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 .
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.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claim 9 is directed to a method of controlling a transportation robot and claim 10 is directed towards a control program for a transportation robot.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Claim 9 recites a mental process and thereby is treated as an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites the following:
A method of controlling a transportation robot configured to transport an item in a warehouse, the method comprising comparing master data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a structure located at a local spot in the warehouse and detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the structure detected by a sensor to identify the structure. (Emphasis added.)
The claimed method constitutes a “mental process,” because the single step is capable of being performed in the human mind. Comparing master data and detection data requires no more than mere observation and decision-making. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
None of the additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception as there are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea recited in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 9 is not patent eligible subject matter within the meaning of § 101.
For the aforementioned reasons, independent claim 10 is not patent eligible subject matter.
Moreover, claim 10 is further directed to non-statutory subject matter as the claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Rather the claim is directed to a control/computer program per se, which is non-statutory. A computer program is considered a set of instructions. Therefore, the claim does not fall within a statutory category under § 101.
To overcome the rejection, the Applicant may convert the claim into statutory form by claiming “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that …”
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 1-10 are rejected under § 103 as being obvious over US Pub. No. 2014/0277691 to Jacobus et al. (Jacobus) in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0286773 to Skaff et al. (Skaff). For claims 1 and 9, Jacobus discloses a transportation robot (4) configured to transport an item (28/40) in a warehouse, the transportation robot comprising:
a sensor (38, 39, 41, & 43) configured to detect a three-dimensional shape of an object (see ¶ [0088] for providing laser radar 3D measurement devices); and
a controller (45) controlling a transportation operation of the transportation robot (see Fig. 8 for showing a warehouse system controller).
Although Jacobus does not explicitly disclose that the controller compares master data and detection data to identify the structure, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Skaff teaches a warehouse inventory system comprising an autonomous robot (110) having an electronic control unit (120) for comparing master data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a structure located at a local spot in the warehouse and detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the structure detected by the sensor to identify the structure. See ¶¶ [0022-0023] & [0054] (capturing a depth map of structure including shelves and products positioned on shelves using 3D cameras, LIDAR, or any other depth sensors so as to compare real measurements with expected measurements during storage and retrieval operations).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the controller of Jacobus with the comparison control feature of Skaff in order to improve the accuracy with which the automated forklifts move into alignment with storage rack positions when transferring objects to and from the forklift.
In regards to claim 2, Skaff further discloses that the structure is a structure including a dropping position at which the item is to be dropped (see ¶ [0020] for describing a plurality of storage shelves with storage positions for receiving items), and the controller identifies the dropping position of the structure by comparing the master data and the detection data (see ¶ [0054] for comparing real dimensions and expected dimensions when identifying target locations and objects).
In regards to claim 3, Jacobus further discloses that the controller controls a travel of the transportation robot on a basis of map data two-dimensionally indicating a layout of structures including the structure in the warehouse. See ¶ [0008] (using a 2 dimensional map navigation system ).
In regards to claim 4, Skaff further discloses that the sensor includes a three-dimensional ranging sensor. See ¶ [0019] & Claim 7.
In regards to claim 5, Skaff further discloses that the master data is generated by mapping by the three-dimensional ranging sensor. See ¶¶ [0025] & [0092] (creating a depth map of shelves and products using ultrasonic sonar, radar, Lidar, Time of Flight, structured light, or other means of measuring distance between the robot and the environment).
In regards to claim 6, Jacobus further discloses that the item is loaded on a pallet. See Fig. 4.
In regards to claim 7, Jacobus further discloses that the structure includes a rack or a conveyor, the rack defining a space for placing the pallet. See ¶ [0095] (storing and retrieving pallets from shelving units).
In regards to claim 8, Jacobus further discloses that the transportation robot includes a forklift. See Fig. 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under § 103 as being obvious over Jacobus in view of Skaff, supra. For claim 10, Jacobus discloses a control program for a transportation robot configured to transport an item in a warehouse. See ¶ [0093] (providing a logical control software system for controlling the robot).
Although Jacobus does not explicitly disclose the same set of instructions as in the claimed control program, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Skaff teaches a warehouse inventory system wherein the control program causes a computer to compare master data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a structure located at a local spot in the warehouse and detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the structure detected by a sensor to identify the structure. See ¶ [0022-0023] & [0054] (capturing a depth map of structure including shelves and products positioned on shelves using 3D cameras, LIDAR, or any other depth sensors so as to compare real measurements with expected measurements during storage and retrieval operations).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the controller of Jacobus with the comparison control feature of Skaff in order to improve the accuracy with which the automated forklifts move into alignment with storage rack positions when transferring objects to and from the forklift.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. No. 11,305,650 to Chandrasekar discloses a system for a materials handling vehicle configured to navigate along a warehouse environment inventory transit surface, the vehicle including control architecture in communication with a drive mechanism, a materials handling mechanism, a speed zone sensing subsystem configured to provide an indication of whether the vehicle is in a speed zone, and a speed control processor configured to prompt the operator to reduce a vehicle speed of the vehicle to under a speed zone limit when the vehicle speed is approaching or in the speed zone, determine whether the vehicle speed is under the speed zone limit in the speed zone, and apply a speed cap to limit a maximum vehicle speed of the vehicle to a magnitude that is at or below the speed zone limit when the speed control processor has determined that the vehicle speed is under the speed zone limit in the speed zone.
US Pub. No. 2023/0015645 to Li et al. discloses a 3D shape matching method and a 3D shape matching device based on 3D local feature description using SGHs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is 571.270.7769. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5 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, 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655