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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/08/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12-14, and 16-20 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
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: "wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off";
“Amended claim 1 recites "determine a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location, wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off' and "control operation of the material handling vehicle in accordance with the first parameter" (emphasis added). Estep, Medwin, and Bohler, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest at least these features recited in claim 1.”;
“Bohler describes how functionality related to an obstacle detection device can be changed based on a particular mode that a transport system is operating in. For example, Bohler notes that the obstacle recognition device can deactivate the monitored field generated by the obstacle recognition device when the transport system is operating in the placement operating mode, at least until the transport system places a pallet or pallet cage on a free placement area. However, Bohler does not teach or suggest changing the functionality of the obstacle recognition device based on particular zone within a facility in which the material handing vehicle is located.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. 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), Hagvall et al. (US 2025/0249894 A1, henceforth Hagvall) and Medwin et al. (US 9,650,233 B2), henceforth Medwin.
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}; 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 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}; determine a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle ; determine a second parameter for operating the material handling vehicle; 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: wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off; and operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location.
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.”, ¶[0168-0171]; “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 and Hagvall are analogous art because they both deal 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 and Hagvall before them, to modify the teachings of Estep to include the teachings of Hagvall to improve the productivity of autonomous vehicles while ensuring safety {¶[0006-0007]}.
The combination of Estep and Hagvall and does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location.
However, Medwin explicitly recites the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location {operating vehicle in restricted versus non-restricted zones: “drive the industrial vehicle 10 into the restricted area, room 160, that event causes the location control routine 140 to branch to step 156. At this time, the vehicle controller 12 disables further operation of industrial vehicle 10…Instead of entirely disabling operation, the vehicle controller 12 could severely limit the operation, such as by limiting the speed of travel to an extremely slow maximum level or disabling only some functions.”, Col. 15, Lns. 12-23}.
The combination of references Estep, Hagvall and Medwin are analogous art because they deal with operating autonomous 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, Hagvall and Medwin before them, to modify the teachings of Estep and Hagvall to include the teachings of Medwin to safely operate an industrial vehicle in an environment with varying storage conditions {Col. 1, Lns. 56-64}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. Estep does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the location tag comprises circuitry configured to communicate with a plurality of network anchors in communication with a location server to determine the location of the material handling vehicle within the facility .
However, Medwin explicitly recites limitation: wherein the location tag {antenna 75, Figs. 1-2} comprises circuitry configured to communicate with a plurality of network anchors {106, Fig. 6 and “The communication system 102 includes a plurality of wireless access points 106 distributed through a warehouse 100, such as in a shipping dock and goods storage areas.”, Col. 8, Lns. 1-4} in communication with a location server {for example, warehouse management computer system 114, Fig. 6} to determine the location of the material handling vehicle within the facility {“the location of the industrial vehicle 10 can be determined from communication with three separate wireless access points 106. Each wireless access point 106 is assigned a unique address that is included, along with the time of day, in every wireless message sent to an industrial 10 vehicle 10.”, Col. 8, Lns. 1-4}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin 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 for 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 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 from the server; receive a second parameter for operating the material handling vehicle from the server; 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: wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off; and operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location.
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.”, ¶[0168-0171]; “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]}.
The combination of Estep and Hagvall and does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location.
However, Medwin explicitly recites the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location {operating vehicle in restricted versus non-restricted zones: “drive the industrial vehicle 10 into the restricted area, room 160, that event causes the location control routine 140 to branch to step 156. At this time, the vehicle controller 12 disables further operation of industrial vehicle 10…Instead of entirely disabling operation, the vehicle controller 12 could severely limit the operation, such as by limiting the speed of travel to an extremely slow maximum level or disabling only some functions.”, Col. 15, Lns. 12-23}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin 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 recites 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}; determining a first parameter for operating the material handling vehicle; determining a second parameter for operating the material handling vehicle; 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 {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: identifying a zone within the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the location data; wherein the first parameter comprises an enable detection parameter that turns obstacle detection functionality for the material handling vehicle on or off; and operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location.
However, Hagvall explicitly recites the limitation: identifying a zone within the facility that the material handling vehicle is in using the location data {“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.”, ¶[0168-0171]}.
The combination of Estep and Hagvall and does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location.
However, Medwin explicitly recites the limitation: operating the material handling vehicle based on a zone within the facility associated with the location {operating vehicle in restricted versus non-restricted zones: “drive the industrial vehicle 10 into the restricted area, room 160, that event causes the location control routine 140 to branch to step 156. At this time, the vehicle controller 12 disables further operation of industrial vehicle 10…Instead of entirely disabling operation, the vehicle controller 12 could severely limit the operation, such as by limiting the speed of travel to an extremely slow maximum level or disabling only some functions.”, Col. 15, Lns. 12-23}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, 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, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin and Elston et al. (US 9,645,968 B2), henceforth Elston.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: 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, Hagvall and Medwin along with Elston are analogous art because each deals with the 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, Hagvall, Medwin and Elston before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin to include the teachings of Elston to allow a vehicle to clear an intersection before stopping.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: 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, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: 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, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: 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, Hagvall, Medwin and Taylor (US 10,466,707 B2).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin along with Taylor are analogous art because each deals with the 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, Hagvall and Medwin and Taylor before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin 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, Hagvall and Medwin discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. The combination of Estep, Hagvall and Medwin 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
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.
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
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665