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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The specification was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the specification accordingly; as such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; as such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on pages 9-12 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Altmann.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikina of US 20160236347 A1, filed 02/17/2016, hereinafter “Shikina”, in view of Altmann of US 20230150486 A1, filed 11/14/2022, hereinafter “Altmann”.
Regarding claim 1, Shikina teaches:
A computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: (See at least [0029]: “The self-movable carriage 1 according to this embodiment is a self-movable carriage for a robot used in handling work. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the self-movable carriage 1 includes a movable portion 2, a motion mechanism 3, and a platform 4. The movable portion 2 accommodates a controller 20 (movable object controller), described later” & [0060]: “A non-limiting example of the control section 21 is a Central Processing Unit (CPU) that is in charge of overall control of the controller 20…”)
as a vehicle travels at a first speed along a predefined path of travel between a first waypoint and a second waypoint, and based on determining presence of an object within a first portion of a field of sensing of a sensor disposed at the vehicle, adjusting speed of the vehicle from the first speed to a second speed that is less than the first speed, wherein, with the vehicle travelling at the first speed, the first portion of the field of sensing extends a first distance from the vehicle; and (See at least Figs. 4-6, [0061]: “…The indicator detector 23 detects an indicator arranged in the travel region of the self-movable carriage 1 along the travel path of the self-movable carriage 1…”, [0031-0032]: “The robot 5 performs a predetermined kind of handling work and takes articles to and from the platform 4…The motion mechanism 3 moves the robot 5 to a predetermined destination together with the articles on the platform 4…” & [0077]: “Next, as represented by the left picture of FIG. 5C, in the state of the monitor region MA2 being set, the speed of the self-movable carriage 1 is controlled at a speed of equal to or less than 200 mm/s. In this control, when the obstacle determiner 21b determines that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b, the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 to control its speed at equal to or less than 100 mm/s as represented by the right picture of FIG. 5C.”)
with the vehicle travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel, adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a second distance from the vehicle that is less than the first distance; (See at least [0078]: “When the self-movable carriage 1 is decelerated, the monitor region changer 21c instructs the obstacle detector 22 to diminish the monitor region MA from the monitor region MA2 to the monitor region MA1.”)
Shikina does not explicitly teach:
receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the vehicle from the first speed when the vehicle arrives at the second waypoint; and
based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing at the second waypoint, overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the vehicle at the first speed as the vehicle travels along the predefined path of travel at the second waypoint and beyond the second waypoint.
Altmann teaches:
receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the vehicle from the first speed when the vehicle arrives at the second waypoint; and (See at least [0013-0014]: “…a predetermined action could also be triggered on the industrial truck in the method according to the invention, for example, depending on the current degree of difficulty…An example of such a predetermined action could include reducing a current and/or maximum speed of the industrial truck, so that accordingly either a limitation of the achievable speed of the industrial truck or an immediate automatic braking of it, for example depending on the current degree of difficulty, can be carried out. In particular, such a reduction in the maximum or current speed can be undertaken in such a way that a complete stop in front of the obstacle remains possible in any case, this being an iterative process which, as driving continues towards an obstacle, will ultimately cause the vehicle to come to a complete standstill…”.)
based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing at the second waypoint, overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the vehicle at the first speed as the vehicle travels along the predefined path of travel at the second waypoint and beyond the second waypoint. (See at least Fig. 1, Fig. 5, [0014]: “…If, on the other hand, it is determined in the meantime that the obstacle is no longer in the protection zone, for example because it has been avoided or the obstacle itself has moved out of the protection zone, the corresponding action can be cancelled, and the vehicle can be accelerated again and/or its maximum speed can be raised again” & [0044]: “The method according to the invention for defining the protection zone Z is carried out by means of an iterative calculation of a plurality of reference points P, which each correspond to the corners of the vehicle outline 12 when the vehicle 10 has progressed by a certain distance on the curved route mentioned. Such extrapolated positions of the industrial truck 10 are shown in FIG. 1 in dashed lines…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina’s method with Altmann’s technique of receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the vehicle from the first speed when the vehicle arrives at the second waypoint and overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the vehicle at the first speed based on determining absence of the object. Doing so would be obvious so that “the corresponding action can be cancelled, and the vehicle can be accelerated again and/or its maximum speed can be raised again” (See [0014] of Altmann).
NOTE: Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitations: (1) “…adjusting speed of the vehicle from the first speed to a second speed that is less than the first speed…” and (2) “…adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a second distance from the vehicle that is less than the first distance”. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. Limitations (1) and (2) only need to be performed if the vehicle is traveling at a first speed and if the presence of an object within a first portion of a field of sensing is determined. Therefore, the BRI of claim 1 does not require limitations (1) and (2).
Regarding claim 2, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: with the vehicle travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel and the first portion of the field of sensing extending the second distance from the vehicle, and based on determining presence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing, adjusting speed of the vehicle from the second speed to a third speed that is less than the second speed; and (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0089]: “When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b (step S106, Yes), the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S107) and the monitor region changer 21c reduces the size of the monitor region MA (step S108). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
with the vehicle travelling at the third speed along the predefined path of travel, adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a third distance from the vehicle that is less than the second distance. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0089]: “When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b (step S106, Yes), the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S107) and the monitor region changer 21c reduces the size of the monitor region MA (step S108). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
NOTE: Claim 2 recites the following contingent limitations: (1) “…adjusting speed of the vehicle from the second speed to a third speed that is less than the second speed…” and (2) “…adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a third distance from the vehicle that is less than the second distance”. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. Limitations (1) and (2) only need to be performed if the vehicle is traveling at a second speed, if the first portion of the field of sensing extends the second distance, and if the presence of an object within a first portion of a field of sensing is determined. Therefore, the BRI of claim 2 does not require limitations (1) and (2).
Regarding claim 3, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise, with the vehicle travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel and the first portion of the field of sensing extending the second distance from the vehicle, and based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing: adjusting speed of the vehicle from the second speed to the first speed; and (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0092]: “When a determination is made that no obstacle OB is in the maintaining region A2 (step S109, No), the speed controller 21da accelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S112), and the monitor region changer 21c increases the size of the monitor region MA (step S113). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend the first distance from the vehicle. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0092]: “When a determination is made that no obstacle OB is in the maintaining region A2 (step S109, No), the speed controller 21da accelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S112), and the monitor region changer 21c increases the size of the monitor region MA (step S113). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
NOTE: Claim 3 recites the following contingent limitations: (1) “…adjusting speed of the vehicle from the second speed to the first speed…” and (2) “…adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend the first distance from the vehicle”. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. Limitations (1) and (2) only need to be performed if the vehicle is traveling at a second speed, if the first portion of the field of sensing extends the second distance, and if the absence of an object within a first portion of a field of sensing is determined. Therefore, the BRI of claim 3 does not require limitations (1) and (2).
Regarding claim 4, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein: a second portion of the field of sensing extends between the vehicle and the first portion of the field of sensing; and (See at least Fig. 2C & [0044]: “As used herein, the term “target region where speed control is performed” refers to a region where at least the self-movable carriage 1 is subjected to speed control, which includes stopping, deceleration, and acceleration. As illustrated in FIG. 2C, in the first region A1, a stopping region A1a and a deceleration region A1b are arranged in proximity order from the self-movable carriage 1.”)
the operations further comprise, based on determining presence of the object within the second portion of the field of sensing, stopping the vehicle. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0087]: “Then, based on the detection result detected by the obstacle detector 22, the obstacle determiner 21b determines whether the obstacle OB is in the stopping region A1a (step S104). When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the stopping region A1a (step S104, Yes), the speed controller 21da immediately stops the self-movable carriage 1 (step S105), and the processing at and later than step S103 is repeated.”)
NOTE: Claim 4 recites the following contingent limitation: “…stopping the vehicle”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. The limitation only needs to be performed if the presence of an object within a second portion of a field of sensing is determined. Therefore, the BRI of claim 4 does not require the limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises an automated guided vehicle (AGV). (See at least Fig. 1 & [0029]: “The self-movable carriage 1 according to this embodiment is a self-movable carriage for a robot used in handling work. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the self-movable carriage 1 includes a movable portion 2, a motion mechanism 3, and a platform 4. The movable portion 2 accommodates a controller 20 (movable object controller), described later.”)
Regarding claim 8, Shikina teaches:
A system, the system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions executed on the data processing hardware that cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: (See at least Fig. 3 & [0029]: “The self-movable carriage 1 according to this embodiment is a self-movable carriage for a robot used in handling work. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the self-movable carriage 1 includes a movable portion 2, a motion mechanism 3, and a platform 4. The movable portion 2 accommodates a controller 20 (movable object controller), described later” & [0060]: “A non-limiting example of the control section 21 is a Central Processing Unit (CPU) that is in charge of overall control of the controller 20…”)
as a vehicle travels at a first speed along a predefined path of travel between a first waypoint and a second waypoint, and based on determining presence of an object within a first portion of a field of sensing of a sensor disposed at the vehicle, adjusting speed of the vehicle from the first speed to a second speed that is less than the first speed, wherein, with the vehicle travelling at the first speed, the first portion of the field of sensing extends a first distance from the vehicle; and (See at least Figs. 4-6, [0061]: “…The indicator detector 23 detects an indicator arranged in the travel region of the self-movable carriage 1 along the travel path of the self-movable carriage 1…”, [0031-0032]: “The robot 5 performs a predetermined kind of handling work and takes articles to and from the platform 4…The motion mechanism 3 moves the robot 5 to a predetermined destination together with the articles on the platform 4…” & [0077]: “Next, as represented by the left picture of FIG. 5C, in the state of the monitor region MA2 being set, the speed of the self-movable carriage 1 is controlled at a speed of equal to or less than 200 mm/s. In this control, when the obstacle determiner 21b determines that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b, the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 to control its speed at equal to or less than 100 mm/s as represented by the right picture of FIG. 5C.”)
with the vehicle travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel, adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a second distance from the vehicle that is less than the first distance; (See at least [0078]: “When the self-movable carriage 1 is decelerated, the monitor region changer 21c instructs the obstacle detector 22 to diminish the monitor region MA from the monitor region MA2 to the monitor region MA1.”)
Shikina does not explicitly teach:
receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the vehicle from the first speed when the vehicle arrives at the second waypoint; and
based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing at the second waypoint, overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the vehicle at the first speed as the vehicle travels along the predefined path of travel at the second waypoint and beyond the second waypoint.
Altmann teaches:
receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the vehicle from the first speed when the vehicle arrives at the second waypoint; and (See at least [0013-0014]: “…a predetermined action could also be triggered on the industrial truck in the method according to the invention, for example, depending on the current degree of difficulty…An example of such a predetermined action could include reducing a current and/or maximum speed of the industrial truck, so that accordingly either a limitation of the achievable speed of the industrial truck or an immediate automatic braking of it, for example depending on the current degree of difficulty, can be carried out. In particular, such a reduction in the maximum or current speed can be undertaken in such a way that a complete stop in front of the obstacle remains possible in any case, this being an iterative process which, as driving continues towards an obstacle, will ultimately cause the vehicle to come to a complete standstill…”.)
based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing at the second waypoint, overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the vehicle at the first speed as the vehicle travels along the predefined path of travel at the second waypoint and beyond the second waypoint. (See at least Fig. 1, Fig. 5, [0014]: “…If, on the other hand, it is determined in the meantime that the obstacle is no longer in the protection zone, for example because it has been avoided or the obstacle itself has moved out of the protection zone, the corresponding action can be cancelled, and the vehicle can be accelerated again and/or its maximum speed can be raised again” & [0044]: “The method according to the invention for defining the protection zone Z is carried out by means of an iterative calculation of a plurality of reference points P, which each correspond to the corners of the vehicle outline 12 when the vehicle 10 has progressed by a certain distance on the curved route mentioned. Such extrapolated positions of the industrial truck 10 are shown in FIG. 1 in dashed lines…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina’s method with Altmann’s technique of receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the vehicle from the first speed when the vehicle arrives at the second waypoint and overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the vehicle at the first speed based on determining absence of the object. Doing so would be obvious so that “the corresponding action can be cancelled, and the vehicle can be accelerated again and/or its maximum speed can be raised again” (See [0014] of Altmann).
