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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/2026 has been entered.
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 03/17/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 15 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 8 and 14 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "determine a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle based on a geofenced zone";
“Amended claim 1 recites that the circuitry of the material handling vehicle controller is configured to "determine a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle based on a geofenced zone within the facility associated with the location [of the material handling vehicle], wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off; determine a second parameter for operating the material handling vehicle based on the geofenced zone within the facility associated with the location; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first parameter and the second parameter" (emphasis added). Estep, Hagvall, and Medwin, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest at least these features recited in amended claim 1.”;
“the relaxation of operational (safety) requirements as described in Hagvall is event- based, not location-based. In particular, the action 202 in Hagvall is performed in response to determining that the autonomous vehicle 1 is initiating driving in a predefined path 30. Thus, the turning off or changing of the obstacle detection systems mentioned in [0171] of Hagvall is not performed responsive to determining that the location of the autonomous vehicle 1 is within a particular geofenced zone. As such, the discussion of the action 202 in Hagvall does not render the functionality with respect to the enable detection parameter recited in amended claim 1 obvious.”;
“in Medwin, the vehicle controller 12 disables further operation of (or severely limits operation of) the industrial vehicle 10 if it determines that the operator ignores the alert provided while in the alert zone 165 and the industrial vehicle 10 enters the room 160. Thus, even if the skilled person were to combine the event-based functionality of Hagvall with the restricted area functionality of Medwin, the skilled person still would not arrive at the features recited in amended claim 1. Further, the teaching of Estep regarding vehicle pose and field enforcement do not cure the deficiencies of Hagvall and Medwin noted above, either alone or in combination with Hagvall and Medwin. Thus, amended claim 1 is allowable over Estep, Hagvall, and Medwin.”.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Estep et al. (US 12,066,841 B2, henceforth Estep), Schulz et al. (US 2025/0155900 A1, henceforth Schulz) and Hagvall et al. (US 2025/0249894 A1, henceforth Hagvall).
Regarding Claim 1, Estep recites the limitations: a material handling vehicle {10, Figs. 1, 6 & 11}, comprising: a sensor for gathering data associated with the material handling vehicle {“materials handling vehicles in an industrial environment may include utilizing ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array systems respectively mounted on the materials handling vehicles to send mutually received information to determine the relative pose between the vehicles”, Abstract; “a navigation subsystem of the vehicle 100 may comprise one or more environmental sensors and an environmental database… the navigation subsystem, the localization system, or both may utilize a stored warehouse map 30 and captured images of ceiling lights 114 or skylights 116 to enable navigation, localization, or both”, Col. 11, Lns. 47-63}; and a controller comprising circuitry {“vehicular processors such as processors 104 communicatively coupled to the vehicle 100. The one or more processors 104 can execute machine readable instructions to implement any of the methods or functions described herein automatically. Memory 106 for storing machine readable instructions can be communicatively coupled to the one or more processors 104, the vehicle 100, or any combination thereof.”, Col. 7, Lns. 39-47; and 202, 216 and 217 in Fig. 2} configured to: determine a location of the material handling vehicle within a facility using the data from the sensor {multiple sensor options with the primary sensor being an ultra-wideband antenna: “a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization. The laser based system may include a laser scanner, a laser rangefinder, a 2D/3D mapping laser, a lidar, or combinations thereof…the UWB systems described herein may be employed semi-autonomous or fully autonomous automation as a primary or secondary safety system working alongside the lidar and/or image sensors”, Col. 6, Lns. 35-48}; determine a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle {”if the pair of vehicles 100 are in a hazardous scenario with respect to one another and to take a preventative action accordingly (e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action)”, Col. 15, Lns. 35-39} based on a zone within the facility associated with the location {“The systems described herein may further provide vehicle zone-based control based on a vehicle localization based on a constellation map of beacons mounted to facility infrastructure to determine vehicle control in one or more zones Z (FIG. 1). The zones Z may be configured as local where the respective beacons' relative position or pose is sensed as described herein.”, Col. 24, Lns. 35-43}; determine a second parameter for operating the material handling vehicle {Col. 15, Lns. 35-39} based on the zone within the facility associated with the location; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first parameter and the second parameter {control of robot determined by multiple parameters such as pose, speed and acceleration: “the UWB system 160 may be used as a sensor system for enforcing speed limits and/or halting vehicle movements in hazardous conditions when the UWB system 160 detects two or more vehicles 100 are operating too close to one-another. The UWB system 160 may thus detect the full relative pose of one vehicle 100 to a high degree of accuracy and read other information from another vehicle 100 in order to determine if the pair of vehicles 100 are in a hazardous scenario with respect to one another and to take a preventative action accordingly (e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action).”, Col. 15, Lns. 29-39}.
Estep does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: operating the material handling vehicle based on a geofenced zone within the facility associated with the location; and wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off.
However, Schulz explicitly recites the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a geofence zone {“ the ruleset further comprises at least one rule that is dependent on whether the location of the to-be-controlled device is within a predetermined zone in the industrial plant. Such zones may thus be regarded as “geofences” that regulate which activities may be performed where in the industrial plant….such zones may represent also complex three-dimensional spaces.”, ¶[0021]; also “Software-defined safety zones”, ¶[0146]} within the facility associated with the location {operating vehicles in an industrial setting using geofencing to increase efficiency in a safe manner (i.e., avoiding collisions): “geofencing system that runs zone management, localization and location-based services as decoupled functions but integrated over a common secure system infrastructure of a plant or production site”, ¶[0028], “the objective of the present invention to improve the coordination between movable devices in an industrial plant, such that they may be operated at higher moving speeds without sacrificing safety”, ¶[0004] and “Collision (avoidance) scenarios: machine with another machine, machine with person, machine with physical obstacle, machine with material (pile, ship, etc.), machine with mobile vehicles.”, ¶[0109]}.
The combination of references Estep and Schulz are analogous art because they both deal with operating automated vehicles in a warehouse 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 Estep and Schulz before them, to modify the teachings of Estep to include the teachings of Schulz to safely operate an autonomous vehicle within a diverse industrial environment {“triggering a predefined activity for entering, leaving, or moving within a zone”, ¶[0030]}.
The combination of Estep and Schulz and does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off.
However, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off {“allowing less strict safety requirements, e.g. as in Action 202 above, may comprise one or more out of: Increase/change a speed limit. Increase/change available subsystems, e.g., rely on different brake systems or different sensors. Run in a different mode, e.g. turn off or change obstacle detection systems.”, ¶[0168]; “The first work area 10 and the second work area 20 may e.g. be part of the same warehouse or in different warehouses”, ¶[0083]}.
Estep, Schulz and Hagvall are analogous art because they deal with controlling autonomous vehicles.
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 Estep, Schulz and Hagvall before them, to modify the teachings of Estep and Schulz to include the teachings of Hagvall to improve the productivity of autonomous vehicles while ensuring safety {¶[0006-0007]}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a target speed parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle {“the UWB system 160 may be used as a sensor system for enforcing speed limits and/or halting vehicle movements in hazardous conditions…take a preventative action accordingly (e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action).”, Col. 15, Lns. 29-39}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the sensor comprises a location tag installed on the material handling vehicle {“A UWB radio system 150 mounted on a materials handling vehicle 100 is configured to sense other materials handling vehicles 100 in an immediate area that could potentially intrude on a current path of the materials handling vehicle 100”, Col. 17, Lns. 40-44} for determining two-dimensional coordinates indicative of the location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {“The UWB system 160 may thus detect the full relative pose of one vehicle 100 to a high degree of accuracy”, Col. 15, Lns. 33-35}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the location tag {“first UWB antenna array of the first materials handling vehicle”, Col. 3, Lns. 5-6 and UWB system 150A, Fig. 1B} comprises circuitry {Fig. 2} configured to communicate with a plurality of network anchors {212 and 214, Fig. 2} in communication with a location server {214, Fig. 2} to determine the location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {“materials handling vehicles in an industrial environment may include utilizing ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array systems respectively mounted on the materials handling vehicles to send mutually received information to determine the relative pose between the vehicles”, Abstract; “a navigation subsystem of the vehicle 100 may comprise one or more environmental sensors and an environmental database… the navigation subsystem, the localization system, or both may utilize a stored warehouse map 30 and captured images of ceiling lights 114 or skylights 116 to enable navigation, localization, or both”, Col. 11, Lns. 47-63}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the circuitry of the controller {Col. 7, Lns. 39-47} is further configured to transmit the location of the material handling vehicle to a server via a network {214, Fig. 2} and receive the first parameter and the second parameter from the server {“the system may include a vehicle position processor 202 such as a central hub remote from the vehicles 100 that may be configured to perform the functionalities as described herein”, Col. 13, Lns. 2-6}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the sensor comprises a lidar sensor {multiple sensor options with the primary sensor being ultra-wideband antenna based: “a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization. The laser based system may include a laser scanner, a laser rangefinder, a 2D/3D mapping laser, a lidar, or combinations thereof…the UWB systems described herein may be employed semi-autonomous or fully autonomous automation as a primary or secondary safety system working alongside the lidar and/or image sensors”, Col. 6, Lns. 35-48}, and wherein the controller comprises a display {204, Fig. 2}.
