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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 05/12/2026.
Claims 3-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 16-25, 29 and 31-33 have been amended.
Claims 1-2 and 16-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/02/2026 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 05/12/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claims 1-2 and 16-33 Recite Statutory Subject Matter under §101” in pages 10-16.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the receiving, determining, determining, determining, determining, determining, sending and updating steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement.
The claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to monitoring, tracking, arranging and controlling the movement and placement of inventory within a storage facility. The recited determination of vehicle alignment relative to inventory and the subsequent actions taken in response to that determination are part of a broader process form managing inventory collection operations, such activities constitute steps of following rules or instructions and/or activities constitute commercial or logistical management practices that fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.01(a)(3).
While the claims additionally recite “sending … a control signal to the vehicle … to cause the vehicle to halt the collection operation” and “outputting … an audible alert … including instructions to assist the operator in adjusting the alignment,: these limitations merely apply the underlying inventory-management determination by communicating the results of the determination or directing a generic vehicle to take an action. The additional limitations do not alter the character of the claimed invention as being directed to organizing and managing inventory collection activities with a facility. The claims do not recite any specific technological improvement to vehicle-control systems, sensor technology, or machine operation. Rather, the control signal and alert are generated in response to the evaluation of operational conditions associated with inventory collection and are used to facilitate the performance of that activity.
Moreover, the recited control signal and audible alert amount to well-known activity because they merely communicate the results of the determination and instruct the vehicle or operator regarding how to proceed based on that determination. The claims do not recite and particularized manner of generating the control signal, any specific vehicle-control mechanism, or any technological improvement arising from the signal itself. Accordingly, these limitations do not remove the claims from the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Applicant further argues that no human activity is being organized when the system sends a control signal to halt operation or outputs an audible alert. However, the focus of the claims is not limited to those individual limitations. Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are evaluated as a whole to determine whether they recite an abstract idea. Here, the claimed operation are directed to managing the performance of inventory collection activities within a facility, including determining alignment conditions and controlling the progression of the collection process based on those conditions. As such, the claims recite a method of organizing and managing following steps or instruction and/or commercial or logistical activity.
Furthermore, merely use generic sensors, generic data analysis, and generic vehicle control components as tools to perform the abstract determinations and apply the result, this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B. Further, the recited control signal and audible alert merely apply the results of the abstract determination and do not improve the functions of the vehicle, sensors, or any other technology. The claims use generic components to communicate and act upon the determination in conventional manner. Accordingly, the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under the Step 2A-Prong 2 nor include an inventive concept under the Step 2B.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for inventory management and collection activities, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above arguments.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 16-33 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Pangrazio et al. (US 2014/0133944 A1, hereinafter “Pangrazio”) in view of Acuff (US 5,208,753 A, hereinafter “Acuff”) further in view of Cybulski et al. (US 6,669,089 B2, hereinafter “Cybulski”).
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 1-2 and 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, and 16-25 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 26-28 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 29-33 recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 26 and 29 recites abstract ideas in the form of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recite steps of following rules or instructions and/or activities constitute commercial or logistical management practices to monitoring, tracking, arranging, and ordering inventory stored within a facility.
The claims recite a mental process includes concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying or acting upon the results of the analysis constitutes an abstract mental process. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Specifically, the limitations: receiving first sensor data associated with a physical environment; determining a first type of event associated with the sensor data; determining an identity of the transport handling unit; determining a location associated with the transport handling unit; determining an alignment between the implement and an opening of the transport handling unit; and determining that the alignment may result in an impact associated with the implement,
collectively recite observation, evaluation, recognition, classification, and judgment activities.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human operator observing a collection vehicle could visually identify a transport handling unit, determine its location, evaluate the alignment between an implement and an opening of the transport handling unit, recognize a potential collision condition, and decide whether the collection operation should proceed. Such activities constitute mental processes because they involve collecting information and making judgments based on the collected information. See CyberSource (fraud detection based on gathered information); Synopsys (translating and evaluating information); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing information and selecting a result); and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation of: updating a record associated with the transport handling unit
further recites managing and maintaining operational information. Recordkeeping and administrative tracking constitute a certain method of organizing human activity because such activities are routinely performed by humans in managing business or operational processes. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, claims 1, 26 and 29 recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: sensor, transport handling unit,
Claim 26: A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operation, sensor, transport handling unit,
Claim 29: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, sensor, transport handling unit,
First, the additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f),
Second, The additional limitation: sending, in response to determining that the alignment may result in the impact, a control signal to the vehicle, the control signal to cause the vehicle to halt the collection operation, merely links the abstract determinations to a generic action. Claims 1, 26 and 29 do not recite any particularized control technique, any improvement in vehicle-control technology, any improvement in sensor operation, or any improvement in collision-detection technology. Instead, claims 1, 26 and 29 merely use generic sensors, generic data analysis, and generic vehicle control components as tools to perform the abstract determinations and apply the result. The Federal Circuit has explained that merely gathering information, analyzing the information, and then displaying, reporting, or acting upon the result does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353-55.