Regarding claim 9, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: with the vehicle travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel and the first portion of the field of sensing extending the second distance from the vehicle, and based on determining presence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing, adjusting speed of the vehicle from the second speed to a third speed that is less than the second speed; and (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0089]: “When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b (step S106, Yes), the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S107) and the monitor region changer 21c reduces the size of the monitor region MA (step S108). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
with the vehicle travelling at the third speed along the predefined path of travel, adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a third distance from the vehicle that is less than the second distance. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0089]: “When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b (step S106, Yes), the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S107) and the monitor region changer 21c reduces the size of the monitor region MA (step S108). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
Regarding claim 10, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise, with the vehicle travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel and the first portion of the field of sensing extending the second distance from the vehicle, and based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing: adjusting speed of the vehicle from the second speed to the first speed; and (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0092]: “When a determination is made that no obstacle OB is in the maintaining region A2 (step S109, No), the speed controller 21da accelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S112), and the monitor region changer 21c increases the size of the monitor region MA (step S113). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend the first distance from the vehicle. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0092]: “When a determination is made that no obstacle OB is in the maintaining region A2 (step S109, No), the speed controller 21da accelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S112), and the monitor region changer 21c increases the size of the monitor region MA (step S113). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
Regarding claim 11, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein: a second portion of the field of sensing extends between the vehicle and the first portion of the field of sensing; and (See at least Fig. 2C & [0044]: “As used herein, the term “target region where speed control is performed” refers to a region where at least the self-movable carriage 1 is subjected to speed control, which includes stopping, deceleration, and acceleration. As illustrated in FIG. 2C, in the first region A1, a stopping region A1a and a deceleration region A1b are arranged in proximity order from the self-movable carriage 1.”)
the operations further comprise, based on determining presence of the object within the second portion of the field of sensing, stopping the vehicle. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0087]: “Then, based on the detection result detected by the obstacle detector 22, the obstacle determiner 21b determines whether the obstacle OB is in the stopping region A1a (step S104). When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the stopping region A1a (step S104, Yes), the speed controller 21da immediately stops the self-movable carriage 1 (step S105), and the processing at and later than step S103 is repeated.”)
Regarding claim 14, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises an automated guided vehicle (AGV). (See at least Fig. 1 & [0029]: “The self-movable carriage 1 according to this embodiment is a self-movable carriage for a robot used in handling work. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the self-movable carriage 1 includes a movable portion 2, a motion mechanism 3, and a platform 4. The movable portion 2 accommodates a controller 20 (movable object controller), described later.”)
Regarding claim 15, Shikina teaches:
An automated guided vehicle (AGV), the AGV comprising: (See at least Fig. 1 & [0029]: “The self-movable carriage 1 according to this embodiment is a self-movable carriage for a robot used in handling work. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the self-movable carriage 1 includes a movable portion 2, a motion mechanism 3, and a platform 4. The movable portion 2 accommodates a controller 20 (movable object controller), described later.”)
a sensor disposed at the AGV and sensing a field of sensing relative to the AGV; (See at least Fig. 2C & [0049]: “The monitor region MA is formed using a laser scanner RS, which is equipped in the self-movable carriage 1.”)
data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions executed on the data processing hardware that cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: (See at least Fig. 3 & [0060]: “A non-limiting example of the control section 21 is a Central Processing Unit (CPU) that is in charge of overall control of the controller 20…”)
as the AGV travels at a first speed along a predefined path of travel between a first waypoint and a second waypoint, and based on determining presence of an object within a first portion of the field of sensing of the sensor, adjusting speed of the AGV from the first speed to a second speed that is less than the first speed, wherein, with the AGV travelling at the first speed, the first portion of the field of sensing extends a first distance from the AGV; (See at least Figs. 4-6, [0061]: “…The indicator detector 23 detects an indicator arranged in the travel region of the self-movable carriage 1 along the travel path of the self-movable carriage 1…”, [0031-0032]: “The robot 5 performs a predetermined kind of handling work and takes articles to and from the platform 4…The motion mechanism 3 moves the robot 5 to a predetermined destination together with the articles on the platform 4…” & [0077]: “Next, as represented by the left picture of FIG. 5C, in the state of the monitor region MA2 being set, the speed of the self-movable carriage 1 is controlled at a speed of equal to or less than 200 mm/s. In this control, when the obstacle determiner 21b determines that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b, the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 to control its speed at equal to or less than 100 mm/s as represented by the right picture of FIG. 5C.”)
with the AGV travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel, adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a second distance from the AGV that is less than the first distance; (See at least [0078]: “When the self-movable carriage 1 is decelerated, the monitor region changer 21c instructs the obstacle detector 22 to diminish the monitor region MA from the monitor region MA2 to the monitor region MA1.”)
Shikina does not explicitly teach:
receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the AGV from the first speed when the AGV arrives at the second waypoint; and
based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing at the second waypoint, overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the AGV at the first speed as the AGV travels along the predefined path of travel at the second waypoint and beyond the second waypoint.
Altmann teaches:
receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the AGV from the first speed when the AGV arrives at the second waypoint; and (See at least [0013-0014]: “…a predetermined action could also be triggered on the industrial truck in the method according to the invention, for example, depending on the current degree of difficulty…An example of such a predetermined action could include reducing a current and/or maximum speed of the industrial truck, so that accordingly either a limitation of the achievable speed of the industrial truck or an immediate automatic braking of it, for example depending on the current degree of difficulty, can be carried out. In particular, such a reduction in the maximum or current speed can be undertaken in such a way that a complete stop in front of the obstacle remains possible in any case, this being an iterative process which, as driving continues towards an obstacle, will ultimately cause the vehicle to come to a complete standstill…”.)
based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing at the second waypoint, overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the AGV at the first speed as the AGV travels along the predefined path of travel at the second waypoint and beyond the second waypoint. (See at least Fig. 1, Fig. 5, [0014]: “…If, on the other hand, it is determined in the meantime that the obstacle is no longer in the protection zone, for example because it has been avoided or the obstacle itself has moved out of the protection zone, the corresponding action can be cancelled, and the vehicle can be accelerated again and/or its maximum speed can be raised again” & [0044]: “The method according to the invention for defining the protection zone Z is carried out by means of an iterative calculation of a plurality of reference points P, which each correspond to the corners of the vehicle outline 12 when the vehicle 10 has progressed by a certain distance on the curved route mentioned. Such extrapolated positions of the industrial truck 10 are shown in FIG. 1 in dashed lines…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina’s method with Altmann’s technique of receiving an instruction to reduce speed of the vehicle from the first speed when the vehicle arrives at the second waypoint and overriding the instruction and continuing to operate the vehicle at the first speed based on determining absence of the object. Doing so would be obvious so that “the corresponding action can be cancelled, and the vehicle can be accelerated again and/or its maximum speed can be raised again” (See [0014] of Altmann).
Regarding claim 16, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: with the AGV travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel and the first portion of the field of sensing extending the second distance from the AGV, and based on determining presence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing, adjusting speed of the AGV from the second speed to a third speed that is less than the second speed; and (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0089]: “When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b (step S106, Yes), the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S107) and the monitor region changer 21c reduces the size of the monitor region MA (step S108). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
with the AGV travelling at the third speed along the predefined path of travel, adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend a third distance from the AGV that is less than the second distance. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0089]: “When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the deceleration region A1b (step S106, Yes), the speed controller 21da decelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S107) and the monitor region changer 21c reduces the size of the monitor region MA (step S108). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
Regarding claim 17, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise, with the AGV travelling at the second speed along the predefined path of travel and the first portion of the field of sensing extending the second distance from the AGV, and based on determining absence of the object within the first portion of the field of sensing: adjusting speed of the AGV from the second speed to the first speed; and (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0092]: “When a determination is made that no obstacle OB is in the maintaining region A2 (step S109, No), the speed controller 21da accelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S112), and the monitor region changer 21c increases the size of the monitor region MA (step S113). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
adjusting the first portion of the field of sensing to extend the first distance from the AGV. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0092]: “When a determination is made that no obstacle OB is in the maintaining region A2 (step S109, No), the speed controller 21da accelerates the self-movable carriage 1 (step S112), and the monitor region changer 21c increases the size of the monitor region MA (step S113). Then, the controller 20 repeats the processing at and later than step S102.”)
Regarding claim 18, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Shikina additionally teaches:
wherein: a second portion of the field of sensing extends between the AGV and the first portion of the field of sensing; and (See at least Fig. 2C & [0044]: “As used herein, the term “target region where speed control is performed” refers to a region where at least the self-movable carriage 1 is subjected to speed control, which includes stopping, deceleration, and acceleration. As illustrated in FIG. 2C, in the first region A1, a stopping region A1a and a deceleration region A1b are arranged in proximity order from the self-movable carriage 1.”)
the operations further comprise, based on determining presence of the object within the second portion of the field of sensing, stopping the AGV. (See at least Figs. 4-6 & [0087]: “Then, based on the detection result detected by the obstacle detector 22, the obstacle determiner 21b determines whether the obstacle OB is in the stopping region A1a (step S104). When a determination is made that the obstacle OB is in the stopping region A1a (step S104, Yes), the speed controller 21da immediately stops the self-movable carriage 1 (step S105), and the processing at and later than step S103 is repeated.”)
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikina and Altmann in view of Shydo of US 20180053141 A1, filed 08/18/2016, hereinafter “Shydo”.
Regarding claim 5, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shikina and Altmann in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the instruction is transmitted to the vehicle from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint.
Shydo teaches:
wherein the instruction is transmitted to the vehicle from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint. (See at least [0059]: “…inert and/or immobile structures, such as a pole or stand, may be located throughout the workspace 500 that may indicate locations for forming a dynamic crosswalk 516. Each structure may be associated with one or more transmitters (such as transmitters 518 and 520) for providing slow and stop signals within an area to generate the dynamic cross walk 516 and enable safe interaction between the entity 510 and autonomous vehicles 504, 506, and 522…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina and Altmann’s method with Shydo’s technique of transmitting the instruction to the vehicle from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint. Doing so would be obvious for “reducing traffic in the area and improving the overall efficiency of the materials handling facility” (See [0065] of Shydo).
Regarding claim 12, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Shikina and Altmann in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the instruction is transmitted to the vehicle from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint.
Shydo teaches:
wherein the instruction is transmitted to the vehicle from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint. (See at least [0059]: “…inert and/or immobile structures, such as a pole or stand, may be located throughout the workspace 500 that may indicate locations for forming a dynamic crosswalk 516. Each structure may be associated with one or more transmitters (such as transmitters 518 and 520) for providing slow and stop signals within an area to generate the dynamic cross walk 516 and enable safe interaction between the entity 510 and autonomous vehicles 504, 506, and 522…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina and Altmann’s method with Shydo’s technique of transmitting the instruction to the vehicle from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint. Doing so would be obvious for “reducing traffic in the area and improving the overall efficiency of the materials handling facility” (See [0065] of Shydo).
Regarding claim 19, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Shikina and Altmann in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the instruction is transmitted to the AGV from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint.
Shydo teaches:
wherein the instruction is transmitted to the AGV from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint. (See at least [0059]: “…inert and/or immobile structures, such as a pole or stand, may be located throughout the workspace 500 that may indicate locations for forming a dynamic crosswalk 516. Each structure may be associated with one or more transmitters (such as transmitters 518 and 520) for providing slow and stop signals within an area to generate the dynamic cross walk 516 and enable safe interaction between the entity 510 and autonomous vehicles 504, 506, and 522…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina and Altmann’s method with Shydo’s technique of transmitting the instruction to the vehicle from a wireless transmitter disposed along the predefined path of travel at or near the second waypoint. Doing so would be obvious for “reducing traffic in the area and improving the overall efficiency of the materials handling facility” (See [0065] of Shydo).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikina and Altmann in view of Paschall, II of US 20190161274 A1, filed 11/27/2017, hereinafter “Paschall, II”.
Regarding claim 6, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shikina and Altmann in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the instruction is determined based on a distance travelled by the vehicle along the predefined path of travel.
Paschall, II teaches:
wherein the instruction is determined based on a distance travelled by the vehicle along the predefined path of travel. (See at least [0077]: “…In accordance with at least one embodiment, the identification of a caution area associated with a door, gap, or other intersection with poor visibility of oncoming objects or high likelihood of traffic may be identified by the navigation computer of an autonomous mobile robot based on utilizing a facility map. For example, an autonomous mobile robot may maintain and update a facility map that includes locations of the caution areas associated with doors, gaps, and high traffic. The autonomous mobile robot may utilize geolocation methods to determine a current location of itself and cross reference the current location of itself with a location of said caution areas within a facility to begin reducing speed of the autonomous mobile robot upon being within a certain distance from the caution area…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina and Altmann’s method with Paschall, II’s technique of determining the instruction based on a distance travelled by the vehicle along the predefined path of travel. Doing so would be obvious for “preventing collisions between autonomous mobile robots operating in a facility” (See [0019] of Paschall, II).
Regarding claim 13, Shikina and Altmann in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Shikina and Altmann in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the instruction is determined based on a distance travelled by the vehicle along the predefined path of travel.
Paschall, II teaches:
wherein the instruction is determined based on a distance travelled by the vehicle along the predefined path of travel. (See at least [0077]: “…In accordance with at least one embodiment, the identification of a caution area associated with a door, gap, or other intersection with poor visibility of oncoming objects or high likelihood of traffic may be identified by the navigation computer of an autonomous mobile robot based on utilizing a facility map. For example, an autonomous mobile robot may maintain and update a facility map that includes locations of the caution areas associated with doors, gaps, and high traffic. The autonomous mobile robot may utilize geolocation methods to determine a current location of itself and cross reference the current location of itself with a location of said caution areas within a facility to begin reducing speed of the autonomous mobile robot upon being within a certain distance from the caution area…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina and Altmann’s method with Paschall, II’s technique of determining the instruction based on a distance travelled by the vehicle along the predefined path of travel. Doing so would be obvious for “preventing collisions between autonomous mobile robots operating in a facility” (See [0019] of Paschall, II).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikina and Altmann and Shydo and further in view of Paschall, II.
Regarding claim 20, Shikina, Altmann, and Shydo in combination teach all the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above.
Shikina, Altmann, and Shydo in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the instruction is determined based on a distance travelled by the AGV along the predefined path of travel.
Paschall, II teaches:
wherein the instruction is determined based on a distance travelled by the AGV along the predefined path of travel. (See at least [0077]: “…In accordance with at least one embodiment, the identification of a caution area associated with a door, gap, or other intersection with poor visibility of oncoming objects or high likelihood of traffic may be identified by the navigation computer of an autonomous mobile robot based on utilizing a facility map. For example, an autonomous mobile robot may maintain and update a facility map that includes locations of the caution areas associated with doors, gaps, and high traffic. The autonomous mobile robot may utilize geolocation methods to determine a current location of itself and cross reference the current location of itself with a location of said caution areas within a facility to begin reducing speed of the autonomous mobile robot upon being within a certain distance from the caution area…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shikina and Altmann’s method with Paschall, II’s technique of determining the instruction based on a distance travelled by the vehicle along the predefined path of travel. Doing so would be obvious for “preventing collisions between autonomous mobile robots operating in a facility” (See [0019] of Paschall, II).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662