Regarding Claim 8, Estep recites the limitations: a system comprising: a material handling vehicle {10, Figs. 1, 6 & 11} operating in a facility {“industrial environment”, Abstract}; a sensor for gathering data associated with the material handling vehicle {“materials handling vehicles in an industrial environment may include utilizing ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array systems respectively mounted on the materials handling vehicles to send mutually received information to determine the relative pose between the vehicles”, Abstract; “a navigation subsystem of the vehicle 100 may comprise one or more environmental sensors and an environmental database… the navigation subsystem, the localization system, or both may utilize a stored warehouse map 30 and captured images of ceiling lights 114 or skylights 116 to enable navigation, localization, or both”, Col. 11, Lns. 47-63}; a server {“the system may include a vehicle position processor 202 such as a central hub remote from the vehicles 100 that may be configured to perform the functionalities as described herein”, Col. 13, Lns. 2-6} connected to a network {214, Fig. 2}; a controller connected to the network and comprising circuitry {“vehicular processors such as processors 104 communicatively coupled to the vehicle 100. The one or more processors 104 can execute machine readable instructions to implement any of the methods or functions described herein automatically. Memory 106 for storing machine readable instructions can be communicatively coupled to the one or more processors 104, the vehicle 100, or any combination thereof.”, Col. 7, Lns. 39-47; and 202, 216 and 217 in Fig. 2} configured to: determine a location of the material handling vehicle within the facility using the data from the sensor {multiple sensor options with the primary sensor being ultra-wideband antenna based: “a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization. The laser based system may include a laser scanner, a laser rangefinder, a 2D/3D mapping laser, a lidar, or combinations thereof…the UWB systems described herein may be employed semi-autonomous or fully autonomous automation as a primary or secondary safety system working alongside the lidar and/or image sensors”, Col. 6, Lns. 35-48}; transmit the location to the server via the network {processors 104/202, Figs. 1A & 2, respectively, in communication with network 214, Fig. 2, in communication with central remote hub: “the system may include a vehicle position processor 202 such as a central hub remote from the vehicles 100”, Col. 13, Lns. 2-4}; receive a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle {”if the pair of vehicles 100 are in a hazardous scenario with respect to one another and to take a preventative action accordingly (e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action)”, Col. 15, Lns. 35-39} from the server based on a [geofenced] zone within the facility associated with the location {“The systems described herein may further provide vehicle zone-based control based on a vehicle localization based on a constellation map of beacons mounted to facility infrastructure to determine vehicle control in one or more zones Z (FIG. 1). The zones Z may be configured as local where the respective beacons' relative position or pose is sensed as described herein.”, Col. 24, Lns. 35-43}; receive a second parameter {Col. 15, Lns. 35-39} for operating the material handling vehicle from the server based on the [geofenced] zone within the facility associated with the location; and control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first parameter and the second parameter {control of robot determined by multiple parameters such as pose, speed and acceleration: “the UWB system 160 may be used as a sensor system for enforcing speed limits and/or halting vehicle movements in hazardous conditions when the UWB system 160 detects two or more vehicles 100 are operating too close to one-another. The UWB system 160 may thus detect the full relative pose of one vehicle 100 to a high degree of accuracy and read other information from another vehicle 100 in order to determine if the pair of vehicles 100 are in a hazardous scenario with respect to one another and to take a preventative action accordingly ( e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action).”, Col. 15, Lns. 29-39}.
Estep does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a geofenced zone within the facility associated with the location; and wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off.
However, Schulz explicitly recites the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a geofence zone {“ the ruleset further comprises at least one rule that is dependent on whether the location of the to-be-controlled device is within a predetermined zone in the industrial plant. Such zones may thus be regarded as “geofences” that regulate which activities may be performed where in the industrial plant….such zones may represent also complex three-dimensional spaces.”, ¶[0021]; also “Software-defined safety zones”, ¶[0146]} within the facility associated with the location {operating vehicles in an industrial setting using geofencing to increase efficiency in a safe manner (i.e., avoiding collisions): “geofencing system that runs zone management, localization and location-based services as decoupled functions but integrated over a common secure system infrastructure of a plant or production site”, ¶[0028], “the objective of the present invention to improve the coordination between movable devices in an industrial plant, such that they may be operated at higher moving speeds without sacrificing safety”, ¶[0004] and “Collision (avoidance) scenarios: machine with another machine, machine with person, machine with physical obstacle, machine with material (pile, ship, etc.), machine with mobile vehicles.”, ¶[0109]}.
The combination of Estep and Schulz and does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off.
However, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off {“allowing less strict safety requirements, e.g. as in Action 202 above, may comprise one or more out of: Increase/change a speed limit. Increase/change available subsystems, e.g. rely on different brake systems or different sensors. Run in a different mode, e.g. turn off or change obstacle detection systems.”, ¶[0168]; “The first work area 10 and the second work area 20 may e.g. be part of the same warehouse or in different warehouses”, ¶[0083]}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a target speed parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle {“the UWB system 160 may be used as a sensor system for enforcing speed limits and/or halting vehicle movements in hazardous conditions…take a preventative action accordingly (e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action).”, Col. 15, Lns. 29-39}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitations: wherein the sensor comprises a location tag installed on the material handling vehicle {“A UWB radio system 150 mounted on a materials handling vehicle 100 is configured to sense other materials handling vehicles 100 in an immediate area that could potentially intrude on a current path of the materials handling vehicle 100”, Col. 17, Lns. 40-44} for determining two-dimensional coordinates indicative of the location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {“The UWB system 160 may thus detect the full relative pose of one vehicle 100 to a high degree of accuracy”, Col. 15, Lns. 33-35}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a field width parameter that controls a size of a detection area for detecting obstacles associated with the material handling vehicle {with regard to Figs. 4 & 7, the slow field/deceleration zone 404 is smaller than the stop field/control zone 406, corresponding to the sensor fields aimed at collision avoidance}.
Regarding Claim 14, Estep discloses the limitations: a method {“materials handling vehicles in an industrial environment may include utilizing ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array systems respectively mounted on the materials handling vehicles to send mutually received information to determine the relative pose between the vehicles”, Abstract}, comprising: receiving location data for a material handling vehicle {10, Figs. 1, 6 & 11} within a facility {vehicle localization: “a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization.”, Col. 6, Lns. 35-40}; identifying a [geofenced] zone within the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the location data {“The systems described herein may further provide vehicle zone-based control based on a vehicle localization based on a constellation map of beacons mounted to facility infrastructure to determine vehicle control in one or more zones Z (FIG. 1). The zones Z may be configured as local where the respective beacons' relative position or pose is sensed as described herein.”, Col. 24, Lns. 35-43}; determining a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle {”if the pair of vehicles 100 are in a hazardous scenario with respect to one another and to take a preventative action accordingly (e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action)”, Col. 15, Lns. 35-39} that is associated with the [geofenced] zone within the facility {“The systems described herein may further provide vehicle zone-based control based on a vehicle localization based on a constellation map of beacons mounted to facility infrastructure to determine vehicle control in one or more zones Z (FIG. 1). The zones Z may be configured as local where the respective beacons' relative position or pose is sensed as described herein.”, Col. 24, Lns. 35-43}; determining a second parameter for operating the material handling vehicle that is associated with the [geofenced] zone within the facility; and providing the first parameter and the second parameter to the material handling vehicle for operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first parameter and the second parameter {pose, speed and acceleration: “the UWB system 160 may be used as a sensor system for enforcing speed limits and/or halting vehicle movements in hazardous conditions when the UWB system 160 detects two or more vehicles 100 are operating too close to one-another. The UWB system 160 may thus detect the full relative pose of one vehicle 100 to a high degree of accuracy and read other information from another vehicle 100 in order to determine if the pair of vehicles 100 are in a hazardous scenario with respect to one another and to take a preventative action accordingly ( e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action).”, Col. 15, Lns. 29-39}.
Estep does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: identifying a geofenced zone within the facility [and operating the material handling vehicle that is associated with the geofenced zone within the facility]; wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off.
However, Schulz explicitly recites the limitation: identifying a geofenced zone within the facility {“ the ruleset further comprises at least one rule that is dependent on whether the location of the to-be-controlled device is within a predetermined zone in the industrial plant. Such zones may thus be regarded as “geofences” that regulate which activities may be performed where in the industrial plant….such zones may represent also complex three-dimensional spaces.”, ¶[0021]; also “Software-defined safety zones”, ¶[0146]} [and operating the material handling vehicle that is associated with the geofenced zone within the facility] {operating vehicles in an industrial setting using geofencing to increase efficiency in a safe manner (i.e., avoiding collisions): “geofencing system that runs zone management, localization and location-based services as decoupled functions but integrated over a common secure system infrastructure of a plant or production site”, ¶[0028], “the objective of the present invention to improve the coordination between movable devices in an industrial plant, such that they may be operated at higher moving speeds without sacrificing safety”, ¶[0004] and “Collision (avoidance) scenarios: machine with another machine, machine with person, machine with physical obstacle, machine with material (pile, ship, etc.), machine with mobile vehicles.”, ¶[0109]}.
The combination of Estep and Schulz and does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off.
However, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation: identifying a zone within the facility {“The first work area 10 and the second work area 20 may e.g. be part of the same warehouse or in different warehouses”, ¶[0083]}; wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off {“allowing less strict safety requirements, e.g. as in Action 202 above, may comprise one or more out of: Increase/change a speed limit. Increase/change available subsystems, e.g. rely on different brake systems or different sensors. Run in a different mode, e.g. turn off or change obstacle detection systems.”, ¶[0168]}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the sensor comprises a location tag installed on the material handling vehicle {“A UWB radio system 150 mounted on a materials handling vehicle 100 is configured to sense other materials handling vehicles 100 in an immediate area that could potentially intrude on a current path of the materials handling vehicle 100”, Col. 17, Lns. 40-44} for determining two-dimensional coordinates indicative of the location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {“The UWB system 160 may thus detect the full relative pose of one vehicle 100 to a high degree of accuracy”, Col. 15, Lns. 33-35}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein determining the second parameter comprises determining a target speed parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle {“the UWB system 160 may be used as a sensor system for enforcing speed limits and/or halting vehicle movements in hazardous conditions…take a preventative action accordingly (e.g., stopping, slowing, turning, automatic braking, active cruise control, or other collision avoidance action).”, Col. 15, Lns. 29-39}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Estep further cites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a field width parameter that controls a size of a detection area for detecting obstacles associated with the material handling vehicle {with regard to Figs. 4&7, the slow field/deceleration zone 404 is smaller than the stop field/control zone 406, corresponding to the sensor fields aimed at collision avoidance}.
Claims 7, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Estep, Schulz, Hagvall and Elston et al. (US 9,645,968 B2, henceforth Elston).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle.
However, Elston explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle {“a braking operation may be applied after a predetermined delay time to allow a predetermined range of additional travel to the truck 10 after the initiation of the stop operation”, Col. 8, Lns. 24-26}.
The combination of references Estep, Schulz and Hagvall along with Elston are analogous art because each deals with controlling of a material handling vehicle in a warehouse type setting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Estep, Schulz, Hagvall and Elston before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall to include the teachings of Elston to allow a vehicle to clear an intersection before stopping.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a pivot angle parameter that controls an amount of time associated with pivoting the material handling vehicle after detecting an obstacle.
However, Elston explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a pivot angle parameter that controls an amount of time associated with pivoting the material handling vehicle after detecting an obstacle {“one or more of the detection zones may be designated as steer angle correction zone(s). In this regard, the controller 103 may be further configured to implement a steer angle correction if an obstacle is detected in the steer angle correction zone(s).”, Col. 12, Lns. 53-57}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a pivot angle parameter that controls an amount of time associated with pivoting the material handling vehicle after detecting an obstacle.
However, Elston explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a pivot angle parameter that controls an amount of time associated with pivoting the material handling vehicle after detecting an obstacle {“one or more of the detection zones may be designated as steer angle correction zone(s). In this regard, the controller 103 may be further configured to implement a steer angle correction if an obstacle is detected in the steer angle correction zone(s).”, Col. 12, Lns. 53-57}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle.
However, Elston explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a delay parameter that controls an amount of time required to elapse before changing a speed of the material handling vehicle {“a braking operation may be applied after a predetermined delay time to allow a predetermined range of additional travel to the truck 10 after the initiation of the stop operation”, Col. 8, Lns. 24-26}.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Estep, Schulz, Hagvall and Taylor (US 10,466,707 B2).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a minimum obstacle size parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle based on a size of an obstacle detected by the material handling vehicle.
However, Taylor explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second parameter comprises a minimum obstacle size parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle based on a size of an obstacle detected by the material handling vehicle {minimum distance criteria enforced to stop vehicle before colliding with an object: “A buffer region may be placed around each of the objects identified as an obstacle. The buffer region may operate to enforce a minimum distance (i.e., a first threshold distance) away from the obstacle at which the vehicle is to stop to avoid colliding with the obstacle. The minimum distance may be based on a size of the obstacle, a type or classification of the obstacle, a speed of the vehicle, a size of the vehicle, a load carried by the vehicle, and/or a task assigned to the vehicle, among other factors.”, Col. 5, Lns. 47-55}.
The combination of references Estep, Schulz and Hagvall along with Taylor are analogous art because each deals with controlling of a material handling vehicle in a warehouse type setting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall and Taylor before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall to include the teachings of Taylor to avoid collision with an object in a warehouse environment when the vehicle is forced to take a circuitous route to avoid numerous obstacles {Figs. 8A-8D}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Schulz and Hagvall does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein determining the second parameter comprises determining a minimum obstacle size parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle based on a size of an obstacle detected by the material handling vehicle.
However, Taylor explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining the second parameter comprises determining a minimum obstacle size parameter that controls a speed of the material handling vehicle based on a size of an obstacle detected by the material handling vehicle {minimum distance criteria enforced to stop vehicle before colliding with an object: “A buffer region may be placed around each of the objects identified as an obstacle. The buffer region may operate to enforce a minimum distance (i.e., a first threshold distance) away from the obstacle at which the vehicle is to stop to avoid colliding with the obstacle. The minimum distance may be based on a size of the obstacle, a type or classification of the obstacle, a speed of the vehicle, a size of the vehicle, a load carried by the vehicle, and/or a task assigned to the vehicle, among other factors.”, Col. 5, Lns. 47-55}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
GB 2383310 A – Driving characteristics of a truck are automatically reset upon entering a warehouse. This over-riding of manual controls switches the truck to a driving mode suitable to a designated area.
US 10,099,706 B2 – Teaches of zone-based behavior for a vehicle within a geofenced region zone.
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) 272-4143. 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
Prosecution Insights