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 action is in reply to the preliminary amendment filed 25 June 2025.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 June 2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “indicating a size necessary for enabling the mobile apparatus to execute the motion of transferring the object on the object”. it is not clear what is meant by “transferring the object on the object”. Is this referring to transferring the object to the loading area where there may be another object. Claims 8 and 14 have similar recitations and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites “indicating a size necessary for enabling the mobile apparatus to execute the motion of transferring the object on the object”. It is not clear what “a size necessary” is referring to. Is this the size of the object, the size of the space, or the size of the loading portion of the apparatus information. The examiner notes that there are numerous sizes, lengths, etc. that are being determined and it is not clear which one the size necessary is referring to. Claims 8 and 14 have similar recitations and are rejected for the same reason.
The term “a size necessary” in claims 2, 8 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “size necessary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As noted it is not clear what the size refers to whether it is the object, the loading area, etc. Further, it is not clear what is meant by necessary, does necessary in this context require that there is space for the object in the loading space, does necessary require some clearance area around the object for loading and avoidance of damage. Claims 8 and 14 have similar recitations and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites “a range” in line 9. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which also recites “a range”. It is not clear if the range of claim 5 is a different range or the same range (but further limits the range) as that recited in claim 1. Claims 11 and 17 have similar recitations and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 recites “a range” in line 12. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which further depends from claim 1. Claim 5 and claim 1 also recite “a range”. It is not clear if the range recited in claim 6 is the same or different range as that recited in claim 5 and/or claim 1. Claim 12 and 18 have similar recitations and are rejected for the same reason. .
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward a motion determination method and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 7 is directed toward a motion determination system and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 13 is directed toward a motion determination apparatus and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A motion determination method comprising:
acquiring object information including information regarding a size of an object;
acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object;
acquiring range information indicating a range in which an object can be moved at a motion place where a motion of transferring the object by a mobile apparatus is executed; and
determining whether the motion of transferring the object is able to be executed on the object at the motion place according to the object information, the apparatus information, and the range information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, “determining whether the motion of transferring the object is able to be executed on the object at the motion place according to the object information, the apparatus information, and the range information” steps encompass a human viewing obtained object information, apparatus information and range information and determining based on the dimensions of the object, the range and the height of the forklift if the transfer can take place.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A motion determination method comprising:
acquiring object information including information regarding a size of an object;
acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object;
acquiring range information indicating a range in which an object can be moved at a motion place where a motion of transferring the object by a mobile apparatus is executed; and
determining whether the motion of transferring the object is able to be executed on the object at the motion place according to the object information, the apparatus information, and the range information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring object information including information regarding a size of an object” “acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object” and “acquiring range information indicating a range in which an object can be moved at a motion place where a motion of transferring the object by a mobile apparatus is executed” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the limitations of “acquiring object information including information regarding a size of an object” “acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object” and “acquiring range information indicating a range in which an object can be moved at a motion place where a motion of transferring the object by a mobile apparatus is executed” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquiring object information including information regarding a size of an object” “acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object” and “acquiring range information indicating a range in which an object can be moved at a motion place where a motion of transferring the object by a mobile apparatus is executed” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 13 have similar recitations to claim 1 and the analysis above with respect to claim 1 also applies to claims 7 and 13.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. determining steps), insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. acquiring steps) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are considered mental process steps (e.g. determining steps) and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering (e.g. acquiring steps). These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0363528, hereinafter "Okamoto") in view of Draayer et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0071144, hereinafter “Draayer”).
Regarding claim 1, a motion determination method comprising:
acquiring object information including information regarding a size of an object (see at least Okamoto Figure 5 and 7 [0027] “The forklift truck 20 includes a camera 41, an image processing unit 42, a vehicle-side wireless unit 43, a wireless unit 44, and two stereoscopic cameras 45 and 46. The camera 41 includes, for example, a charge coupled device (CCD) image sensor, a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor, or the like”. See also [0050-0054] “The image processing unit 42 derives the coordinates of the feature points individually by the parallax images obtained in Step S2. In the present embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 7, edges of the rack 80 and edges of the load 73 in the rack 80 are extracted as feature points P…. In Step S5, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. The position of the load 70 is represented by coordinates of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. 99 The pallet 72 has known dimensions specified by an authorized regulation. This allows the image processing unit 42 to derive coordinates of the bottom surface of the pallet 72 from the coordinates of the top surface T1 of the pallet 72.” The examiner interprets the coordinates of the object to be “regarding a size of the object” as Okamoto further describes determining the coordinates of the loading space and determining clearance between the load and the loading space and determining if there is enough space for the load in the loading space which is necessarily “regarding size”.).
[[acquiring]] apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object (see at least Okamoto [0061] “The load handling space 91 is a space where the load 70 carried on the load handling apparatus 24 passes when the forklift truck 20 is advanced with the load handling apparatus 24 kept in a state when the image data is obtained from the stereoscopic cameras 45 and 46 in Step S1. The above state of the load handling apparatus 24 is represented by a height of the forks 27 and an orientation of the load handling apparatus 24.” See also [0062] " s described above, the load handling space 91 is the space where the load 70 carried on the load handling apparatus 24 passes while the forklift truck 20 is advanced with the load handling apparatus 24 kept in the state when the image data is obtained from the stereoscopic cameras 45 and 46 in Step S1. Thus, the clearances between the load handling space 91 and the adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91 are clearances between the load 70 and the associated adjacent objects adjacent to the load 70 while the forklift truck 20 is advanced until the load 70 is positioned above the load placing location in the vertical direction”)
acquiring range information indicating a range in which an object can be moved at a motion place where a motion of transferring the object by a mobile apparatus is executed (see at least Okamoto wherein the examiner interprets the range information to be the loading space information [0061-0064] “In Step S6 as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of a load handling space 91 in the coordinate system in the real space. The load handling space 91 refers to a space occupied by the load 70 during load handling work performed by the load handling apparatus 24. The load handling work includes the load placing operation and a load picking up operation. The load handling space 91 during the load placing operation is a space that the load 70 is presumed to occupy during a period from when the forklift truck 20 located at a place distanced from the load placing location starts approaching the load placing location to when the forklift truck 20 places the load 70 at the load placing location… The image processing unit 42 derives the load handling space 91 from the coordinates of the load 70 based on the image data obtained from the first stereoscopic camera 45. The image processing unit 42 derives the load handling space 91 from the coordinates of the load 70 based on the image data obtained from the second stereoscopic camera 46…. [0062] In Step S7, the image processing unit 42 derives values of clearances between the load handling space 91 positioned at the load placing location and adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91… [0063] In the present embodiment, the image processing unit 42 derives the values of the clearances present above, below, to the left of, and to the right of the load handling space 91…As illustrated in FIG. 7, the image processing unit 42 derives values d1, d2, d3, and d4 of respective clearances C1, C2, C3, and C4 between the load handling space 91 and the associated adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91.” The examiner interprets the range information to be the loading space information)
determining whether the motion of transferring the object is able to be executed on the object at the motion place according to the object information, the apparatus information, and the range information (see at least Okamoto [0065] “In Step S8 as illustrated in FIG. 6, the image processing unit 42 determines a contact possibility, i.e., whether or not the load 70 contacts any of the adjacent objects adjacent to the load 70. The contact possibility is determined based on the values d1 to d4 of the respective clearances C1 to C4 derived in Step S7. When any of the values d1, d2, d3, and d4 of the respective clearances C1, C2, C3, and C4 between the load 70 and an associated adjacent object adjacent to the load 70 is less than a threshold value, the image processing unit 42 determines that the load 70 is likely to contact the adjacent object adjacent to the load 70. It is to be noted that the image processing unit 42 determines that any of the clearances C1, C2, C3, and C4 is less than the threshold value even when the respective clearance C1, C2, C3, or C4 is not present between the load 70 and the associated adjacent object adjacent to the load 70.” The examiner interprets determining whether there is sufficient clearance for the load or not (i.e. does the load fit within the load space) to correspond to determining that the transfer is able to be executed).
While Okamoto teaches apparatus information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object as noted above, (see at least Okamoto [0061] “The load handling space 91 is a space where the load 70 carried on the load handling apparatus 24 passes when the forklift truck 20 is advanced with the load handling apparatus 24 kept in a state when the image data is obtained from the stereoscopic cameras 45 and 46 in Step S1. The above state of the load handling apparatus 24 is represented by a height of the forks 27 and an orientation of the load handling apparatus 24.” See also [0062] " s described above, the load handling space 91 is the space where the load 70 carried on the load handling apparatus 24 passes while the forklift truck 20 is advanced with the load handling apparatus 24 kept in the state when the image data is obtained from the stereoscopic cameras 45 and 46 in Step S1. Thus, the clearances between the load handling space 91 and the adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91 are clearances between the load 70 and the associated adjacent objects adjacent to the load 70 while the forklift truck 20 is advanced until the load 70 is positioned above the load placing location in the vertical direction”)
However, Okamoto does not explicitly teach acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object.
Draayer discloses acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object (see at least Draayer [0033-0042] which teaches acquiring information regarding the mobile apparatus with numerous sensors, all of which could be considered acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object. For example [0036] “The carriage height sensor 106e may measure a height of a carriage of the vehicle. In particular, the carriage height sensor 106e may measure a height at which the carriage is located relative to a base height (which is often at a bottom of a stroke of the actuation element of the vehicle) and may indicate the height to the processor 102. The carriage height sensor 106e may be coupled to the carriage and/or the mast and may indicate the height of the carriage relative to the base height….”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Okamoto with the teaching of Draayer with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Draayer teaches, acquiring these values and providing them to the processor provides information about the vehicle and the surrounding environment to ensure a safe transport of the object (see at least Draayer [0003] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Okamoto and Draayer teach the motion determination method according to claim 1, wherein
the determining includes specifying size information indicating a size necessary for enabling the mobile apparatus to execute the motion of transferring the object on the object based on the object information and the apparatus information (see at least Okamoto See also [0050-0054] “The image processing unit 42 derives the coordinates of the feature points individually by the parallax images obtained in Step S2. In the present embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 7, edges of the rack 80 and edges of the load 73 in the rack 80 are extracted as feature points P…. In Step S5, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. The position of the load 70 is represented by coordinates of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. .. The pallet 72 has known dimensions specified by an authorized regulation. This allows the image processing unit 42 to derive coordinates of the bottom surface of the pallet 72 from the coordinates of the top surface T1 of the pallet 72.” The examiner interprets the coordinates of the object to be “regarding a size of the object” as Okamoto further describes determining the coordinates of the loading space and determining clearance between the load and the loading space and determining if there is enough space for the load in the loading space which is necessarily “regarding size” , and
determining the motion of transferring the object is able to be executed on the object at the motion place according to the size information and the range information (see at least Okamoto [0065] “In Step S8 as illustrated in FIG. 6, the image processing unit 42 determines a contact possibility, i.e., whether or not the load 70 contacts any of the adjacent objects adjacent to the load 70. The contact possibility is determined based on the values d1 to d4 of the respective clearances C1 to C4 derived in Step S7. When any of the values d1, d2, d3, and d4 of the respective clearances C1, C2, C3, and C4 between the load 70 and an associated adjacent object adjacent to the load 70 is less than a threshold value, the image processing unit 42 determines that the load 70 is likely to contact the adjacent object adjacent to the load 70. It is to be noted that the image processing unit 42 determines that any of the clearances C1, C2, C3, and C4 is less than the threshold value even when the respective clearance C1, C2, C3, or C4 is not present between the load 70 and the associated adjacent object adjacent to the load 70.” The examiner interprets determining whether there is sufficient clearance for the load or not (i.e. does the load fit within the load space) to correspond to determining that the transfer is able to be executed).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Okamoto and Draayer teach the motion determination method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring the range information includes acquiring the range information at the motion place specified according to the object information (see at least Okamoto wherein the examiner interprets the range information to be the loading space information [0061-0064] “In Step S6 as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of a load handling space 91 in the coordinate system in the real space. The load handling space 91 refers to a space occupied by the load 70 during load handling work performed by the load handling apparatus 24. The load handling work includes the load placing operation and a load picking up operation. The load handling space 91 during the load placing operation is a space that the load 70 is presumed to occupy during a period from when the forklift truck 20 located at a place distanced from the load placing location starts approaching the load placing location to when the forklift truck 20 places the load 70 at the load placing location… The image processing unit 42 derives the load handling space 91 from the coordinates of the load 70 based on the image data obtained from the first stereoscopic camera 45. The image processing unit 42 derives the load handling space 91 from the coordinates of the load 70 based on the image data obtained from the second stereoscopic camera 46…. [0062] In Step S7, the image processing unit 42 derives values of clearances between the load handling space 91 positioned at the load placing location and adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91… [0063] In the present embodiment, the image processing unit 42 derives the values of the clearances present above, below, to the left of, and to the right of the load handling space 91…As illustrated in FIG. 7, the image processing unit 42 derives values d1, d2, d3, and d4 of respective clearances C1, C2, C3, and C4 between the load handling space 91 and the associated adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91.” The examiner interprets the range information to be the loading space information).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Okamoto and Draayer teach the motion determination method according to claim 1, wherein
the mobile apparatus includes a loading portion for loading the object, and a lifting or lowering portion for lifting or lowering the loading portion (see at least Draayer Figure 2, carriage 222 and [0056] The front end equipment 214 may further include a carriage 222. The carriage 222 may include a support element 224 and a backstop 226. In the illustrated example, the support element 224 includes two forks that are to engage with a load and lift the load. For example, the forks may engage with a pallet, where the pallet may have one or more items stacked upon the pallet. In other examples, the support element 224 may include other means to engage with and lift a load, e.g. roll clamp, carton clamp, etc. The support element 224 may be coupled to the backstop 226 and the backstop 226 may prevent or reduce the chance of the load from interfering with the mast 216 or contacting the user. The carriage 222 may be movably coupled to the mast 216 and may be translated vertically along the mast 216 to raise and lower the carriage 222. For example, the carriage 222 may be coupled to the mast 216 via a hydraulic cylinder, an electric cylinder, a linear actuator, a screw jack, a chain, or some combination thereof, which may allow the carriage to be vertically translated in relation to the mast 216.” See also Okamoto Figure 1 ) ,
the apparatus information includes information indicating a height of the loading portion with respect to a reference position in the mobile apparatus object (see at least Draayer [0033-0042] which teaches acquiring information regarding the mobile apparatus with numerous sensors, all of which could be considered acquiring apparatus information that is information regarding a mobile apparatus that moves the object. For example [0036] “The carriage height sensor 106e may measure a height of a carriage of the vehicle. In particular, the carriage height sensor 106e may measure a height at which the carriage is located relative to a base height (which is often at a bottom of a stroke of the actuation element of the vehicle) and may indicate the height to the processor 102. The carriage height sensor 106e may be coupled to the carriage and/or the mast and may indicate the height of the carriage relative to the base height….”)
the object information includes at least information indicating a height of the object (see at least Okamoto Figure 5 and 7 and [0050-0054] “The image processing unit 42 derives the coordinates of the feature points individually by the parallax images obtained in Step S2. In the present embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 7, edges of the rack 80 and edges of the load 73 in the rack 80 are extracted as feature points P…. In Step S5, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. The position of the load 70 is represented by coordinates of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. .. The pallet 72 has known dimensions specified by an authorized regulation. This allows the image processing unit 42 to derive coordinates of the bottom surface of the pallet 72 from the coordinates of the top surface T1 of the pallet 72.” The examiner interprets the coordinates of the top surface to be the height of the object. Further the examiner notes that Okamoto teaches determining the bottom coordinates (including the z direction) of the object and the top coordinates (including in the z direction) of the object, which the examiner interprets and information indicating the height of the object. ), and
the range information includes at least information indicating a range in a height direction (see at least Okamoto wherein the examiner interprets the range information to be the loading space information [0061-0064] “In Step S6 as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of a load handling space 91 in the coordinate system in the real space. The load handling space 91 refers to a space occupied by the load 70 during load handling work performed by the load handling apparatus 24. The load handling work includes the load placing operation and a load picking up operation. The load handling space 91 during the load placing operation is a space that the load 70 is presumed to occupy during a period from when the forklift truck 20 located at a place distanced from the load placing location starts approaching the load placing location to when the forklift truck 20 places the load 70 at the load placing location… The image processing unit 42 derives the load handling space 91 from the coordinates of the load 70 based on the image data obtained from the first stereoscopic camera 45. The image processing unit 42 derives the load handling space 91 from the coordinates of the load 70 based on the image data obtained from the second stereoscopic camera 46…. [0062] In Step S7, the image processing unit 42 derives values of clearances between the load handling space 91 positioned at the load placing location and adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91… [0063] In the present embodiment, the image processing unit 42 derives the values of the clearances present above, below, to the left of, and to the right of the load handling space 91…As illustrated in FIG. 7, the image processing unit 42 derives values d1, d2, d3, and d4 of respective clearances C1, C2, C3, and C4 between the load handling space 91 and the associated adjacent objects adjacent to the load handling space 91.” The examiner interprets the range information to be the loading space information which includes a value in the height direction d1, d2 ).
Claim 7 and 13 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. The examiner notes that the combination of Okamoto and Draayer teach at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do motion determination process (See at least Okamoto [0025] “The main controller 31 includes a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, an input-output device (I/O), a bus line that connects these components, and the like. Processing performed by the main controller 31 may be software processing by the CPU executing a program prestored in a real memory such as the ROM, or hardware processing executed by a specialized electronic circuit. The main controller 31 controls the drive assembly 28 and the load handling assembly 29 so that the forklift truck 20 performs the traveling motion and the load handling motions.”).
Claim 8 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 2, above.
Claim 9 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Claim 11 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto and Draayer in further view of Bosworth, III (US Pub. No. 2017/0015537, hereinafter “Bosworth”).
Regarding claims 4, the combination of Okamoto and Draayer teach the motion determination method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile apparatus includes a loading portion for loading the object, (see at least Okamoto, figure 1, forks 27, See also Draayer Figure 2, and [0056] wherein the height of the carriage is determined. The examiner notes in some interpretations the height could be interpreted as the size, however, to further prosecution, the examiner has cited to Bosworth for this feature).
However, the combination of Okamoto see at least Draayer do not explicitly teach the apparatus information includes information indicating a size of the loading portion.
Bosworth teaches the apparatus information includes information indicating a size of the loading portion (see at least Bosworth Figure 2E and 5B and [0067-0069] “[0067] As also previously discussed, each of the fork length detectors 478 (if any are present in various embodiments) may employ any of a variety of technologies to determine the horizontal length of the support surface 195 of one or more lifting forks 190.” See also “[0113-0114] “However, unlike what was depicted and discussed in reference to FIG. 5A, in response to the receipt of such a command as input, the processor component 550 may operate one or more fork length detectors 478 to determine the horizontal length of the support surface 195 provided by the horizontal portion 192 of at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190 mounted on the lifting crossbars 181. As previously discussed, various technologies may be employed by various possible implementations of one or more fork length detectors 478 in determining such horizontal lengths. Again, a fork length detector 478 may receive RF communications indicating such a horizontal length for at least one support surface 195 from a RFID tag affixed or otherwise carried by at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190. Alternatively, a fork length detector 478 may optically scan indicia (e.g., a barcode, symbol, alphanumeric character, color code, etc.) affixed to or otherwise carried by at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190, and where the indicia provides an indication of the horizontal length….[0114] As still another alternative, and as depicted in FIG. 5B, a fork length detector 478 may employ any of a variety of optical scanning techniques to scan the support surface 195 of at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190 mounted on the lifting crossbars 181 of the lifting vehicle 100 to determine the horizontal length thereof.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Okamoto and Draayer with the teaching of Bosworth, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Bosworth teaches the lifting fork positioning system guides movement of a lifting vehicle to properly position one or more lifting forks thereof relative to a pallet to enable safe lifting thereof and avoids accidents arising from the positioning of the lifting forks.(see at least Bosworth [0018-0019]) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Okamoto and Draayer teach the motion determination method according to claim 5, wherein,
the mobile apparatus includes a horizontal moving portion for moving the loading portion in a horizontal direction (see at least Okamoto [0022] The forklift truck 20 of the present embodiment is of a reach type.” and [0024] “The load handling assembly 29 configured to cause the load handling apparatus 24 to perform a reach motion for moving the mast 25 along the pair of reach legs 23 in a front-rear direction, a tilt motion for tilting the mast 25, and a lift motion for lifting the mast 25 up and down. The load handling motion refers to a motion including one of the reach motion, the tilt motion, and the lift motion.” See also Draayer [0056] “In some embodiments, carriage 222 may additionally or alternatively be configured to translate in a horizontal position, such as parallel to the surface upon which vehicle 200 may rest, to facilitate load positioning and placement where maneuvering space may otherwise be limited.”)
the object information includes at least information indicating a length of the object in a horizontal direction (see at least Okamoto Figure 5 and 7 and [0050-0054] “The image processing unit 42 derives the coordinates of the feature points individually by the parallax images obtained in Step S2. In the present embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 7, edges of the rack 80 and edges of the load 73 in the rack 80 are extracted as feature points P…. In Step S5, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. The position of the load 70 is represented by coordinates of the load 70 in each of the coordinate systems in the real space. ...” Further the examiner notes that Okamoto teaches determining a bottom and top surface, wherein the bottom and top surfaces are a plan and include the length in the horizonal direction, for example see Figure 5 and the y direction ), and
the range information includes at least information indicating a range in a horizontal direction (see at least Okamoto [0061] “[0061] In Step S6 as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, the image processing unit 42 derives a position of a load handling space 91 in the coordinate system in the real space. The load handling space 91 refers to a space occupied by the load 70 during load handling work performed by the load handling apparatus 24. The load handling work includes the load placing operation and a load picking up operation. The load handling space 91 during the load placing operation is a space that the load 70 is presumed to occupy during a period from when the forklift truck 20 located at a place distanced from the load placing location starts approaching the load placing location to when the forklift truck 20 places the load 70 at the load placing location. The load handling space 91 during the load placing operation includes an occupying space 92 occupied by the load 70 carried on the load handling apparatus 24, and an extension space 93 extending from the occupying space 92 in the Y-axis direction. The occupying space 92 may be a space surrounded by the feature points forming the load 70. Alternatively, the occupying space 92 may be a space between the bottom surface of the pallet 72 and a surface formed by extending the bottom surface of the pallet 72 upward to a height of the top surface of the load 70, as illustrated in FIG. 5. The position of the load handling space 91 is represented by coordinates of an external boundary of the load handling space 91. The coordinates of the external boundary of the load handling space 91 represent a size of the load handling space 91. The image processing unit 42 is allowed to derive the extension space 93 in the coordinate system in the real space by changing a Y coordinate of the occupying space 92. Specifically, the image processing unit 42 is allowed to derive the extension space 93 by extending the occupying space 92, which is occupied by the load 70, in the forward direction of the forklift truck 20 along the Y-axis. The load handling space 91 is a space where the load 70 carried on the load handling apparatus 24 passes when the forklift truck 20 is advanced with the load handling apparatus 24 kept in a state when the image data is obtained from the stereoscopic cameras 45 and 46 in Step S1. The above state of the load handling apparatus 24 is represented by a height of the forks 27 and an orientation of the load handling apparatus 24.”).
The combination of Okamoto and Draayer do not explicitly teach the apparatus information includes information indicating a position of the loading portion in a horizontal direction with respect to a reference position in the mobile apparatus.
Bosworth teaches the apparatus information includes information indicating a position of the loading portion in a horizontal direction with respect to a reference position in the mobile apparatus (see at least Bosworth Figure 2E and 5B and [0067-0069] “[0067] As also previously discussed, each of the fork length detectors 478 (if any are present in various embodiments) may employ any of a variety of technologies to determine the horizontal length of the support surface 195 of one or more lifting forks 190.” See also “[0113-0114] “However, unlike what was depicted and discussed in reference to FIG. 5A, in response to the receipt of such a command as input, the processor component 550 may operate one or more fork length detectors 478 to determine the horizontal length of the support surface 195 provided by the horizontal portion 192 of at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190 mounted on the lifting crossbars 181. As previously discussed, various technologies may be employed by various possible implementations of one or more fork length detectors 478 in determining such horizontal lengths. Again, a fork length detector 478 may receive RF communications indicating such a horizontal length for at least one support surface 195 from a RFID tag affixed or otherwise carried by at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190. Alternatively, a fork length detector 478 may optically scan indicia (e.g., a barcode, symbol, alphanumeric character, color code, etc.) affixed to or otherwise carried by at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190, and where the indicia provides an indication of the horizontal length….[0114] As still another alternative, and as depicted in FIG. 5B, a fork length detector 478 may employ any of a variety of optical scanning techniques to scan the support surface 195 of at least one of the one or more lifting forks 190 mounted on the lifting crossbars 181 of the lifting vehicle 100 to determine the horizontal length thereof.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Okamoto and Draayer with the teaching of Bosworth, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Bosworth teaches the lifting fork positioning system guides movement of a lifting vehicle to properly position one or more lifting forks thereof relative to a pallet to enable safe lifting thereof and avoids accidents arising from the positioning of the lifting forks.(see at least Bosworth [0018-0019]) .
Claim 10 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 4, above.
Claim 12 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 6, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230236060-A1 to Sakalski is cited for teaching a forklift capable of sensing dimensions of an object
US-20220162048-A1 to Meijer is cited for showing extendable forks and determining the length of the forks of the forklift.
US-20170227629-A1 to Sorenson is cited for teaching determining dimensions of objects.
US-20210316975-A1 to Yeo is cited for teaching adjusting the width of the space between the forks and horizonal motion of the forks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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 on (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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights