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 .
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1 - 8 are currently being examined.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains mechanical and design details such as figure acronyms, i.e., PG, S1, etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: "edge specifying unit" (Claim 1), "distance calculation unit" (Claim 2) .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "point group acquisition unit that acquires", "edge specifying unit that analyzes", and "distance calculation unit that calculates" in Claim(s) 1 - 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Applicant's disclosure does not provide enough information for any person skilled in the art to identify and use "edge specifying unit" of Claims 1 - 3, and "distance calculation unit" of Claims 2 - 3 due to the use of functional language with a lack of corresponding structure in both the claims and specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “"edge specifying unit" and "distance calculation unit"” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 is drawn to a machine, and Independent Claims 4 – 8 are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, Claims 1 and 4 – 8 are each drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites:
a transport vehicle comprising:
a cargo loading unit;
a point group acquisition unit that acquires a point group by horizontally irradiating cargo loaded on the cargo loading unit and/or an object around the transport vehicle with light; and
an edge specifying unit that analyzes the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with distances in a left-right direction and/or a front-rear direction as axes, and specifies a section with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as a position of an edge in the left-right direction or the front-rear direction of the cargo and/or the object around.
The claim and its associated limitations recite a machine and its component parts solely as a structure to receive data, analyze said data, and specify a result, which is analogous to a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) without any direct link to the structure for the specific application of the mental process, i.e. the structure can perform other processes and the process can be performed by other structures. A claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind has been found by the courts to be directed to an abstract idea [See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed Cir. 2016)]. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG [See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites:
An edge position specifying method for specifying a position of an edge of an object based on a point group acquired by a point group acquisition unit arranged in a transport vehicle, the edge position specifying method comprising:
acquiring the point group by horizontally irradiating the object with light by the point group acquisition unit;
and analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with distances in a left-right direction and/or a front-rear direction as axes, and specifying a section with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as a position of an edge in the left-right direction and/or the front-rear direction of the object.
The claim and its associated limitations recite a method using the structure of Claim 1 to perform the same steps analogous to an abstract idea grouped as a mental process as previously mentioned. Therefore, Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites:
A distance calculation method for calculating a distance of a gap between cargo loaded on a transport vehicle and an object near the cargo based on a point group acquired by a point group acquisition unit arranged in the transport vehicle, the distance calculation method comprising:
acquiring the point group by horizontally irradiating the cargo and the object with light by the point group acquisition unit;
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in a left-right direction as an axis, and specifying a section with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as a position of an edge of the cargo or the object; and
calculating the distance of the gap between the cargo and the object in the left-right direction based on the specified positions of the edges of the cargo and the object.
The claim and its associated limitations recite a method for calculating a distance of a gap, describing a mathematical calculation which can be performed by humans without a computer [See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014)]. Additionally, it recites the same steps from Claims 1 and 4 that are analogous to an abstract idea grouped as a mental process. Therefore, Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites:
A distance calculation method for calculating a distance of a gap between cargo loaded on a transport vehicle and an object near the cargo based on a point group acquired by a point group acquisition unit arranged in the transport vehicle, the distance calculation method comprising:
acquiring the point group by horizontally irradiating the cargo and the object with light by the point group acquisition unit;
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in a front-rear direction as an axis, and specifying a section with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as a position of an edge of the cargo or the object; and
calculating the distance of the gap between the cargo and the object in the front-rear direction based on the specified positions of the edges of the cargo and the object.
The claim and its associated limitations recite the same abstract ideas as Claim 5, for the reasons stated above. Merely changing the associated direction from “left-right” to “front-rear” carries neither substantive weight in regards to the concept nor against the argument. Therefore, Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites:
A distance calculation method for calculating a distance of a gap between cargo loaded on a transport vehicle and an object near the cargo based on a point group acquired by a point group acquisition unit arranged in the transport vehicle, the distance calculation method comprising:
acquiring the point group by horizontally irradiating the cargo and the object with light by the point group acquisition unit;
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in a front-rear direction as an axis, and specifying a section of a peak value in an upper area as a position of an edge of the object and specifying a section of a peak value in a lower area as a position of an edge of the cargo; and
calculating the distance between the cargo and the object in the front-rear direction based on the specified positions of the edges of the cargo and the object.
The claim and its associated limitations recite the same abstract ideas as Claims 5 and 6, for the reasons stated above. Merely changing the associated direction from “left-right” to “front-rear” carries neither substantive weight in regards to the concept nor against the argument. Additionally, the changing of the verbiage used to describe the specification process does not lend credence to a distinct difference in claimed limitations. Therefore, Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites:
A non-transient computer-readable recording medium, recording a position specifying program, causing a computer of a transport vehicle which comprises:
a point group acquisition unit that acquires a point group by horizontally irradiating an object with light; and
the computer, to perform
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with distances in a left-right direction and/or a front-rear direction as axes, and specifying a section with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as a position of an edge in the left-right direction or the front-rear direction of the object.
Claim 8 recites the use of a non-transient computer-readable recording medium, a position specifying program, and a computer to perform the same steps contained in the limitations of Claims 1 and 4 – 6 above. The use of a computer as a tool to perform these steps does not take the claim out of the mathematical concept or mental processes grouping.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to use a computer as a tool to perform these processes, implementing the abstract idea using a computer as a tool is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claimed steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use a computer as a tool to perform the processes. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements or structure sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to perform the acquisition, analysis, and specification steps amounts to no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform the process directed to an abstract idea. Nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and merely using a computer as a tool to perform the process does not add significantly more to the abstract idea and cannot provide a patent eligible inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2 - 3 is/are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as a result of the rejection of independent Claim 1. Additionally, Claims 2 and 3 describe a mathematical calculation which can be performed by humans without a computer, as described previously in regards to Claims 5 – 7. Furthermore, Claims 2 and 3 do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and cannot provide a patent eligible inventive concept.
Examiner notes the claims currently recite receiving and analyzing data without implementing it into a practical application; the potential for this implementation currently exists in the application but has not been claimed. As a non-limiting example, the claims could be amended to recite acquisition, analysis, and specification of cargo and/or object/edge detection and position data, along with distance calculations representing control of a transport vehicle for cargo and inventory handling; a step where this movement is actually performed, such as executing or implementing the vehicle control and movement based on feedback from those systems, and unloading the cargo without intersection with nearby objects may potentially integrate this data and process into a practical application. The example above is for informational purposes. Other examples and approaches exist; Applicant is not limited to this example and may choose wording they deem appropriate and/or another approach not mentioned here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeo et al. (US 2021/0316975, hereinafter referred to as Yeo).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Yeo discloses:
a transport vehicle [See at least Title and Abstract] comprising:
a cargo loading unit [See at least Fig. 3, not indicated but apparent from Ref. Numeral 13, and Para. 0002 “forklift truck capable of automatically performing transporting and unloading tasks”];
a point group acquisition unit [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1, 2, 9, and 12 – 14, and Para. 0032 – 0039] that acquires a point group by horizontally irradiating cargo loaded on the cargo loading unit and/or an object around the transport vehicle with light [See at least Para. 0007 “to emit a laser and detect a location of the autonomous forklift truck in a traveling operation”, Para. 0008 “receives a plurality of ,<location information and reflectance data> by repeatedly emitting the laser”, Para. 0033, and Para. 0034 “The first sensor equipped on the bottom in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck is equipped on one side of a front shock bumper of the autonomous forklift truck, and plays a role in detecting an obstacle near the work area floor. Additionally, the second sensor 9 equipped on the top in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck plays a role in detecting an obstacle at a predetermined height from the floor not detected by the first sensor”]; and
an edge specifying unit that analyzes the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with distances in a left-right direction and/or a front-rear direction as axes, and specifies a section with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as a position of an edge in the left-right direction or the front-rear direction of the cargo and/or the object around.
For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “point group acquisition” is interpreted, by one of ordinary skill in the art, as analogous to LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging), and is supported by Applicant’s specification [See at least Fig. 4, 5, and 6, as well as at least Para. 0018]. Additionally, “point group” is interpreted as the collection of individual points making up a “LiDAR point cloud”.
For examination purposes, LiDAR is defined [See IBM LiDAR Document] as “a remote-sensing technology that uses laser beams to measure precise distances and movement in an environment, in real time” and is comprised of several components including, but not limited to:
a laser scanner that emits rapid pulses of near-infrared laser light
a LiDAR sensor that is used for detecting and collecting the returning light pulses, and
a processor for calculating the time and distance and for building the resultant data set, called a LiDAR point cloud.
The intrinsic “concept of differentiability allows for the discernment of objects, walls, and free space in a LiDAR scanner reading. Specifically, it follows that if there exists a point where 𝑓(𝜃) is not differentiable and that point falls outside the interval of an object, it must be the edge of a wall (a corner); otherwise, the point belongs to the edge of an object.” [See Fagundes et al.]
Therefore, the limitation is encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of LiDAR, including ToF (Time-of-Flight), FMCW (Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave), Doppler, etc., and as such analysis of “frequency distribution” for areas of frequencies of various values, including “substantially no frequency” is integral to the basic theory and operation of LiDAR systems, regardless of how the frequency, direction, et al. information is interpreted, displayed, or utilized within the system.
For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “edge specifying unit” has been interpreted as a processor or similar device for carrying out the specific coded instructions to perform the required analysis.
Regarding Claim 2, Yeo discloses:
The transport vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a distance calculation unit [See at least Abstract “laser sensor to measure a distance from a rack where a pallet is loaded or a distance from the pallet… and a control unit to process sensing signals inputted from all the sensors” and Para. 0012, 0013, and 0027, specifically “accurately recognizing its location in a work area and accurately measuring the distance from an obstacle based on a plurality of LiDAR sensors during freight loading, handling and unloading”], wherein the point group acquisition unit further acquires the point group by horizontally irradiating the cargo and a nearby object of the cargo with light [See at least Para. 0007 “to emit a laser and detect a location of the autonomous forklift truck in a traveling operation”, Para. 0008 “receives a plurality of ,<location information and reflectance data> by repeatedly emitting the laser”, Para. 0033, and Para. 0034 “The first sensor equipped on the bottom in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck is equipped on one side of a front shock bumper of the autonomous forklift truck, and plays a role in detecting an obstacle near the work area floor. Additionally, the second sensor 9 equipped on the top in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck plays a role in detecting an obstacle at a predetermined height from the floor not detected by the first sensor”],
the edge specifying unit further analyzes the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in the left-right direction as an axis, and respectively specifies left and right sections with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as positions of edges of the cargo or the nearby object, and
the distance calculation unit calculates a distance in the left-right direction between the cargo and the nearby object based on the specified positions of the edges of the cargo and the nearby object.
See previously addressed response to the claim limitation of the “edge specifying unit”.
Regarding the “distance calculation unit” and “distance calculation”, as previously defined, LiDAR is substantively about the measurement of distance using a known constant with respect to time, “The LiDAR instrument emits pulsed laser light into the environment. These pulses, traveling at the speed of light, bounce off surrounding objects and return to the LiDAR sensor. The sensor measures the time that it took for each pulse to return and calculates the distance that it traveled. Because the speed of laser light is constant, this “time of flight” can be used to calculate precise distances” [See IBM LiDAR Document].
Therefore, the limitation is encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of LiDAR, including ToF (Time-of-Flight), FMCW (Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave), Doppler, etc., and as such calculation of distance in any direction, between the sensor and objects, as well as between said objects is integral to the basic theory and operation of LiDAR systems, regardless of how the distance, direction, et al. information is interpreted, displayed, or utilized within the system.
For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “distance calculation unit” has been interpreted as a processor or similar device for carrying out the specific coded instructions to perform the required analysis.
Regarding Claim 3, Yeo discloses the same anticipated limitations as Claim 2 in regards to:
The transport vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a distance calculation unit, wherein the point group acquisition unit further acquires the point group by horizontally irradiating the cargo and a nearby object of the cargo with light,
the edge specifying unit further analyzes the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in the front-rear direction as an axis, and respectively specifies front and rear sections with frequencies, adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency, as positions of edges of the cargo or the nearby object, and
the distance calculation unit calculates a distance in the front-rear direction between the cargo and the nearby object based on the specified positions of the edges of the cargo and the nearby object.
Regarding the claim limitations, see previously addressed response to the final limitation of Claim 2, as the verbiage of “front-rear direction” carries no substantial difference per the definitions and argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo et al. (US 2021/0316975, hereinafter Yeo) in view of Silver et al. (US 9395192, hereinafter Silver); Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0255030, hereinafter Yamamoto); Jeong et al. (US 2019/0293765, hereinafter Jeong); Kawashima et al. (US 2022/0289538, hereinafter Kawashima); and Takao et al. (US 2022/0066464, hereinafter Takao) and further in view of Podest (The Fundamentals of LiDAR, 2021, hereinafter Podest) and Ferraz et al. (Tropical tree size-frequency distributions from airborne lidar, 2020, hereinafter Ferraz).
Regarding Claim 4, Yeo discloses a point group acquisition unit arranged in a transport vehicle and point group acquisition, it fails to teach the method of edge position specification and point group analysis using frequency distribution distances assigned to respective axes. However, Silver teaches a method for boundary edge detection, while both Takao and Kawashima demonstrate assigning point group information along a horizontal plane for measurement of width (left-right direction distance) and depth (front-rear direction distance) and specifically assigning these values to a respective axis, with Podest and Ferraz further disclosing distance/size relating to frequency distribution:
An edge position specifying method [See at least Silver: Abstract, Fig. 3, and Col. 1, lines 26-39] for specifying a position of an edge of an object based on a point group acquired by a point group acquisition unit [See at least Silver: Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 202, Col. 3, lines 53-59, and Col. 14, lines 6-43] arranged in a transport vehicle [See at least Yeo Abstract and Title], the edge position specifying method comprising:
acquiring the point group by horizontally irradiating the object with light [See at least Yeo: Para. 0007 “to emit a laser and detect a location of the autonomous forklift truck in a traveling operation”, Para. 0008 “receives a plurality of ,<location information and reflectance data> by repeatedly emitting the laser”, Para. 0033, and Para. 0034 “The first sensor equipped on the bottom in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck is equipped on one side of a front shock bumper of the autonomous forklift truck, and plays a role in detecting an obstacle near the work area floor. Additionally, the second sensor 9 equipped on the top in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck plays a role in detecting an obstacle at a predetermined height from the floor not detected by the first sensor”] by the point group acquisition unit [See at least Yeo: Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1, 2, 9, and 12 – 14, and Para. 0032 – 0039]; and
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution [See at least Podest, slides 5-6 and 12-18, and at least Ferraz page 2 “In this study, we use high spatial resolution airborne laser scanning to model individual trees crowns (ITC) and to retrieve tree size–frequency distributions…Our method clusters lidar point clouds (photons returning from different tree components) into 3D models of individual trees with direct information about tree height, crown size, and the number of trees”] with distances in a left-right direction and/or a front-rear direction [See at least Takao: Fig. 5, Para. 0004-0005, 0013-0014, and 0058 “The depth map is a map representing the fixed measurement space region in two dimensions in the depth direction and the width direction” as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 26, Fig. 6, Para. 0037, 0059, and 0061] as axes [See at least Takao: Fig. 8 and Para. 0067 as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 8 and Para. 0059], and specifying a section with frequencies [See at least Kawashima Fig. 11 and Para. 0070 “a histogram illustrating an example of the number of measuring points MA per unit range”], adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency [See at least Silver Col. 4, lines 63-66, as well as at least Takao: Fig. 9, 10, and Para. 0070-0078], as a position of an edge in the left-right direction and/or the front-rear direction of the object [See at least Takao: Fig. 11, 12, and Para. 0079-0082, specifically “the two-dimensional distance measurement device is located to the left of the pallet and scans the pallet from a direction oblique to the pallet”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transport vehicle, cargo loading unit, and point group acquisition unit thereon of Yeo, as well as its associated point group acquisition method, for the purpose of boundary edge detection as taught by Silver and well understood with knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, and assigning point group information along a horizontal plane for measurement of width (left-right direction distance) and depth (front-rear direction distance) and specifically assigning these values to a respective axis as taught by Takao and Kawashima and well understood with knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply said teachings for the purpose of additional data acquisition as applicable to any functional requirement thereof with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 5-7, while Yeo discloses a step of “measuring the distance from an obstacle based on a plurality of LiDAR sensors during freight loading, handling and unloading”, it does not explicitly disclose the method for distance calculation. However, Yamamoto does explicitly teach the fundamental distance calculation method of LiDAR systems, while Silver, Takao, and Kawashima teach calculating gap distance between objects based on their respective edges using LiDAR, and Jeong specifically explains using a multi-channel LiDAR sensor module with a plurality of light emitters to irradiate multiple objects simultaneously:
A distance calculation method [See at least Yamamoto Para. 0151-0156] for calculating a distance of a gap between cargo loaded on a transport vehicle and an object near the cargo based on a point group [See at least Silver: Col. 14, lines 17-23 “The laser returns and data points may enable a computing system to estimate distances between objects as well as distances between the vehicle and objects. In addition, the accumulation of many data points may enable the computing system to estimate structures, positioning, and/or orientation of objects/surfaces in the environment relative to the vehicle”] acquired by a point group acquisition unit arranged in the transport vehicle [See at least Yeo: Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1, 2, 9, and 12 – 14, and Para. 0032 – 0039], the distance calculation method comprising:
acquiring the point group by horizontally irradiating the cargo and the object with light by the point group acquisition unit [See at least Yeo: Para. 0007 “to emit a laser and detect a location of the autonomous forklift truck in a traveling operation”, Para. 0008 “receives a plurality of ,<location information and reflectance data> by repeatedly emitting the laser”, Para. 0033, and Para. 0034 “The first sensor equipped on the bottom in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck is equipped on one side of a front shock bumper of the autonomous forklift truck, and plays a role in detecting an obstacle near the work area floor. Additionally, the second sensor 9 equipped on the top in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck plays a role in detecting an obstacle at a predetermined height from the floor not detected by the first sensor”];
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in a left-right direction [See at least Takao: Fig. 5, Para. 0004-0005, 0013-0014, and 0058 “The depth map is a map representing the fixed measurement space region in two dimensions in the depth direction and the width direction” as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 26, Fig. 6, Para. 0037, 0059, and 0061] as an axis [See at least Takao: Fig. 8 and Para. 0067 as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 8 and Para. 0059], and specifying a section with frequencies [See at least Kawashima Fig. 11 and Para. 0070 “a histogram illustrating an example of the number of measuring points MA per unit range”], adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency [See at least Silver [Col. 4, lines 63-66, as well as at least Takao: Fig. 9, 10, and Para. 0070-0078], as a position of an edge of the cargo or the object [See at least Takao: Fig. 11, 12, and Para. 0079-0082, specifically “the two-dimensional distance measurement device is located to the left of the pallet and scans the pallet from a direction oblique to the pallet”]; and
calculating the distance of the gap between the cargo and the object in the left-right direction based on the specified positions of the edges of the cargo and the object [See at least Silver: Col. 14, lines 17-23 “The laser returns and data points may enable a computing system to estimate distances between objects as well as distances between the vehicle and objects. In addition, the accumulation of many data points may enable the computing system to estimate structures, positioning, and/or orientation of objects/surfaces in the environment relative to the vehicle”, lines 24-28, and lines 40-49 “the boundaries may exist as physical structures and the computing system may receive data indicating the position and orientation of the physical boundaries relative to the vehicle”, at least Jeong: Abstract “lidar sensor module capable of measuring at least two target objects using one image sensor”, Fig. 16, Ref. Numeral 4100, Fig. 25, and Para. 0035-0039, at least Yamamoto: Para. 0097-0098, 0128, 0138, and 0214-0215, and at least Takao: Fig. 10, and Para. 0076-0077].
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in a front-rear direction [See at least Takao: Fig. 5, Para. 0004-0005, 0013-0014, and 0058 “The depth map is a map representing the fixed measurement space region in two dimensions in the depth direction and the width direction” as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 26, Fig. 6, Para. 0037, 0059, and 0061] as an axis [See at least Takao: Fig. 8 and Para. 0067 as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 8 and Para. 0059], and specifying a section with frequencies [See at least Kawashima Fig. 11 and Para. 0070 “a histogram illustrating an example of the number of measuring points MA per unit range”], adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency [See at least Silver [Col. 4, lines 63-66, as well as at least Takao: Fig. 9, 10, and Para. 0070-0078], as a position of an edge of the cargo or the object [See at least Takao: Fig. 11, 12, and Para. 0079-0082, specifically “the two-dimensional distance measurement device is located to the left of the pallet and scans the pallet from a direction oblique to the pallet”]; and
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with a distance in a front-rear direction [See at least Takao: Fig. 5, Para. 0004-0005, 0013-0014, and 0058 “The depth map is a map representing the fixed measurement space region in two dimensions in the depth direction and the width direction” as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 26, Fig. 6, Para. 0037, 0059, and 0061] as an axis [See at least Takao: Fig. 8 and Para. 0067 as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 8 and Para. 0059], and specifying a section of a peak value in an upper area as a position of an edge of the object and specifying a section of a peak value in a lower area as a position of an edge of the cargo [See at least Takao: Fig. 11, 12, and Para. 0079-0082, specifically “the two-dimensional distance measurement device is located to the left of the pallet and scans the pallet from a direction oblique to the pallet” and at least Kawashima Fig. 11 and Para. 0070 “a histogram illustrating an example of the number of measuring points MA per unit range”]; and
calculating the distance between the cargo and the object in the front-rear direction based on the specified positions of the edges of the cargo and the object [See at least Silver: Col. 14, lines 17-23 “The laser returns and data points may enable a computing system to estimate distances between objects as well as distances between the vehicle and objects. In addition, the accumulation of many data points may enable the computing system to estimate structures, positioning, and/or orientation of objects/surfaces in the environment relative to the vehicle”, lines 24-28, and lines 40-49 “the boundaries may exist as physical structures and the computing system may receive data indicating the position and orientation of the physical boundaries relative to the vehicle”, at least Jeong: Abstract “lidar sensor module capable of measuring at least two target objects using one image sensor”, Fig. 16 Ref. Numeral 4100, Fig. 25, and Para. 0035-0039, at least Yamamoto: Para. 0097-0098, 0128, 0138, and 0214-0215, and at least Kawashima: Fig. 12, and Para. 0072-0073].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement of objects based on the input of a plurality of LiDAR sensors during cargo handling of Yeo, with the explicit and fundamental calculation method as taught by Yamamoto and apply it towards calculating gap distance between objects based on their respective edges using LiDAR, as taught by Silver, Takao, and Kawashima, regardless of using a plurality of sensors or a single sensor, as further taught by Jeong.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply said teachings for the purpose of using LiDAR distance measurements as applied to the edges of detected objects to calculate the size of empty areas between said objects with respect to cargo handling or the like with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 8, Yeo discloses a computer of a transport vehicle, but lacks a description for the use of the computer in storing or running a position specifying program. However, Yamamoto, Silver, Takao, Kawashima, and Jeong all describe, to varying extents, a computer running a program to acquire positional information through at least LiDAR inputs, analyze the data, and perform the necessary calculations for object detection.
A non-transient computer-readable recording medium [See at least Yamamoto: and Para. 0090-0093; at least Silver: Fig. 6, Ref. Numerals 606 and 608, and Col. 1, lines 47-48, Col. 12, lines 30-48, and Col. 25, lines 24-43, and claims 17-20; at least Takao: Fig. 3, Ref. Numerals 74 and 76, and Para. 0053-0054; at least Kawashima: Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 62, and Para. 0041, 0044, and claim 11; and at least Jeong: Para. 0077] recording a position specifying program, causing a computer [See at least Yamamoto: Fig. 3, Ref. Numerals 40a, 44a, and 430a, Fig. 24, Ref. Numeral 1435a, and Para. 0090-0093; at least Silver, Fig. 6, Ref. Numeral 600; at least Takao: Fig. 3, Ref. Numeral 72, Fig. 4, and Para. 0053-0054; at least Kawashima: Fig. 3, Ref. Numeral 12, Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 28, and Para. 0040 and 0043; and at least Jeong: Fig. 15, Ref. Numeral 10000] of a transport vehicle which comprises:
a point group acquisition unit [See at least Yeo: Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1, 2, 9, and 12 – 14, and Para. 0032 – 0039] that acquires a point group by horizontally irradiating an object with light [See at least Yeo: Para. 0007 “to emit a laser and detect a location of the autonomous forklift truck in a traveling operation”, Para. 0008 “receives a plurality of ,<location information and reflectance data> by repeatedly emitting the laser”, Para. 0033, and Para. 0034 “The first sensor equipped on the bottom in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck is equipped on one side of a front shock bumper of the autonomous forklift truck, and plays a role in detecting an obstacle near the work area floor. Additionally, the second sensor 9 equipped on the top in the front part of the autonomous forklift truck plays a role in detecting an obstacle at a predetermined height from the floor not detected by the first sensor”]; and
the computer, to perform
analyzing the acquired point group using a frequency distribution with distances in a left-right direction and/or a front-rear direction [See at least Takao: Fig. 5, Para. 0004-0005, 0013-0014, and 0058 “The depth map is a map representing the fixed measurement space region in two dimensions in the depth direction and the width direction” as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 26, Fig. 6, Para. 0037, 0059, and 0061] as axes [See at least Takao: Fig. 8 and Para. 0067 as well as at least Kawashima: Fig. 8 and Para. 0059], and specifying a section with frequencies [See at least Kawashima Fig. 11 and Para. 0070 “a histogram illustrating an example of the number of measuring points MA per unit range”], adjacent to an area with substantially no frequency [See at least Silver [Col. 4, lines 63-66, as well as at least Takao: Fig. 9, 10, and Para. 0070-0078], as a position of an edge in the left-right direction and/or the front-rear direction of the object [See at least Takao: Fig. 11, 12, and Para. 0079-0082], as a position of an edge in the left-right direction or the front-rear direction of the object [See at least Takao: Fig. 11, 12, and Para. 0079-0082].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transport vehicle and computer therein of Yeo with the teachings Yamamoto, Silver, Takao, Kawashima, and Jeong to contain a non-transitory computer-readable recording and associated program contained therein for the purpose of acquiring positional information via at least LiDAR inputs and analyze said data for performing object detection and requisite calculations.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply said teachings to facilitate performing the aforementioned acquisition, analysis, detection, and calculation method with a reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to F JERVIS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0730 - 1530.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/F JERVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3655 18 Dec 25
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655