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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: diagram 400. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear to which portion of the drawing Reference Number 410 refers and is hard to distinguish from Reference Numbers 410a and 410b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0003, "without the need of" should read "without the need for"
In Paragraph 0006, the Reference Number 150 does not need to be included
In Paragraph 0009, the acronym APM has not previously been defined
In Paragraph 0010, the acronym LiDAR has not previously been defined
In Paragraphs 0020, 0021, 0030, "light and detection ranging" should read "light detection and ranging"
In Paragraphs 0024 and 0036, "re-loading or unloading of a container onto" should read "reloading of a container onto or unloading from"
In Paragraph 0028, it is unclear as to what "the precision" refers
In Paragraph 0032, "Mounting and/or offloading containers onto" should read "Mounting containers onto and/or offloading from"
In Paragraph 0034, "a side view" should read "an angled view"
In Paragraph 0034, "scanning device 310 coupled with multiple LiDAR scanning devices 310 (e.g., equivalent to LiDAR scanning device 212)" should read "scanning device 310 coupled with multiple LiDAR scanning devices 212 (e.g., equivalent to LiDAR scanning device 310)"
In Paragraph 0035, "the container 120 is aligned at step 512" should read "the container 120 is indicated as aligned at step 512"
In Paragraph 0036, "the container 120 is misaligned at step 514" should read "the container 120 is indicated as misaligned at step 514"
In Paragraph 0047, "auditory feedback by way of a microphone" is invalid as a microphone does not provide auditory feedback.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11, 12, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 4, "a misalignment detection module" should read "the misalignment detection module" if invoking antecedent basis from Claim 1
Regarding Claim 11, "loaded or unloaded onto the autonomous vehicle" should read "loaded onto or unloaded from the autonomous vehicle"
Regarding Claim 11, "the indication" is ambiguous and may lack antecedent basis because there are two separate indications mentioned in Claim 1
Regarding Claim 12, "re-loading or unloading of the container onto the autonomous vehicle" should read "reloading the container onto or unloading from the autonomous vehicle"
Regarding Claim 13, "operations for implementing operations" is unclear language
Regarding Claim 16, "systems of Claim 13" should read "system of Claim 13" and "a misalignment detection module" should read "the misalignment detection module".
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (DE 102019207560 A1) in view of Brunsch et al. (WO 2021160637 A1), and Volkerink et al. (US 12080108 B1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 20, Wolf teaches:
A method for detectings a container loaded onto an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving data comprising an indication that the container is loaded onto the autonomous vehicle;
and capturing, by a scanning device mounted on the autonomous vehicle, a plurality of data points in the vicinity of the container (Paragraph [0048], Lines 2-5: “The at least one container can be recognized by the load securing system using the at least one sensor of the sensor unit.”; Figures 1-2).
Wolf does not teach, but Brunsch teaches:
A method for detecting misalignment of a container (Column 2, Lines 2-3: “a method and a system for determining an alignment of a trailer with respect to a towing vehicle”), the method comprising:
capturing, by a scanning device mounted on the vehicle (Column 6, Lines 1-2: “the detection device is mounted on an upper side of a driver's cab on the towing vehicle”), a plurality of data points in the vicinity of the container;
identifying, by a misalignment detection module, a first data point of the plurality of data points and a second data point of the plurality of data points (Column 13, Lines 20-22: “The detection device is preferably designed in such a way that it has a first object area during operation on the trailer and a second object area on the trailer recorded”);
and determining, by the misalignment detection module, whether the container is misaligned (Column 14, Lines 26-28: “On the basis of this first and/or second information, it is then advantageously possible for the evaluation device to determine the orientation of the trailer”).
Wolf and Brunsch do not teach, but Volkerink teaches:
A method for detecting misalignment, the method comprising:
identifying, by a misalignment detection module, a first data point of the plurality of data points and a second data point of the plurality of data points;
determining, by the misalignment detection module, whether the container is misaligned on the autonomous vehicle based on a height difference between a height of the first data point and a height of the second data point (Column 3, Lines 19-22, “sensor data indicating an anomalous event may comprise…a difference in height between two or more sets of sensor data being more than a threshold value”);
and providing an indication of whether the container is misaligned (Column 2, Lines 64-66: “Responsive to an anomalous event being detected and/or identified, the gateway node is configured to transmit a notification”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container detection method of Wolf for an autonomous vehicle with the container/trailer misalignment detection method of Brunsch based on the height difference of multiple sensed data points as taught by Volkerink with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of detecting misalignment in a container loaded onto an autonomous vehicle via sensors noticing a difference in height between two data points.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, which depend from Claims 1 and 13 respectively, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Volkerink further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the container is misaligned when the height difference is greater than a height difference threshold (Column 3, Lines 19-22, “sensor data indicating an anomalous event may comprise…a difference in height between two or more sets of sensor data being more than a threshold value”).
By virtue of these claims’ dependency on Claims 1 and 13, the same rationale can be used that it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified container detection method of Wolf for an autonomous vehicle with this specific misalignment detection as taught by Volkerink with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, which depend from Claims 1 and 13 respectively, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Brunsch further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first data point is located on a top front left corner of the container and the second data point is located on a top front right corner of the container (Column 5, Lines 29-32, “it is conceivable that the first and/or second object area is arranged on an upper side of the trailer. For example, it can be corresponding markings and/or corners on the top of the trailer”).
By virtue of these claims’ dependency on Claims 1 and 13, the same rationale can be used that it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified container detection method of Wolf for an autonomous vehicle with this specific corner detection method as taught by Brunsch with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from Claim 1, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Wolf further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data points comprises a plurality of light and detection ranging (LiDAR) data points (Paragraph [0014], Lines 1-6, “In one variant, the at least one sensor can be selected from the group formed from an optical sensor, in particular one Camera, a photonic mixer (PMD), an RGB-D camera, a stereo camera and / or a LIDAR system”).
Claims 4, 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Brunsch, Volkerink, and further view of Beckman et al. (WO 2020123205 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, which depend from Claims 1 and 13 respectively, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, but Beckman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying, using a misalignment detection module, heights associated with each of the plurality of data points; and identifying a maximum height of the plurality of data points that defines a rooftop of the container (Figures 1A; Paragraph [0032], Lines 14-17: “the controller receives rearward sensor data from the rearward-facing sensor system associated with the rearward field-of-view and analyses the data to determine the height of the vehicle-attachment system” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container misalignment detection method of Wolf for an autonomous vehicle with the height measurement method as taught by Beckman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of detecting misalignment in a container loaded onto an autonomous vehicle via a sensor measuring the heights of multiple points on the container to define its rooftop.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from Claim 1, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 4, Brunsch further teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first data point and the second data point are identified from a subset of the plurality of datapoints located within a designated three-dimensional region surrounding the container (Column 2, Lines 14-17, “alignment of a semitrailer with respect to a tractor unit, wherein the towing vehicle has at least one detection device which has a first object area on the trailer and a second object area recorded on the trailer”).
By virtue of this claim’s dependency on Claim 4, the same rationale can be used that it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified container detection method of Wolf for an autonomous vehicle with this specific method of identifying datapoints surrounding the container as taught by Brunsch with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, which depend from Claims 6 and 16 respectively, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 6 Beckman further teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the first data point and the second data point are further identified from the subset based on a height that is greater than the maximum height minus an error correction value (Paragraph [0030], Lines 26-29, “the controller determines an adjusted obstruction vertical clearance CA based on the determined vertical clearance C. The vertical clearance CA is the obstruction vertical clearance C minus a predefined clearance value”).
By virtue of these claims’ dependency on Claim 6, the same rationale can be used that it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified container detection method of Wolf for an autonomous vehicle with this specific height measurement method as taught by Beckman with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Brunsch, Volkerink, and further view of Chen et al. (US 12352862 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from Claim 1, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, but Chen teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises a head and a trailer for loading of the container, and the scanning device is a light and detection ranging (LiDAR) scanning device mounted on a center line of the head (Figures 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container misalignment detection method of Wolf for an autonomous vehicle with the LiDAR scanning device mounted on the center line of the head as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of detecting misalignment in a container loaded onto an autonomous vehicle via a LiDAR sensor viewing the trailer from a central position on the head.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, which depend from Claims 8 and 13 respectively, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 8. Chen further teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the LiDAR scanning device is mounted perpendicular to a top of the head of the autonomous vehicle (Figures 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, which depend from Claims 1 and 13 respectively, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Chen further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle is an autonomous prime mover (Figures 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Brunsch, Volkerink, and further view of Wu et al. (US 20210039682 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from Claim 1, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, but Wu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the container is automatically loaded or unloaded onto the autonomous vehicle without manual intervention by a gantry crane, and the indication is provided by either the gantry crane or user input (Paragraph [0130]: “when a loading/unloading control device in the inspection area has controlled a loading/unloading device (the loading/unloading device can be e.g., a tire crane, an overhead crane, a reach stacker, a tower crane, a mobile crane, etc.) to complete loading of the target container, it can transmit a container loaded indication to the inspection system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container misalignment detection method for an autonomous vehicle of Wolf with a system comprising a crane to automatically load the container and provide an indication of successful loading as taught by Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving efficiency of loading containers onto autonomous vehicles via automated gantry cranes and minimizing errors by providing confirmation of successful loading.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Brunsch, Volkerink, and further view of Guo et al. (WO 2020215772 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from Claim 1, Wolf teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, but Guo teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein when the container is misaligned, an alarm is triggered to facilitate human-aided manual re-loading or unloading of the container onto the autonomous vehicle (Column 6, Lines 60-67, “the pose deviation degree of the stock container to be moved…are detected all the time, such that an alarm and/or a prompt are provided in response to determining that a position deviation of the item or the stock container to be moved on the fork is relatively large, for adjusting the pose of the stock container to be moved…by a staff or a robot”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container misalignment detection method for an autonomous vehicle of Wolf with a system that provides an alarm for manual intervention when a misalignment is detected as taught by Guo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving efficiency of loading containers onto autonomous vehicles by allowing for manual intervention when an anomaly such as misalignment is detected after automated container placement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C NATHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0331. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/KEVIN CHRISTOPHER NATHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights