DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 15, 18 are canceled.
Claims 1, 9 are amended.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, 19-22 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in PRO 63/176574 on 04/19/2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulbrich (US 12365570) in view of Pryor (US 20190080537).
Regarding Claim 1, Ulbrich teaches the following limitations:
A machine system comprising: (Ulbrich – [col. 1 ln. 9-12] the invention relates to an autonomous lift truck that is designed as an autonomous or driverless transport system (AGV— autonomous guided vehicle) or an autonomous transport vehicle.)
a first wireless transceiver configured to directly couple to a first portion of a machine; (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20] An RFID transponder is located on the pallet, which is read by the AIT 5 (or else an optically readable identification code, such as a barcode or QR code). In one aspect, at least one antenna 27 is used for this purpose to allow the precise localization of the transponder. The code of the transponder is compared to the code describing the goods to be transported. If the code matches the code transmitted to the AIT 5 as the load 143 to be transported, the AIT 5 navigates closer to the pallet. The AIT 5 uses image classification algorithms to recognize the areas into which the forks need to be pushed.)
a plurality of second wireless transceivers configured to directly couple to a second portion of the machine, (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20], [col. 8 ln. 40-48] the AIT directly detects the load via the sensor technology mentioned above, e.g. RFID tags. In an alternative and/or additional aspect, the AIT uses the camera to detect an identification device for identifying a row, such as a 1D, 2D or 3D identification code, e.g. an Aruco marker, located, for example, in the center or on the outer border at the beginning of a row of trolleys. In case the identification devices are RFID tags, an RFID reader is used instead of the camera. [col. 1 ln. 58] RFID reader integrated into one fork. Ulbrich does not explicitly teach “plurality of second wireless transceivers”.)
the first portion movable relative to the second portion; and (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
a processing circuit configured to determine a position of the first portion based on time delays in communication between the first wireless transceiver and each of the plurality of second wireless transceivers. (Ulbrich – [col. 9 ln. 41-55] In an alternative and/or additional aspect, a sensor is located at the end of the load platform (and on the side from which the load is picked up) which faces upward and can detect whether the load extends beyond the end of the load platform. This can be a laser distance sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a ToF sensor, LIDAR, radar, etc. If, for example, this sensor or another sensor (e.g. the sensor described in the previous paragraph or the evaluation of the sensor data being executed in the processing unit of the AIT) detects that a load is extending beyond the load platform, rules can be stored in one aspect in the memory of the AIT in order to ensure that the load is set down again. This is the case in particular if there is an entry in the memory that the load to be retrieved has a depth that is less than the depth of the load platform.)
Ulbrich does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Pryor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
plurality of second wireless transceivers (Pryor – [0027] As best shown in FIGS. 2A-2C, one presently preferred embodiment of the invention comprises a system to detect, track, warn, shut down and/or lockout an industrial vehicle entering an unsafe area. The system according to this presently preferred embodiment includes a plurality of anchor ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceivers 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d, 12e, 12f positioned in or near the workspace or warehouse 20.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensors of Ulbrich with the plurality of ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceivers of Pryor in order to detect, track, warn, shut down and/or lockout an industrial vehicle (Pryor – [0027]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ulbrich does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Pryor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the first wireless transceiver and the plurality of second wireless transceivers are ultra-wideband transceivers configured to transmit wireless signals between 3.1 GHz and 10.6 GHz. (Pryor – [0027])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensors of Ulbrich with the plurality of ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceivers of Pryor in order to detect, track, warn, shut down and/or lockout an industrial vehicle (Pryor – [0027]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the first portion is or includes an implement, and wherein the implement includes at least one of a platform, a fork assembly, a bucket, a basket, a grabber mechanism, a plow, a water deluge turret, a boom, a lift assembly, an aerial ladder, or an articulating arm. (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
Regarding Claim 4, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is configured to detect a type of the implement based on information acquired from the first wireless transceiver. (Ulbrich – [col. 9 ln. 41-55], [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
Regarding Claim 5, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the first portion is configured for use with a lift device, a boom lift, a telehandler, a refuse vehicle, a fire apparatus, a bucket truck, a crane, a concrete mixer truck, or a construction machine. (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
Regarding Claims 6, 19, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is configured to: store a log of the position over time; and (Ulbrich – [Fig. 12], [col. 22 ln. 31-39] an autonomous vehicle records the path traveled over time as a function of location and time in step 705, the path having been covered, for example, in the course of completing orders. The orders may generally be a transport orders, inventory orders, disinfection orders, or other order types. In an alternative aspect, the localization of the autonomous vehicles, e.g. an AIT 5, may also be carried out by means of radio signals emitted by such an AIT 5 and detected by at least one antenna 27.)
generate a heat map identifying various positions of the first portion and varying degrees of time spent at each of the various positions based on the log. (Ulbrich – [col. 23 ln. 1-3] Based on the determined probabilities, a map can be created in step 740 (e.g. a heat map), which contains probabilities, e.g. for paths, orders, and/or moving objects,)
Regarding Claims 7, 12, Ulbrich does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Pryor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is configured to identify unintentional movement of the first portion while the first portion is at a set position. (Pryor – [0027])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processing unit of Ulbrich with the plurality of ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceivers of Pryor in order to detect, track, warn, shut down and/or lockout an industrial vehicle (Pryor – [0027]).
Regarding Claims 8, 20, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the processing circuit and the first wireless transceiver are integrated into a single device. (Ulbrich – [Fig. 16], [col. 26 ln. 36-38] A processor 130 (e.g. a microcontroller or comparator) compares the sensor data)
Regarding Claim 9, Ulbrich teaches the following limitations:
A machine system comprising: (Ulbrich – [col. 1 ln. 9-12])
a first wireless transceiver configured to couple to a first portion of a machine; (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
a plurality of second wireless transceivers configured to couple to a second portion of the machine, (Ulbrich – [col. 8 ln. 40-48], [col. 29 ln. 10-20] Ulbrich does not explicitly teach “plurality of second wireless transceivers”.)
the first portion movable relative to the second portion; and (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
a processing circuit configured to: determine a position of the first portion relative to the second portion based on communication between the first wireless transceiver and the plurality of second wireless transceivers; (Ulbrich – [col. 9 ln. 41-55])
store a log of the position over time; and (Ulbrich – [Fig. 12], [col. 22 ln. 31-39])
generate a heat map identifying various positions of the first portion relative to the second portion and varying degrees of time spent at each of the various positions based on the log. (Ulbrich – [col. 23 ln. 1-3])
Ulbrich does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Pryor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
plurality of second wireless transceivers (Pryor – [0027])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensors of Ulbrich with the plurality of ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceivers of Pryor in order to detect, track, warn, shut down and/or lockout an industrial vehicle (Pryor – [0027]).
Regarding Claims 10, 17, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the first portion is or includes an implement of the machine. (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
Regarding Claim 11, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the machine is a lift device, a boom lift, a telehandler, a refuse vehicle, a fire apparatus, a bucket truck, a crane, a concrete mixer truck, or a construction machine. (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
Regarding Claim 13, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate the heat map using at least one of different colors or different patterns to indicate the varying degrees of time spent at each of the various positions. (Ulbrich – [col. 13 ln. 60], [col. 23 ln. 1-3] displayed in the form of heat maps Misspelled in the disclosure.)
Regarding Claim 14, Ulbrich further teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is configured to provide the heat map for display on a display device. (Ulbrich – [col. 13 ln. 60], [col. 22 ln. 31-39], [col. 23 ln. 1-3])
Regarding Claim 16, Ulbrich teaches the following limitations:
A machine system comprising: (Ulbrich – [col. 1 ln. 9-12])
a first wireless transceiver configured to couple to a first portion of a machine; (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
a plurality of second wireless transceivers configured to couple to a second portion of the machine, (Ulbrich – [col. 8 ln. 40-48], [col. 29 ln. 10-20] Ulbrich does not explicitly teach “plurality of second wireless transceivers”.)
the first portion movable relative to the second portion; and (Ulbrich – [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
a processing circuit configured to: determine a position of the first portion based on communication between the first wireless transceiver and the plurality of second wireless transceivers; and (Ulbrich – [col. 9 ln. 41-55])
Ulbrich does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Pryor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
plurality of second wireless transceivers (Pryor – [0027])
identify unintentional movement of the first portion while the first portion is at a set position. (Pryor – [0027])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensors/processing unit of Ulbrich with the plurality of ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceivers of Pryor in order to detect, track, warn, shut down and/or lockout an industrial vehicle (Pryor – [0027]).
Regarding Claims 21-22, Ulbrich teaches the following limitations:
wherein first wireless transceiver configured to directly couple to a first portion of a machine. (Ulbrich – [col. 8 ln. 40-48], [col. 29 ln. 10-20])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-11, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding Claims 1, 9, 16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 6-7 in regards to Claim 1, “Ulbrich fails to disclose “a first wireless transceiver configured to directly couple to a first portion of a machine,””. The examiner disagrees. As noted in the noted in the non-final office action mailed 07 November 2025 and the rejection above, the examiner is relying on col. 29, ll. 10-20 of Ulbrich to show that “a first portion of a machine” is being mapped to a “fork” assembly which can be described as a “direct coupling” to the transceiver RFID components. The “pallet” is one of many variations taught by Ulbrich as a “trolley or load to be transported” to be cited as a “second portion of the machine”. Though the limitations do not require that the “second portion of the machine” is coupled directly to the machine, the “trolley or load to be transported” can be considered as a part of the “autonomous industrial truck (AIT)” and would then be directly coupled to the “second portion of the machine”. Therefore, the examiner maintains Ulbrich discloses the limitation.
Applicant argues, on page 8-10 in regards to Claim 9, “Ulbrich fails to disclose a processing circuit configured to "determine a position of the first portion relative to the second portion based on communication between the first wireless transceiver and the plurality of second wireless transceivers", "store a log of the position over time", and "generate a heat map identifying various positions of the first portion and varying degrees of time spent at each of the various positions based on the log," as recited in amended claim 9.” The examiner disagrees. The generated heat map as claimed identifies two pieces of information, 1) various position of the first portion relative to the second portion, and 2) varying degrees of time spent at each of the various positions based on the log. It is noted the applicant is arguing that Ulbrich does not generate a heat map because it does not identify a heat map based on varying degrees of time spent at each of the various positions based on the log. Col. 22, ll. 31-34 of Ulbrich recites:
For this purpose, an autonomous vehicle records the path traveled over time as a function of location and time in step 705, the path having been covered, for example, in the course of completing orders.
Col. 22, ll. 43-49 of Ulbrich recites:
In step 715, this information is stored in each case and evaluated by the system, an autonomous vehicle such as an AIT 5, or a different type of processing unit according to location and time in such a way that frequencies are determined as to when in the past the autonomous vehicle such as the AIT 5 and/or objects moving in its environment were at which locations. Based on this, probabilities are determined as part of a prediction calculation that the autonomous vehicle such as the AIT 5 will move in the detected areas or that other objects will move in detected areas.
As noted in col. 22, ll. 31-34 and ll. 43-49, the determined probabilities are based on time spent at each of the various positions, which were recorded (i.e., a log). While, the heat map of Ulbrich is correlated to the probabilities, the probabilities are based on the log as required by the claim. Therefore, the examiner maintains Ulbrich discloses the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues, on page 10-11 in regards to Claim 16, that Pryor fails to teach " identify unintentional movement of the first portion while the first portion is at a set position.". The examiner disagrees. It appears applicant has mistakenly cited the instant specification [0027] rather than Pryor [0027]. The arguments do not address the mapping of Pryor as cited to include “a plurality of anchor ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceivers” and “a system to detect, track, warn, shut down and/or lockout an industrial vehicle entering an unsafe area”. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Therefore, the examiner maintains Pryor teaches the claimed limitation.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. As noted above, the examiner maintains Ulbrich in view of Pryor teaches the independent claims and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648