Similarly, claims 1, 26 and 29 do not recite a technological improvement comparable to those found eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims 1, 26 and 29 do not disclose a specific improvement to computer functionality, vehicle operation, sensor architecture, collision-detection algorithms, or machine performance. Rather, claims 1, 26 and 29 are directed to using generic computing components to automate determinations that otherwise could be performed by a human operator. See Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, claims 1, 26 and 29 do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional elements recited in the claims include sensor data, a vehicle, a control signal, and a record. These elements are described functionally and at a high level of generality and perform only conventional activities of: receiving information; analyzing information; storing information; transmitting information; and controlling equipment in response to a determination.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that implementing abstract information processing on generic technological components does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, Electric Power Group, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Like the claims found ineligible in Electric Power Group, claims 1, 26 and 29 merely: collects data from an environment, analyzes the collected data, determines a condition based on the analysis, and communicates or applies the result of the determination.
The ordered combination of these limitations does not improve any technology or technical field, but instead automates human observation and decision-making using generic computer functionality. Such automation of a preexisting human process does not provide an inventive concept. See Alice, CyberSource, FairWarning, SmartGene, and Electric Power Group.
Accordingly, claims 1, 26 and 29 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 26 and 29 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2, 16-25, 27-28 and 30-33 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 26 and 29 therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2, 16-25, 27-28 and 30-33 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 26 and 29 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2, 25: sensor, transport handling unit,
Claims 17, 24: sensor,
Claim 18: transport handling unit, device,
Claim 20: transport handling unit,
Claims 21-23: sensor, sensor system,
Claim 25: sensor, THU,
Claims 27-28: The system, sensor, transport handling unit,
Claims 30: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, sensor, transport handling unit,
Claim 31: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, sensor,
Claim 32: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, sensor, THU,
Claim 33: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of monitoring, tracking, arranging, and ordering inventory stored within a facility, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-2 and 16-33, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 19, 20, 22-23, 26, 29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pangrazio et al. (US 2014/0133944 A1, hereinafter “Pangrazio”) in view of Acuff (US 5,208,753 A, hereinafter “Acuff”) further in view of Cybulski et al. (US 6,669,089 B2, hereinafter “Cybulski”).
Regarding claims 1, 26 and 29. Pangrazio discloses a method for preventing an impact of an implement of a vehicle and a contact handling unit during a collection operation comprising:
receiving first sensor data (Pangrazio, [0028]; “The sensor apparatus 62 in the depicted exemplary embodiment includes a number of sensors that may be of any type or configuration that is configured to output a signal that is at least in part indicative of a proximity of an object or structure to the sensor and can include, by way of example, time of flight sensing devices and other devices without limitation … which are mounted on the forks 17, although they could be elsewhere positioned without departing from the present concept”) associated with a physical environment; (Pangrazio, [0030]; “processor includes one or more input terminals that are connected with the sensor apparatus 62 and which receives and processes sensor signals that are received therefrom”)
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a first type of event associated with the sensor data; (Pangrazio discloses processing sensor inputs to determine operational states and detect objects or collision-related events based on sensor analysis see [0032-0038], such as [0032]; “the sensor apparatus 62 is substantially continuously detecting the proximity of any objects or structures that are situated in the vicinity of the forklift apparatus 8”)
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a first location associated with the transport handling unit; (Pangrazio, [0032]; “The sensor apparatus 62 may thus typically include a plurality of sensors that are oriented or directed in known directions and whose collective signals can determine the location with respect of the forklift apparatus 8 of the object or structure on a three-dimensional Cartesian grid … the processor 75 employs the instructions 78 to determine a location, i.e., a set of Cartesian coordinates and/or a direction and distance from the forklift apparatus 8, of each such object or structure based upon the sensor signals”)
determining that the alignment may result in an impact associated with the implement; (Pangrazio, [0033]; “the processor 75 will further use the instructions 78 to determine the relative likelihood of a collision between the forklift apparatus 8 and each such object of structure”)
sending, in response to determining that the alignment may result in the impact, a control signal to the vehicle, the control signal to cause the vehicle to halt the collection operation; and (Pangrazio describe when likelihood of a collision reaches or exceeds a predetermined threshold, the processor apparatus 64 will issue a collision output that cause multiple possible remedial predetermined actions, such as to switch the engine 88 to an OFF condition, and activate the vehicle break system see [0034-0037] and provides an audible signal that can be detected by the operator of the forklift apparatus, see [0031])
Pangrazio substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Pangrazio fails to explicitly disclose the “determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an alignment between the implement and an opening of the transport handling unit prior to the implement engaging the transport handling unit”. However, Acuff teaches
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an alignment between [[an]]the implement and an opening of the transport handling unit prior to the implement engaging the transport handling unit; (Acuff discloses determining alignment between forklift tines and pallet openings prior to insertion using imaging and positional analysis techniques. (Pollack, col. 3, lines 10–25; col. 5, lines 5–20, further Acuff discloses identifying pallet openings as part of the alignment process for forklift engagement , see Acuff, col. 4, lines 1–15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an alignment between the implement and an opening of the transport handling unit prior to the implement engaging the transport handling unit, as taught by Acuff, where this would be performed in order to allow movement of the forklift to the pallet with minimal or no damage. See Acuff, col. 2-lines 12-13.
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an identity of the transport handling unit; updating a record associated with the transport handling unit”. However, Cybulski teaches
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an identity of [[a]]the transport handling unit; (Cybulski discloses RFID-tagged pallets and identification of each transport handling unit via RFID readers, see Cybulski, col. 2, lines 30-45; col. 6, lines 10-25)
updating a record associated with the transport handling unit. (Cybulski discloses updating inventory or asset tracking records in response to RFID detection and movement events, see Cybulski, col. 8, lines 10-30)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an identity of the transport handling unit; updating a record associated with the transport handling unit, as taught by Cybulski, where this would be performed in order to provides an asset tracking system. See Cybulski, col. 2-lines 43-44.
Regarding claims 19 and 33. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of (Pangrazio, [0031]; “the transducers/controllers 80 may include a relay mechanism that is operable to energize an audible output that is in the exemplary form of a horn 84 that provides an audible signal that can be detected by the operator of the forklift apparatus 8”)
Regarding claim 20. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determining the identity of the transport handling unit further comprises determining an identity of at least one asset associated with the transport handling unit”. However, Cybulski teaches
determining the identity of the transport handling unit further comprises determining an identity of at least one asset associated with the transport handling unit. (Cybulski discloses RFID-tagged pallets and identification of each transport handling unit via RFID readers, see Cybulski, col. 2, lines 30-45; col. 6, lines 10-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include determining the identity of the transport handling unit further comprises determining an identity of at least one asset associated with the transport handling unit, as taught by Cybulski, where this would be performed in order to provides an asset tracking system. See Cybulski, col. 2-lines 43-44.
Regarding claim 22. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of
Pangrazio substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Pangrazio fails to explicitly disclose the “the first sensor data is received from a sensor system having a field of view associated with the implement”. However, Acuff teaches
the first sensor data is received from a sensor system having a field of view associated with the implement. (Acuff, col. 3-lines 13-17; “The overall system consists of four major components or assemblies including the camera and light assembly (10), an image processor (25) a hydraulics control module (13), and a control/status unit (12) for the operator”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include the first sensor data is received from a sensor system having a field of view associated with the implement, as taught by Acuff, where this would be performed in order to allow movement of the forklift to the pallet with minimal or no damage. See Acuff, col. 2-lines 12-13.
Regarding claim 23. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of (Pangrazio, [0024]; “The movement mechanism 36 further includes a translation mechanism 42 that is operable to move the platform 32 along the lateral direction 44 that is depicted generally in FIG. 3 and that can be said to include a leftward direction 48 and a rightward direction 50”)
Claims 2, 16, 18, 21, 24-25, 27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski furthermore in view of Charych (US 20060287759 A1, hereinafter “Charych”).
Regarding claims 2, 27 and 30. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “receiving second sensor data associated with the physical environment; associated with the sensor data, the second type different than the first type; confirming, based at least in part on the second sensor data, the identity of the transport handling unit; determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, a second location associated with the transport handling unit; and updating a record associated with the transport handling unit based at least in part on the second location”. However, Charych teaches
receiving second sensor data associated with the physical environment; associated with the sensor data, the second type different than the first type; confirming, based at least in part on the second sensor data, the identity of the transport handling unit; (Charych, [0037]; “bar code reader… could be a digital camera imager”, [0065]; “display information to allow the operator to confirm that the case picked was a correct one”)
determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, a second location associated with the transport handling unit; and updating a record associated with the transport handling unit based at least in part on the second location. (Charych, [0073]; “confirm the new location by reading the new shelf tag”, [0075]; “last shelf location read will be logged as the location where the pallet drop occurred”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include receiving second sensor data associated with the physical environment; associated with the sensor data, the second type different than the first type; confirming, based at least in part on the second sensor data, the identity of the transport handling unit; determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, a second location associated with the transport handling unit; and updating a record associated with the transport handling unit based at least in part on the second location, as taught by Charych, where this would be performed in order to provide combination of manual and automatic feedback will further confirm that the right merchandise was loaded. See Charych [0035].
Regarding claim 16. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski furthermore in view of Charych disclose the method of
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determining the second location does not match an expected location; and sending, in response to determining that the second location does not match the expected location, an alert to an operator of a vehicle associated with the implement”. However, Charych teaches
determining the second location does not match an expected location; and sending, in response to determining that the second location does not match the expected location, an alert to an operator of a vehicle associated with the implement. (Charych, teaches verifying correct pallet placement: [0073]; “confirm the new location by reading the new shelf tag”. Thus, Charych inherently compares actual vs expected location. Charych operator notification: [0065-0068]; “display information to allow the operator to confirm… initiate an audible alarm to the operator if there has been an error”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include determining the second location does not match an expected location; and sending, in response to determining that the second location does not match the expected location, an alert to an operator of a vehicle associated with the implement, as taught by Charych, where this would be performed in order to provide combination of manual and automatic feedback will further confirm that the right merchandise was loaded. See Charych [0035].
Regarding claim 18. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “generating a report based at least in part on the record associated with the transport handling unit; and sending the report to a device associated with an operator”. However, Charych teaches
generating a report based at least in part on the record associated with the transport handling unit; and sending the report to a device associated with an operator. (Charych describes a report generation and transmission to operator device, Charych teaches maintaining warehouse records of pallet location see [0056]. Charych teaches operator-facing outputs: [0066]; “84. The display (60) in the user interface (20) will display information to allow the operator to confirm that the case picked was a correct one”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include generating a report based at least in part on the record associated with the transport handling unit; and sending the report to a device associated with an operator, as taught by Charych, where this would be performed in order to provide combination of manual and automatic feedback will further confirm that the right merchandise was loaded. See Charych [0035].
Regarding claim 21. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the first sensor data is received from a sensor system worn by an operator”. However, Charych teaches
the first sensor data is received from a sensor system worn by an operator. (Charych, [0037]; “a bar code reader (33), which could be a digital camera imager or a laser bar code scanner”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include the first sensor data is received from a sensor system worn by an operator, as taught by Charych, where this would be performed in order to provide combination of manual and automatic feedback will further confirm that the right merchandise was loaded. See Charych [0035].
Regarding claims 24 and 31. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “receiving second sensor data associated with a physical processing area; determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, an identity of an asset based on a first identifier; receiving third sensor data associated with the asset; determining, based at least in part on the third sensor data, the asset has been re-labeled; determining, based at least in part on the third sensor data, a new identity of the asset based on a second identifier; and updating a record associated with the asset based at least in part on the second identifier”. However, Charych teaches
receiving second sensor data associated with a physical processing area; determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, an identity of an asset based on a first identifier; receiving third sensor data associated with the asset; determining, based at least in part on the third sensor data, the asset has been re-labeled; determining, based at least in part on the third sensor data, a new identity of the asset based on a second identifier; and updating a record associated with the asset based at least in part on the second identifier. (Charych, [0063-0067]; “82. If the apparatus is so equipped, a motion sensor (34) next to the barcode reader (33) can trigger the barcode reader (33) to either take a picture of the newly added case or scan the case with a laser beam … where the initial loading comprised picking up a partially loaded pallet, the identity of the cases whose transponders and/or barcodes face the antennas can be read and confirmed as indicated here”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include receiving second sensor data associated with a physical processing area; determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, an identity of an asset based on a first identifier; receiving third sensor data associated with the asset; determining, based at least in part on the third sensor data, the asset has been re-labeled; determining, based at least in part on the third sensor data, a new identity of the asset based on a second identifier; and updating a record associated with the asset based at least in part on the second identifier, as taught by Charych, where this would be performed in order to provide combination of manual and automatic feedback will further confirm that the right merchandise was loaded. See Charych [0035].
Regarding claims 25 and 32. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski disclose the method of
The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determining, based at least in part on second sensor data, an unloading of an asset from a first THU; determining, based at least in part on third sensor data, a loading of the asset from a second THU; and updating the record associated with the asset based at least in part on an identity of the second THU”. However, Charych teaches
determining, based at least in part on second sensor data, an unloading of an asset from a first THU; determining, based at least in part on third sensor data, a loading of the asset from a second THU; and updating the record associated with the asset based at least in part on an identity of the second THU. (Charych explicitly teaches: “the last shelf location read will be logged as the location where the pallet drop occurred”, see [0075], and describes pallet pickup and placement using forklifts and trucks (THUs). Thus, Charych discloses: unloading from a first transport handling unit (truck), loading via forklift (second THU), updating system records based on transfer events see Truck Loading and Unloading [0076-0077].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include determining, based at least in part on second sensor data, an unloading of an asset from a first THU; determining, based at least in part on third sensor data, a loading of the asset from a second THU; and updating the record associated with the asset based at least in part on an identity of the second THU, as taught by Charych, where this would be performed in order to provide combination of manual and automatic feedback will further confirm that the right merchandise was loaded. See Charych [0035].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski furthermore in view of Charych further in view of Jackson (US 20120106801 A1, hereinafter “Jackson).
Regarding claim 17. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski furthermore in view of Charych disclose the method of
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determining the first location or determining the second location is based at least in part on detecting one or more license plates within the first sensor data or the second sensor data”. However, Jackson teaches
determining the first location or determining the second location is based at least in part on detecting one or more license plates within the first sensor data or the second sensor data. (Jackson, [0041- 0042]; “Spotter vehicle cameras 420 are typically mounted on “spotter cars” and/or tow trucks, which may continuously capture images of vehicles and their license plates as the spotter vehicles drive along streets, travel through parking lots, and along other access routes … Once the images of the vehicles and their license plates are captured, by whatever means available, automatic license plate recognition processing may be applied to the images to isolate, extract, and identify the license plate number prior to storage in the master database 114”. Thus, detected license plate events are inherently associated with location information)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include determining the first location or determining the second location is based at least in part on detecting one or more license plates within the first sensor data or the second sensor data, as taught by Jackson, where this would be performed in order to render it easier for the repossession company to locate the vehicle. See Jackson [0006].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski furthermore in view of Bell et al. (US 20110218670 A1, hereinafter “Bell”).
Regarding claim 28. The combination of Pangrazio in view of Acuff further in view of Cybulski discloses the system of claim 26, wherein determining the identity of the transport handling unit further comprises
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “inputting the first sensor data into one or more machine learned models and to receive the identity as an output of the one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learned models configured to segment and classify the sensor data”. However, Bell teaches
inputting the first sensor data into one or more machine learned models and to receive the identity as an output of the one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learned models configured to segment and classify the sensor data. (Bell, [0046-0053]; “Once the captured data is normalized with the matching pallet model, the various software modules compute one or more pose or orientation measurements … various software modules employ rack system model training to identify the rack system 502 and define the entry point orientation associated with the shelf 504. Using rack system model images, the various software modules are trained to determine the linear and angular displacement measurements”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pangrazio to include inputting the first sensor data into one or more machine learned models and to receive the identity as an output of the one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learned models configured to segment and classify the sensor data, as taught by Bell, where this would be performed in order to provide well-organized warehouses in order to maintain and/or improve production and sales. See Bell [0004].
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights