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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 04/09/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “calculate an association score for each of the plurality of objects based on a distance of each of the plurality of objects from a point within the geofence” because Hyatt's determination "whether the shipment 30 enters or is located within the geofence" is not the same as calculating "an association score based on a distance of” an object "from a point within the geofence" as claimed.
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertion that a "point within the geofence" in claim 1 is not explicitly recited to be the center of the geofence. However, the claims are examined under broadest reasonable interpretation. The “point within the geofence” could be any point within the geofence, obviously including the center. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, since the center point could be any point, there exists an interpretation of claim 1 that the point within the geofence is a center point. In other words, because the claim doesn’t specify what the “point within the geofence” is or could be, the claim language includes the case where the point is a center point.
The claim recites the association score is “based on a distance of each of the plurality of objects from a point within the geofence, wherein a higher association score is assigned to objects closer to the point than to objects farther from the point”. A “score” based on distance can simply be whether the object is within the range of a geofence, as this “score” is based on distance from the center of a geofence, and a larger distance has a different score than a shorter distance. The claim language does not require that the score teach exactly “where” the object is within a geofence, only that it is based on a distance from a specific point. Calculating a “score” based on the distance between the center point of a geofence and determining if that score is above or below a threshold value would mechanically be the same as determining if an object is inside or outside a circular geofence with a radius equal to the threshold. Therefore, a standard geofence such as taught by Hyatt would teach this limitation.
Examiner agrees that the invention as described in the specification differs from Hyatt and differs from a simple geofence. However, claim 1 is written broadly enough to include this interpretation.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt (US 11002823 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hyatt teaches an object tracking system (Fig. 3, tracking system 50), comprising: a plurality of first wireless devices, wherein each of the plurality of first wireless devices is associated with one of a plurality of objects (column 3 line 66, “Each forklift 20 and shipment 30 may be provided with one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (e.g., forklift tags 22 and/or shipment tags 32) or other wireless devices (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) devices) configured to transfer information”); a second wireless device associated with an object transport vehicle (forklift 20 with forklift tag 22); and a controller (column 3 line 28, processor of the worksite computer system 40) configured to:
determine a location of each of the plurality of objects based on a first signal associated with each of the plurality of first wireless devices (column 6 line 61, “The worksite computer system 40 may store a map of the worksite 10 that indicates the locations of the forklifts 20 and shipments 30”);
generate a geofence surrounding at least a portion of the object transport vehicle based on a second signal associated with the second wireless device (column 7 line 12, “The worksite computer system 40 may create or determine a geofence G located in front of each forklift 20”);
determine a position of each of the plurality of objects relative to the geofence based on the determined location of each of the plurality of objects (column 2 line 3, “The at least one computer system may be further configured to determine at least one location of at least one geofence adjacent the at least one vehicle based on the at least one location of the at least one vehicle. Also, the at least one computer system may be configured to determine whether the at least one object is located within the at least one geofence”; column 8 line 63, “the forklift 20 may be positioned so that the geofence G is next to an unloaded shipment, e.g., within one foot, and if there is jitter of one foot or more, the worksite computer system 40 may indicate that the shipment 30 has entered the geofence G although it has not actually been loaded onto the forklift 20”);
calculate an association score for each of the plurality of objects based on a distance of each of the plurality of objects from a point within the geofence, wherein a higher association score is assigned to objects closer to the point than to objects farther from the point (although not explicitly taught, the association score could be whether or not the object is within the geofence, therefore it is based on the distance from the center of the geofence);
and on a condition that the association score for one of the plurality of objects exceeds a threshold, associate the one object with the object transport vehicle wherein the one object is loaded on the object transport vehicle (abstract, “the at least one computer system may be configured to determine whether the at least one object is located within the at least one geofence to determine whether a load of the at least one vehicle includes the at least one object”—the score simply measures whether or not the object is inside the geofence, so the threshold condition is that the object is inside the geofence).
Although Hyatt fails to explicitly teach calculating an association score, the claim as written simply describes a geofence. A geofence is a virtual geographical boundary, most commonly in the shape of a circle. Therefore, determining whether an object is within a geofence amounts to no more than determining whether the distance between the object and the center of the geofence is less than the length of the geofence radius.
Regarding claim 2, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches the geofence relates to a front portion of the object transport vehicle, wherein the front portion of object transport vehicle is configured to hold the one object (column 7 line 12, “The worksite computer system 40 may create or determine a geofence G located in front of each forklift 20”).
Regarding claim 3, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 2. Hyatt further teaches the object transport vehicle is a forklift (Fig. 1, forklift 20) and the front portion includes forks of the forklift (Fig. 2, forks 21).
Regarding claim 4, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches the point within the geofence is a center point of the object transport vehicle (column 7 line 2, “The tags 22 may be used to identify the center point CP of the forklift 20”).
Regarding claim 6, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches the controller is further configured to: periodically calculate the association score for each of the plurality of objects (column 6 line 17, “each reader 52 may periodically send signals in an area surrounding the reader 52 and receive responses from the tags 22, 32 that are located within the area surrounding the reader 52”).
Regarding claim 7, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 6. Hyatt further teaches the controller is further configured to: calculate the association score for each of the plurality of objects every 0.5 seconds or every second (column 6 line 34, “The locations of the tags 22, 32 may be determined and updated periodically (e.g., every 0.5 or 1 second)”).
Regarding claim 8, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches a reader configured to read each of the plurality of first wireless devices and generate the first signal (column 5 line 51, “The tracking system 50 may also include one or more readers 52 or interrogators for obtaining information from the forklift and shipment tags 22, 32”).
Regarding claim 9, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches each of the plurality of first wireless devices is a position sensor configured to generate the first signal (column 3 line 66, “Each forklift 20 and shipment 30 may be provided with one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (e.g., forklift tags 22 and/or shipment tags 32) or other wireless devices (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) devices) configured to transfer information”).
Regarding claim 10, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches the second wireless device is a position sensor configured to generate the second signal (column 3 line 66, “Each forklift 20 and shipment 30 may be provided with one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (e.g., forklift tags 22 and/or shipment tags 32) or other wireless devices (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) devices) configured to transfer information”).
Regarding claim 11, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches the object tracking vehicle includes a display (Fig. 3, operator display device 25); and the controller is further configured to: send information to the display to cause the display to display an indicator of the one object (column 7 line 66, “The map may be communicated to the operator display device 25 via communication device 26 to allow the operator of the forklift 20 to view the locations of the forklift 20 (e.g., the center point CP of the forklift 20), the geofence G for the forklift 20, and the shipments 30 surrounding the forklift 20”).
Regarding claim 12, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 11. Hyatt further teaches the indicator represents the association between the one object and the object tracking vehicle (column 7 line 66, “The map may be communicated to the operator display device 25 via communication device 26 to allow the operator of the forklift 20 to view the locations of the forklift 20 (e.g., the center point CP of the forklift 20), the geofence G for the forklift 20, and the shipments 30 surrounding the forklift 20”).
Regarding claim 15, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt further teaches the geofence has a shape based on any of: a quadrilateral, a triangle, a circle, an oval, or a cross (Fig. 2, geofence G with length GL and width GW).
Regarding claim 17, Hyatt teaches a method for tracking a plurality of objects (Fig. 1, shipment 30) configured to be transported by an object transport vehicle (Fig. 3, tracking system 50), the method comprising:
receiving first data from a plurality of first wireless devices, each first wireless device associated with one of the plurality of objects (column 3 line 66, “Each forklift 20 and shipment 30 may be provided with one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (e.g., forklift tags 22 and/or shipment tags 32) or other wireless devices (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) devices) configured to transfer information”);
determining a location of each of the plurality of objects based on the first data (column 6 line 61, “The worksite computer system 40 may store a map of the worksite 10 that indicates the locations of the forklifts 20 and shipments 30”); receiving second data from a second wireless device associated with the object transport vehicle (forklift 20 with forklift tag 22);
generating a geofence surrounding at least a portion of the object transport vehicle based on the second data (column 7 line 12, “The worksite computer system 40 may create or determine a geofence G located in front of each forklift 20”);
determining a position of each of the plurality of objects relative to the geofence based on the determined location of each of the plurality of objects (column 2 line 3, “The at least one computer system may be further configured to determine at least one location of at least one geofence adjacent the at least one vehicle based on the at least one location of the at least one vehicle. Also, the at least one computer system may be configured to determine whether the at least one object is located within the at least one geofence”; column 8 line 63, “the forklift 20 may be positioned so that the geofence G is next to an unloaded shipment, e.g., within one foot, and if there is jitter of one foot or more, the worksite computer system 40 may indicate that the shipment 30 has entered the geofence G although it has not actually been loaded onto the forklift 20”);
calculating an association score for each of the plurality of objects located within a predetermined distance from the geofence, the association score based on a distance of each of the plurality of objects from a point within the geofence, wherein a higher association score is assigned to objects closer to the point than to objects farther from the point (although not explicitly taught, the association score could be whether or not the object is within the geofence, therefore it is based on the distance from the center of the geofence);
and associating one object with the object transport vehicle on a condition that the association score for the one object exceeds a threshold, wherein the one object is loaded on the object transport vehicle (abstract, “the at least one computer system may be configured to determine whether the at least one object is located within the at least one geofence to determine whether a load of the at least one vehicle includes the at least one object”—the score simply measures whether or not the object is inside the geofence, so the threshold condition is that the object is inside the geofence).
Although Hyatt fails to explicitly teach calculating an association score, the claim as written simply describes a geofence. A geofence is a virtual geographical boundary, most commonly in the shape of a circle. Therefore, determining whether an object is within a geofence amounts to no more than determining whether the distance between the object and the center of the geofence is less than the length of the geofence radius.
Regarding claim 18, Hyatt teaches the method of claim 17. Hyatt further teaches the geofence relates to a front portion of the object transport vehicle, wherein the front portion of object transport vehicle is configured to hold the one object (column 7 line 12, “The worksite computer system 40 may create or determine a geofence G located in front of each forklift 20”).
Regarding claim 19, Hyatt teaches the method of claim 17. Hyatt further teaches the association score for each of the plurality of objects is periodically calculated (column 6 line 17, “each reader 52 may periodically send signals in an area surrounding the reader 52 and receive responses from the tags 22, 32 that are located within the area surrounding the reader 52”).
Regarding claim 20, Hyatt teaches the method of claim 17. Hyatt further teaches the geofence has a shape based on any of: a quadrilateral, a triangle, a circle, an oval, or a cross (Fig. 2, geofence G with length GL and width GW; column 7 line 13, “The geofence G is a virtual perimeter that may represent an approximate size of a pallet loaded onto the forklift 20”; column 7 line 32, “Alternatively, the geofence G may be larger than the size of a standard pallet or may be another size that is unrelated to the size of a pallet”); the shape of the geofence contains a boundary measured by at least one length from the point within the geofence (Fig. 2, boundary of geofence G); and calculating the association score for each of the plurality of objects includes: determining an association score of zero for at least one object of the plurality of objects that is farther than the at least one length from the point within the geofence; and determining a non-zero association score for at least one object of the plurality of objects that is less than the at least one length from the point within the geofence (abstract, “the at least one computer system may be configured to determine whether the at least one object is located within the at least one geofence to determine whether a load of the at least one vehicle includes the at least one object”).
Hyatt determines whether the object is inside or outside the geofence. Hyatt states the geofence “may be another size that is unrelated to the size of a pallet” (column 7 line 33). Geofences are commonly circular, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that a circular geofence could be used. With a circular geofence, any object with a distance from the center that is less than the radius would be inside the geofence and therefore the association score would be non-zero. Any object with a distance from the center that is greater than the radius would be outside the geofence and therefore the association score would be zero.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt in view of Roeder (US 20060255951 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 11. Hyatt further teaches (column 7 line 66, “The map may be communicated to the operator display device 25 via communication device 26 to allow the operator of the forklift 20 to view the locations of the forklift 20 (e.g., the center point CP of the forklift 20), the geofence G for the forklift 20, and the shipments 30 surrounding the forklift 20”).
Hyatt fails to teach on a condition that the association score for multiple objects of the plurality of objects exceeds the threshold, associating each of the multiple objects with the object transport vehicle wherein each of the multiple objects is loaded on the object transport vehicle.
However, Roeder teaches on a condition that the association score for multiple objects of the plurality of objects exceeds the threshold, associating each of the multiple objects with the object transport vehicle wherein each of the multiple objects is loaded on the object transport vehicle (par. 61, “All such objects, which are transportable by fork lift 105 from one location to another, are identified herein as being located within a perimeter of object-stacking surface 171 of pallet 170”).
The combination of Hyatt and Roeder are analogous art because both relate to the transportation of objects by autonomous forklifts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hyatt to incorporate the teachings of Roeder in order to ensure the detection of every object loaded onto the forklift.
Regarding claim 14, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 1. Hyatt fails to teach the association between the one object and the object tracking vehicle is stored in an entry in a database.
However, Roeder teaches the association between the one object and the object tracking vehicle is stored in an entry in a database (par. 110, “The ranging information captured in this series of operations may be stored in a database, such as database 183 of FIG. 10, and used to verify that an object has been newly placed in the picking cart, and also to determine if an object has been removed from the picking cart”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hyatt to incorporate the teachings of Roeder to keep track of the objects (par. 110).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt in view Van Den Dungen (US 20190215648 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hyatt teaches the object tracking system of claim 15. Hyatt further teaches the shape of the geofence contains a boundary measured by at least one length from the point within the geofence (Fig. 2, boundary of geofence G); and the controller is further configured to calculate the association score for each of the plurality of objects by: determining an association score of zero for at least one object of the plurality of objects that is farther than the at least one length from the point within the geofence; and determining a non-zero association score for at least one object of the plurality of objects that is less than the at least one length from the point within the geofence (abstract, “the at least one computer system may be configured to determine whether the at least one object is located within the at least one geofence to determine whether a load of the at least one vehicle includes the at least one object”).
Hyatt determines whether the object is inside or outside the geofence. Hyatt states the geofence “may be another size that is unrelated to the size of a pallet” (column 7 line 33). Geofences are commonly circular, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that a circular geofence could be used. With a circular geofence, any object with a distance from the center that is less than the radius would be inside the geofence and therefore the association score would be non-zero. Any object with a distance from the center that is greater than the radius would be outside the geofence and therefore the association score would be zero.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights