ¶194, 224}; responsive to determining that the first location is in the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference}; determine a first value for an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off based on the first geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; determine a first value for a target speed parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle upon obstacle detection based on the first geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the enable detection parameter and the first value for the target speed parameter {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110; “The control unit…by means of a detecting unit 1201 in the control unit 70 , detect that the autonomous vehicle 1 is initiating driving in the predefined path 30…by means of a triggering unit 1202…trigger a relaxation of the operational requirements”, ¶228-229}; determine a second location {20, Fig. 1} of the material handling vehicle within the facility using the data from the sensor {implementation of localization, ¶194, 224}; and responsive to determining that the second location is in the second geofenced zone {determining vehicle is at the boundary of path 30 and work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference}: determine a second value for the enable detection parameter based on the second geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle is about to enter work area 20 from path 30 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; determine a second value for the target speed parameter based on the second geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the enable detection parameter and the second value for the target speed parameter {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110, but then increasing the relaxed operational parameters after driving a specific distance (such as the full distance between work areas 10 and 20, Fig. 1), ¶233}.
Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: determine that the first location is in a first geofenced zone of a plurality of geofenced zones in the facility; determine that the second location is in a second geofenced zone of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility.
However, Wellman explicitly recites the limitation: determine that the first location is in a first geofenced zone {204, Fig. 13 and ¶161} of a plurality of geofenced zones in the facility {¶159, creating geofences: “create virtual “fences” that restrict, direct, guide or otherwise affect navigation of the mobile assets 12”; ¶166, examples of situations, conditions under which a geofenced area is setup}; determine that the second location is in a second geofenced zone {¶166, “a second geofence 204 may be positioned on the edges of a loading dock or on an area that has an unsuitable surface to prohibit the forklift trucks from entering such areas.”} of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility {¶159, creating geofences: “create virtual “fences” that restrict, direct, guide or otherwise affect navigation of the mobile assets 12”; ¶166, examples of situations, conditions under which a geofenced area is setup}.
Hagvall and Wellman are analogous art because they deal with operating autonomous vehicles in a workplace environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hagvall and Wellman before them, to modify the teachings of Hagvall to include the teachings of Wellman to identify areas in a warehouse environment requiring special operating conditions or complete avoidance, and electronically demarcate them with geofencing techniques {¶159-166}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein: the sensor comprises a location tag installed on the material handling vehicle {¶167, the use of vehicle mounted transponders for self-localization} for determining two-dimensional coordinates indicative of the first location and the second location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {the combination of self-localization transponders, ¶167, and RFID tag anchor points for localization, ¶224, provide localization over the entire work area in Fig. 1}; and the location tag comprises circuitry {transponders, ¶167} configured to communicate with a plurality of network anchors {RFID tag anchor points, ¶224} that are in communication with a location server {vehicle control unit wirelessly communicates (¶227) with a server (¶236)} to determine the first location and the second location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {the combination of self-localization transponders, ¶167, and RFID tag anchor points for localization, ¶224, provide localization over the entire work area in Fig. 1}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the circuitry of the controller is configured to: responsive to determining that the first location is in the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determine a first value for a delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle {¶84, operation condition/requirement is a change in the speed limit, which the vehicle inherently adapts to} based on the first geofenced zone {¶0233, time and location used to determine a change in operational conditions of the vehicle}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the delay parameter {autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) inherently adapts to the increase or decrease in speed limits operational requirements described in ¶84}; and responsive to determining that the second location is in the second geofenced zone {determining vehicle is at the boundary of path 30 and work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determine a second value for the delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle {¶84, operation condition/requirement is a change in the speed limit, which the vehicle inherently adapts to} based on the second geofenced zone {¶0233, time and location used to determine a change in operational conditions of the vehicle}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the delay parameter {autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) inherently adapts to the increase or decrease in speed limits operational requirements described in ¶84}.
Regarding Claim 14, Hagvall recites the limitations: a controller {control unit comprising an electronic control unit, ¶63-64; 70, Fig. 12a, ¶226-237} for a material handling vehicle {truck, heavy-duty vehicle, ¶83, and 1, Fig. 2}, comprising: memory to store a control application {memory, ¶236-237}; and circuitry to execute the control application {processor, memory and computer program code, ¶236-237} to: receiving a first location {10, Fig. 1} for a material handling vehicle that is operating within a facility {implementation of vehicle localization, ¶194, 224}; identifying a first geofenced zone {first work area 10, Fig. 1, with clearly demarcated boundaries; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference} of a plurality of geofenced zones within the facility {10, 20, 30, Fig. 1} that the material handling vehicle is in using the first location {vehicle localization, ¶194, 224, determines where in Fig. 1 autonomous vehicle 1 is located}; responsive to determining that the first location is in the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference}: determine a first value for an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off based on the first geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; determine a first value for a target speed parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle upon obstacle detection based on the first geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the enable detection parameter and the first value for the target speed parameter {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110; “The control unit…by means of a detecting unit 1201 in the control unit 70 , detect that the autonomous vehicle 1 is initiating driving in the predefined path 30…by means of a triggering unit 1202…trigger a relaxation of the operational requirements”, ¶228-229}; receiving a second location {20, Fig. 1} for a material handling vehicle that is operating within a facility {implementation of vehicle localization, ¶194, 224}; identifying a second geofenced zone {second work area 20, Fig. 1, with clearly demarcated boundaries; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference} of a plurality of geofenced zones within the facility {10, 20, 30, Fig. 1} that the material handling vehicle is in using the first location {vehicle localization, ¶194, 224, determines where in Fig. 1 autonomous vehicle 1 is located}; responsive to determining that the first location is in the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is at the boundary of path 30 and work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference}: determine a second value for the enable detection parameter based on the second geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle is about to enter work area 20 from path 30 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; determine a second value for the target speed parameter based on the second geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the enable detection parameter and the second value for the target speed parameter {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110, but then increasing the relaxed operational parameters after driving a specific distance (such as the full distance between work areas 10 and 20, Fig. 1), ¶233}.
Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: identifying a first geofenced zone of a plurality of geofenced zones within the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the first location; identifying a second geofenced zone of the plurality of geofenced zones within the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the second location.
However, Wellman explicitly recites the limitation: identifying a first geofenced zone {204, Fig. 13 and ¶161} of a plurality of geofenced zones in the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the first location {¶159, creating geofences: “create virtual “fences” that restrict, direct, guide or otherwise affect navigation of the mobile assets 12”; ¶166, examples of situations, conditions under which a geofenced area is setup}; identifying a second geofenced zone {¶166, “a second geofence 204 may be positioned on the edges of a loading dock or on an area that has an unsuitable surface to prohibit the forklift trucks from entering such areas. Again, factors such as the load carried by the mobile asset, the speed of the mobile asset, asset type, operator ID, etc., may be used in determining the manner in which geofencing is implemented with respect to a particular mobile asset 12.”} of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the second location {¶159, creating geofences: “create virtual “fences” that restrict, direct, guide or otherwise affect navigation of the mobile assets 12”; ¶166, examples of situations, conditions under which a geofenced area is setup}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein: receiving {RFID tag anchor points, ¶224; vehicle control unit wirelessly communicates (¶227) with a server (¶236)} the first location for the material handling vehicle {10, Fig. 1} comprises receiving the first location from a location tag installed on the material handling vehicle {¶167, the use of vehicle mounted transponders for self-localization} that determines the first location as a first set of two-dimensional coordinates {the combination of self-localization transponders, ¶167, and RFID tag anchor points for localization, ¶224, provide localization over the entire work area in Fig. 1}; and receiving {RFID tag anchor points, ¶224} the second location for the material handling vehicle {10, Fig. 1} comprises receiving the second location from the location tag installed on the material handling vehicle {transponders, ¶167} that determines the second location as a second set of two-dimensional coordinates {the combination of self-localization transponders, ¶167, and RFID tag anchor points for localization, ¶224, provide localization over the entire work area in Fig. 1}.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: responsive to identifying the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determining a first value for a minimum obstacle size parameter {vehicle 1 in Fig. 1 is provided with an obstacle detection system, ¶35, ¶107, which one skilled in the art will appreciate will inherently detect both relative location and size of the obstacle} that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle {changing safety requirements (¶168) includes changing the speed limit in a work area (¶169)} based on a size of an obstacle detected by the material handling vehicle based on the first geofenced zone {per ¶180-183, the obstacle detection system can be turned on and off, and can be adapted in order to “activate certain obstacle avoidance functions”, along with modifying the speed of the vehicle based on speed limits restrictions; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the size of an obstacle can be an object of building size or the size of road gravel, the former requiring obstacle detection, the latter not, based on safety considerations}; and providing the first value for the minimum obstacle size parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the minimum obstacle size parameter {¶185-190, examples of actions taken by autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) in light of safety considerations and operational requirements for a given work area}; and responsive to identifying the second geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in or near work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determining a second value for the minimum obstacle size parameter {vehicle 1 in Fig. 1 is provided with an obstacle detection system, ¶35, ¶107, which one skilled in the art will appreciate will inherently detect both relative location and size of the obstacle, in a continuous fashion which provides a plurality of data points} based on the second geofenced zone {per ¶180-183, the obstacle detection system can be turned on and off, and can be adapted in order to “activate certain obstacle avoidance functions”, along with modifying the speed of the vehicle based on speed limits restrictions; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the size of an obstacle can be an object of building size or the size of road gravel, the former requiring obstacle detection, the latter not, based on safety considerations}; and providing the second value for the minimum obstacle size parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the minimum obstacle size parameter {¶185-190, examples of actions taken by autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) in light of safety considerations and operational requirements for a given work area}.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: responsive to identifying the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determining a first value for a pivot angle parameter {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pivot angle can be the rotation of an part of or totality of vehicle 1, Fig. 1, including the “yaw rate + speed, steering wheel angle(s)” (¶172) associated with significant turning of the vehicle (first value) versus turning the vehicle around, ¶18} that controls an amount of time associated with pivoting the material handling vehicle after detecting an obstacle {the obstacle detection system, ¶35, ¶107} based on the first geofenced zone {operational requirements can be due to the turning angle of the vehicle (¶147) and are location dependent based on location dependent operational restrictions (¶103-110)}; and providing the first value for the pivot angle parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the pivot angle parameter {autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) inherently adapts it’s speed to the degree of turning of the vehicle 1}; and responsive to identifying the second geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in or near work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determining a second value for the pivot angle parameter based on the second geofenced zone {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pivot angle can be the rotation of an part of or totality of vehicle 1, Fig. 1, including the “yaw rate + speed, steering wheel angle(s)” (¶172) associated with significant turning of the vehicle (first value) versus turning the vehicle around (second value), ¶18, wherein turning around is a result of being unable to enter work area 20, and needing to return to work area 10, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; and providing the second value for the pivot angle parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the pivot angle parameter {autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) inherently adapts it’s speed to the degree of turning of the vehicle 1}.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: responsive to identifying the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determining a first value for a field width parameter that controls a size of a detection area for detecting obstacles {vehicle 1 in Fig. 1 is provided with an obstacle detection system, ¶35, ¶107; changing the field-of-view of an imaging device or sensor or detector is well known the art} associated with the material handling vehicle based on the first geofenced zone {per ¶180-183, the obstacle detection system can be turned on and off, and can be adapted in order to “activate certain obstacle avoidance functions”}; and providing the first value for the field width parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the field width parameter {¶185-190, examples of actions taken by autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) in light of safety considerations and operational requirements for a given work area}; and responsive to identifying the second geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in or near work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determining a second value for the field width parameter based on the second geofenced zone {vehicle 1 in Fig. 1 is provided with an obstacle detection system, ¶35, ¶107; changing the field-of-view of an imaging device or sensor or detector is well known the art}; and providing the second value for the field width parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the field width parameter {¶185-190, examples of actions taken by autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) in light of safety considerations and operational requirements for a given work area}.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the circuitry of the controller is configured to: responsive to determining that the first location is in the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determine a first value for a delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle {¶84, operation condition/requirement is a change in the speed limit, which the vehicle inherently adapts to} based on the first geofenced zone {¶0233, time and location used to determine a change in operational conditions of the vehicle}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the delay parameter {autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) inherently adapts to the increase or decrease in speed limits operational requirements described in ¶84}; and responsive to determining that the second location is in the second geofenced zone {determining vehicle is at the boundary of path 30 and work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95}: determine a second value for the delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle {¶84, operation condition/requirement is a change in the speed limit, which the vehicle inherently adapts to} based on the second geofenced zone {¶0233, time and location used to determine a change in operational conditions of the vehicle}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the delay parameter {autonomous vehicle 1 (Fig. 1) inherently adapts to the increase or decrease in speed limits operational requirements described in ¶84}.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation: the first geofenced zone is associated with a trailer area of the facility; the second geofenced zone is associated with a dock area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the first value for the enable detection parameter is off {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; and the second value for the enable detection parameter is on {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation:
the first geofenced zone is associated with an open area of the facility; the second geofenced zone is associated with a dock area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the first value for the enable detection parameter is on {¶103-110, the object detection system can be disabled but is normally on}; the second value for the enable detection parameter is on {¶103-110, the object detection system can be disabled but is normally on}; and the first value for the target speed parameter is less than the second value for the target speed parameter {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}.
Regarding Claim 27, Hagvall recites the limitations: a controller {control unit comprising an electronic control unit, ¶63-64; 70, Fig. 12a, ¶226-237} for a material handling vehicle {truck, heavy-duty vehicle, ¶83, and 1, Fig. 2}, comprising: memory to store a control application {memory, ¶236-237}; and circuitry to execute the control application {processor, memory and computer program code, ¶236-237} to: determine a first location {10, Fig. 1} of the material handling vehicle within a facility using the data from the sensor {implementation of localization, ¶194, 224}; responsive to determining that the first location is in the first geofenced zone {determining vehicle is located in work area 10 near the boundary with path 30 (Fig. 1), ¶95; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference}; determine a first value for an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off based on the first geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; determine a first value for a target speed parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle upon obstacle detection based on the first geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first value for the enable detection parameter and the first value for the target speed parameter {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110; “The control unit…by means of a detecting unit 1201 in the control unit 70 , detect that the autonomous vehicle 1 is initiating driving in the predefined path 30…by means of a triggering unit 1202…trigger a relaxation of the operational requirements”, ¶228-229}; determine a second location {20, Fig. 1} of the material handling vehicle within the facility using the data from the sensor {implementation of localization, ¶194, 224}; and responsive to determining that the second location is in the second geofenced zone {determining vehicle is at the boundary of path 30 and work area 20 (Fig. 1), ¶95; geofencing is dealt with a subsequent reference}: determine a second value for the enable detection parameter based on the second geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle is about to enter work area 20 from path 30 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; determine a second value for the target speed parameter based on the second geofenced zone {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the second value for the enable detection parameter and the second value for the target speed parameter {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110, but then increasing the relaxed operational parameters after driving a specific distance (such as the full distance between work areas 10 and 20, Fig. 1), ¶233}.
Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: determine that the first location is in a first geofenced zone of a plurality of geofenced zones in the facility; determine that the second location is in a second geofenced zone of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility.
However, Wellman explicitly recites the limitation: determine that the first location is in a first geofenced zone {204, Fig. 13 and ¶161} of a plurality of geofenced zones in the facility {¶159, creating geofences: “create virtual “fences” that restrict, direct, guide or otherwise affect navigation of the mobile assets 12”; ¶166, examples of situations, conditions under which a geofenced area is setup}; determine that the second location is in a second geofenced zone {¶166, “a second geofence 204 may be positioned on the edges of a loading dock or on an area that has an unsuitable surface to prohibit the forklift trucks from entering such areas. Again, factors such as the load carried by the mobile asset, the speed of the mobile asset, asset type, operator ID, etc., may be used in determining the manner in which geofencing is implemented with respect to a particular mobile asset 12.”} of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility {¶159, creating geofences: “create virtual “fences” that restrict, direct, guide or otherwise affect navigation of the mobile assets 12”; ¶166, examples of situations, conditions under which a geofenced area is setup}.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 27, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein: the sensor comprises a location tag installed on the material handling vehicle {¶167, the use of vehicle mounted transponders for self-localization} for determining two-dimensional coordinates indicative of the first location and the second location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {the combination of self-localization transponders, ¶167, and RFID tag anchor points for localization, ¶224, provide localization over the entire work area in Fig. 1}; and the location tag comprises circuitry {transponders, ¶167} configured to communicate with a plurality of network anchors {RFID tag anchor points, ¶224} that are in communication with a location server {vehicle control unit wirelessly communicates (¶227) with a server (¶236)} to determine the first location and the second location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {the combination of self-localization transponders, ¶167, and RFID tag anchor points for localization, ¶224, provide localization over the entire work area in Fig. 1}.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 27, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein: the first geofenced zone is associated with a trailer area of the facility {a trailer or vehicle parking area is common feature of a warehouse or manufacturing type facility, as is well known in the art} ; the second geofenced zone is associated with a rack area of the facility {storage areas, of various types, are a common feature of a warehouse or manufacturing type facility, as is well known in the art}; the first value for the enable detection parameter is off {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; the second value for the enable detection parameter is on {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; and the first value for the target speed parameter is less than the second value for the target speed parameter {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}.
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 27, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein: the first geofenced zone is associated with a trailer area of the facility {a trailer or vehicle parking area is common feature of a warehouse or manufacturing type facility, as is well known in the art}; the second geofenced zone is associated with a dock area of the facility {a trailer or vehicle parking area is common feature of a warehouse or manufacturing type facility, as is well known in the art}; the first value for the enable detection parameter is off {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; the second value for the enable detection parameter is on {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and the first value for the target speed parameter is less than the second value for the target speed parameter {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 27, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the circuitry is to execute the control application to: determine a third location of the material handling vehicle within a facility using the data from the sensor {path 30 can be considered a third location relative to first work area 10 and second work area 20, Fig. 1; the examiner notes that a third location relative to the first and second work areas is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; determine that the third location is in a third geofenced zone of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility {10, 20, 30, Fig. 1, are all part of the same warehouse(s) facility, ¶83; more than the first and second zones discussed supra represents a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; and responsive to determining that the third location is in the third geofenced zone: determine a third value for the enable detection parameter based on the third geofenced zone {determining first and second values was discussed supra, determining a third value is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; determine a third value for the target speed parameter based on the third geofenced zone {identifying or allowing a value to be “on” has been discussed supra, applying “on” to a third value is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110; “The control unit…by means of a detecting unit 1201 in the control unit 70, detect that the autonomous vehicle 1 is initiating driving in the predefined path 30…by means of a triggering unit 1202…trigger a relaxation of the operational requirements”, ¶228-229} in accordance with the third value for the enable detection parameter and the third value for the target speed parameter {one skilled in the art will appreciate that an autonomous vehicle will inherently adapt to changing operational conditions, such as a speed limit change in operational condition/requirement (¶84) and/or changes to the obstacle detection system (¶104-105)}.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 31, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein: the first geofenced zone is associated with a trailer area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the second geofenced zone is associated with a rack area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the third geofenced zone is associated with a dock area of the facility {10, 20, 30, Fig. 1, are all part of the same warehouse(s) facility, ¶83; more than the first and second zones discussed supra represents a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; the first value for the enable detection parameter is off {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; the second value for the enable detection parameter is on {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; the third value for the enable detection parameter is on {identifying or allowing a value to be “on” has been discussed supra, applying “on” to a third value is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; the first value for the target speed parameter is less than the second value for the target speed parameter {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and the second value for the target speed parameter is less than the third value for the target speed parameter {a first target speed comparison has been mapped, a second target speed comparison represents a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the circuitry of the controller is configured to: determine a third location of the material handling vehicle within a facility using the data from the sensor {path 30 can be considered a third location relative to first work area 10 and second work area 20, Fig. 1; the examiner notes that a third location relative to the first and second work areas is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; determine that the third location is in a third geofenced zone of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility {10, 20, 30, Fig. 1, are all part of the same warehouse(s) facility, ¶83; more than the first and second zones discussed supra represents a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; responsive to determining that the third location is in the third geofenced zone: determine a third value for the enable detection parameter based on the third geofenced zone {determining first and second values was discussed supra, determining a third value is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; determine a third value for the target speed parameter based on the third geofenced zone {determining first and second values was discussed supra, determining a third value is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; and control operation of the material handling vehicle {operation of vehicle using relaxed operation parameters, ¶110; “The control unit…by means of a detecting unit 1201 in the control unit 70, detect that the autonomous vehicle 1 is initiating driving in the predefined path 30…by means of a triggering unit 1202…trigger a relaxation of the operational requirements”, ¶228-229} in accordance with the third value for the enable detection parameter and the third value for the target speed parameter {one skilled in the art will appreciate that an autonomous vehicle will inherently adapt to changing operational conditions, such as a speed limit change in operational condition/requirement (¶84) and/or changes to the obstacle detection system (¶104-105)}; and determine a fourth location of the material handling vehicle within a facility using the data from the sensor {determining first and second values was discussed supra, determining additional values is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; determine that the fourth location is in a fourth geofenced zone of the plurality of geofenced zones in the facility {10, 20, 30, Fig. 1, are all part of the same warehouse(s) facility, ¶83; more than the first and second zones discussed supra represents a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; and responsive to determining that the fourth location is in the fourth geofenced zone: determine a fourth value for the enable detection parameter based on the fourth geofenced zone {determining first and second values was discussed supra, determining additional values is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; determine a fourth value for the target speed parameter based on the fourth geofenced zone {duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; and
control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the fourth value for the enable detection parameter and the fourth value for the target speed parameter {one skilled in the art will appreciate that an autonomous vehicle will inherently adapt to changing operational conditions, such as a speed limit change in operational condition/requirement (¶84) and/or changes to the obstacle detection system (¶104-105)}.
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 33, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitations:
the first geofenced zone is associated with a trailer area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the second geofenced zone is associated with an open area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the third geofenced zone {more than the first and second zones discussed supra represents a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B} is associated with a rack area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the fourth geofenced zone {more than the first and second zones discussed supra represents a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B} is associated with a dock area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the first value for the enable detection parameter is off {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; the second value for the enable detection parameter is on {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; the third value for the enable detection parameter is on; the fourth value for the enable detection parameter is on {identifying or allowing a value to be “on” has been discussed supra, applying “on” to third and fourth values is a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}; the first value for the target speed parameter and the second value for the target speed parameter are both less than the third value for the target speed parameter {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}; and the third value for the target speed parameter is less than the fourth value for the target speed parameter {a first target speed comparison has been mapped, additional target speed comparisons represent a duplication of parts under MPEP §2144.04.VI.B}.
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Hagvall and Wellman discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation:
wherein: the first geofenced zone is associated with a trailer area of the facility; the second geofenced zone is associated with a dock area of the facility {“the first work area 10 is a loading area, and the second work area 20 is an unloading area.”, ¶83; specific areas of a manufacturing and warehouse type facilities are well known in the art}; the first value for the enable detection parameter is off {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed including disabling the object detection system of autonomous vehicle 1, ¶103-110}; and the second value for the enable detection parameter is on {when detecting that the vehicle has initiated driving along path 30 starting from work area 10 (Fig. 1) operational requirements can be relaxed to increase the maximum speed, ¶104-105}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2012/0239261 A – Limit or disable vehicle operation within, or in the vicinity, of a restricted area.
US 2020/0218266 A1 – The use of zone identification tags and zone tags to impose restrictions on vehicle operation in an industrial facility.
US 9,134,721 B2 – A geofence boundary is used to demarcate an area in which the collision avoidance system must be active.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
