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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. Claims 3 and 5 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed July 30, 2026, with respect to potential objections to claims 3 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The potential objections to claims 3 and 6 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments overcome considerations of effectively duplicated claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed July 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 5-6 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments render the claims definite.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
We concur with applicant’s traversal argument. Regarding independent claim 1, applicant is correct that references Araki and Liu cited in the previous office action do not teach the operation of the claimed “approach determiner” and “re-approach controller” at the claimed time and place, “when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position”, though they plainly share the capability to do so. Rather, the determination disclosed by Araki occurs prior to the forklift truck arriving at the handling position, and moreover Liu does not teach the claimed action at the claimed position either.
However, new grounds for rejection have been found. Because applicant has not amended their claims, these new grounds have triggered a second non-final rejection rather than a final rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, and 15-16 disclose various “controllers”, “determiners”, “calculators”, “estimators”, and other modules or units of control functionality. The modules appear in applicant’s fig. 2 inside box 30, and in p8/L12-15 of the instant specification as components of controller 30. As controllers in the art are almost always PLCs or general purpose computers, and as PLCs and general-purpose computers do not comprise discrete sub-computers with specialized functionality such as applicant’s pallet position calculator or re-guidance controller, we interpret all the interior boxes 31-40 of controller 30 in fig. 2 and all the comprised elements listed in P8/L12-15 as aspects of the software functionality of controller 30, and not as individual machines or hardware components. In contrast, the CPU, RAM, ROM, and i/o interfaces of P8/L10-11, isolated in their own sentence, are plainly hardware components of the general-purpose computer 30, and the units 13-15 and 21-28 to the sides of controller 30 in fig. 2 appear to be devices. In particular, we consider the claimed position calculator 31, the unnumbered approach controller (a cooperating virtual combination of elements 32-34), the approach determiner 35, cargo handling controller 39, and re-approach controller 38 (all present in fig. 2) to all be aspects of software functionality of a single physical machine, controller 30.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, and 14-16 recite the term “re-approach” either as a step in the control of a forklift vehicle or in connection with a “re-approach controller” (noted above to be an aspect of software functionality). Per the guidance of the claims and the instant specification, we consider “re-approach” to be any adjustment or correction of a forklift vehicle’s position with respect to a target location made after an initial movement or approach to a target location has been determined to be insufficiently close to or improperly aligned with the target.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 10-11 recite the term “start position” without explanation or definition. As this term distinguishes claim 4 from parent claim 3 its interpretation is significant. We interpret “start position” according to the combination of plain English meaning and claim context (in which the start position is one from which a target object may be sensed and its relative position determined) as any position from which the claimed forklift may move and from which its sensors can determine the position of the target object which it has been instructed to load. As such, this start position must be reasonably proximate to the target object, and not, for example, on the far side of a warehouse. A forklift directed from a distant location in a warehouse to pick up a pallet or other article is thus not moving initially from a start position but rather first moves to a start position near the pallet and then moves from that start position to the pallet. This is consistent with the logic of the claims in that (per claim 4, for example) it would be strange for a forklift that has unsuccessfully approached a target object to retreat all the way across a warehouse to its true initial location prior to once again approaching the target object to pick it up.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki, et al., JP 2022070559 (hereinafter Araki) in view of Tanaka, et al., US 2018/0134531 (hereinafter Tanaka) and further in view of Liu, et al., CN 108640040 (hereinafter Liu).
Note: inventor Liu Enli’s family name is romanized in some versions of this publication as Lyu and in other versions as LV. This rejection is distinguished from the similar rejection in the previous office action by the addition of new teaching reference Tanaka.
Regarding claim 1,
Araki discloses:
A cargo handling control device (1: fig. 1) that moves a forklift truck (10: fig. 1) from a start position to a cargo handling target and performs cargo handling, the cargo handling control device comprising:
a target detector (26: fig. 6, [0041]) configured to detect the cargo handling target;
a position calculator configured to calculate a position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck based on detection data by the target detector; (detection of target object, [0041]-[0043]).
an approach controller (movement control unit 72: fig. 5, [0040]) configured to control the forklift truck based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the start position so that the forklift truck approaches a cargo handling position corresponding to the cargo handling target;
However, Araki does not disclose all aspects of:
an approach determiner configured to determine whether an approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful ([0043], successful detection at destination) based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position;
a cargo handling controller configured to control the forklift truck so that the forklift truck performs cargo handling of the cargo handling target when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful; ([0047], picking up the target object)While Araki generally discloses these two limitations, as applicant has pointed out in their traversal argument Araki does not disclose the determination of a successful approach at the cargo handling position, but rather along the way to this position. However, in making the determination earlier it is plain that Araki is fully capable of the claimed determination at the cargo handling position at which its forklift eventually arrives.
Moreover, Araki does not disclose:
and a re-approach controller configured to control the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful. While Araki’s system determines if forklift movement was successful, it does not disclose a method of recovering from an unsuccessful movement. As its method moves a forklift to a cargo handling position, it is fully capable of performing the claimed action of re-approaching the cargo handling position even if it does not disclose the method itself.
Tanaka, an invention in the field of forklift automation published by the same assignee as the instant application, teaches the missing aspects of:
an approach determiner configured to determine whether an approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position;
a cargo handling controller configured to control the forklift truck so that the forklift truck performs cargo handling of the cargo handling target when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful;Regarding these two limitations, Tanaka teaches a method in fig. 10 and [0056]-[0061] that includes in step S58 the determination whether an approach of a forklift truck to a loading position (cargo handling position) is successful. If the approach is unsuccessful, the deviation of the truck is determined and the truck’s movement is adjusted, and this method is repeated until the truck is in the desired loading position. Because Tanaka’s method does not include every aspect of the claimed reapproach taught by Liu, in combination with Araki and we merely adopt Tanaka’s teaching of a position for determining a successful approach rather than Tanaka’s full method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Araki with an approach determiner configured to determine whether an approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position; and a cargo handling controller configured to control the forklift truck so that the forklift truck performs cargo handling of the cargo handling target when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful; as taught by Liu, because a cargo handling position is plainly an important point at which to determine if a forklift has successfully approached a target pallet and if it has the capability to lift and transport it from that position. If a forklift fails to achieve its designated cargo handling position it cannot safely and reliably lift a target item.
Liu, an invention in the field of path planning for forklifts, teaches:
and a re-approach controller configured to control the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful.Liu teaches in [0044]-[0048] that its forklift detects surrounding objects ([0044]), determines whether the forklift is in a correct position, ([0046]), and if not in a correct position, reverses its movement and adjusts its position until correct ([0048]), this last step being the claimed “re-approach”. In combination with Araki and Tanaka, Araki’s system would adopt the vehicle reversal and re-approach method of Liu with no need for the incorporation of any of Liu’s structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Araki and Tanaka with a re-approach controller configured to control the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, as taught by Liu, because it is understood in the art that vehicle movement to a target is not always successful (indeed Araki acknowledges this itself in [0004]-[0005]) and so a method of recovering from such a failure is necessary in an automated or semi-automated environment.
Regarding claim 2,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck retreats once from the cargo handling position and re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position. Liu teaches reversal (retreat) as a necessary first step in correcting the position of a forklift in [0048].
Regarding claim 3,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck retreats once from the cargo handling position, and then controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator after the forklift truck retreats from the cargo handling position when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful. Liu teaches reversal (retreat) as a necessary first step in correcting the position of a forklift in [0048].
Regarding claim 4,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 3 and also:
wherein the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck retreats once from the cargo handling position to the start position, and then controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the start position. This claim is limited further over claim 3 in specifying that the retreat occurs to a start position. See our understanding of “start position” in the Claim Interpretation section above. Liu teaches a start position in [0044] with respect to a position from which the forklift can establish a position for surrounding objects using its sensors. The subsequent reversal (retreat) when the forklift is determined to be improperly positioned is with respect to this start position as claimed.
Regarding claim 5,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising a detection determiner (detection control unit 74: fig. 5) configured to determine whether the cargo handling target is detectable by the target detector at the cargo handling position when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, whereinAccording to Araki’s [0043], target detection occurs during the approach to a cargo handling position and not explicitly at the cargo handling position, but per its [0065] is not limited to detecting only during this approach. Tanaka teaches a similar target detection step in in steps S14 and S20 of fig. 4 and in [0037]-[0038], with its method determining a successful or unsuccessful approach to a cargo handling position as claimed per its fig. 10. In the combination of Araki and Tanaka, the target is detected if the approach is unsuccessful as claimed (it is also detected when the approach is successful, of course).
the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck retreats once from the cargo handling position and re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position when the detection determiner determines that the cargo handling target is detectable by the target detector at the cargo handling position, andLiu teaches re-approach in [0044]-[0048] when the determination of the previous limitation occurs that the approach to the cargo handling position was unsuccessful. Tanaka’s cycle of its fig. 10 of determining a successful approach at the cargo handling position and adjusting position (using Liu’s method in combination) if the approach is unsuccessful also determines that the target object is detectable at the cargo handling position per its fig. 4.
the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck retreats once from the cargo handling position, and then controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator after the forklift truck retreats from the cargo handling position when the detection determiner determines that the cargo handling target is not detectable by the target detector at the cargo handling position. Again, the combination of Araki, Tanaka, and Liu teaches reapproach after retreat from a cargo handling position and also the determination that a cargo handling target is or is not detectable during the repeated position and approach determination and re-approach of the forklift.
Regarding claim 6,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 5 and also:
wherein the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck retreats once from the cargo handling position to the start position, and then controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the start position when the detection determiner determines that the cargo handling target is not detectable by the target detector at the cargo handling position. Again, the combination of Araki, Tanaka, and Liu teaches reapproach after retreat from a cargo handling position and also the determination that a cargo handling target is or is not detectable during the repeated position and approach determination and re-approach of the forklift. While we agree with applicant that they have distinguished claims 5 and 6 based on timing, the repeated detections, determinations, and re-approaches of the combination of Araki, Tanaka, and Liu teach the claimed method “when”, “while”, and “after” reaching a cargo handling location and/or determining that an approach to a cargo handling location is unsuccessful.
Regarding claim 8,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising: a re-approach determiner configured to determine whether the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position again;
and a notification unit configured to notify an abnormality when the re-approach determiner determines that the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, wherein the cargo handling controller control the forklift truck so that the forklift truck performs cargo handling of the cargo handling target when the re-approach determiner determines that the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful. While Araki discloses the issuance of an alarm in response to a movement abnormality in [0072], and therefore must comprise the claimed notification unit, this abnormality is not that of a problem with a re-approach because Araki does not disclose re-approach. However, in combination with Liu, which teaches the claimed re-approach after an unsuccessful approach, Araki would issue the alarm in case of a movement abnormality of the type taught by Liu, namely a re-approach abnormality. As regards the movement-on-success aspect of the claim, Liu teaches this part of re-approach in its [0048].
Regarding claim 9,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the target detector detects the cargo handling target with a front of the forklift truck facing the cargo handling target. As at least one of Araki’s sensors 26 is mounted on a forward-facing surface of its forklift (on the mast as seen in fig. 2), and as its path forward toward a target is depicted in its fig. 1, and as Liu teaches reverse movement away from a target in case of an unsuccessful approach, we consider that the front of the forklift truck must face the target according to both references. Moreover it is conventional to the point of universality for forklift trucks to approach a target object to be loaded by facing it because otherwise the front-facing fork would be unable to engage with the object.
Regarding claim 11,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the cargo handling target is a pallet that has a pair of fork holes to which a pair of right and left forks of the forklift truck is inserted, the position calculator calculates a position and a state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck based on the detection data by the target detector, the approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck approaches the cargo handling position corresponding to the position of the pallet based on the position and the state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the start position, the approach determiner determines whether the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful based on the position and the state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position, the cargo handling controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck performs unloading of the pallet as cargo handling when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful, and the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position and the state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful. Both Araki and Liu disclose holes in a pallet into which a forklift will insert a fork (and indeed this is well-nigh universal in the art). Araki only discloses a single opening (which opening we interpret as comprising two holes because Araki’s fork comprises two prongs and because two dotted-line holes are depicted in its fig. 2), and Liu also discloses multiple holes in [0004] whose precise number is presumably two because Liu’s fork also comprises two prongs per its fig. 1. Liu teaches that its approach and re-approach method of [0044]-[0048] is concerned with the proper alignment of a forklift fork with holes in a pallet in [0004]. The non-pallet-hole related remainder of this claim reprises the material of other claims such as claim 2 and is taught by Liu in [0044]-[0048].
Regarding claim 12,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 11 and also:
further comprising: an unloading determiner configured to determine, when the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, whether there is a possibility of successful unloading of the pallet by the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position based on the position and the state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position; and an abnormal stop controller configured to control the forklift truck for an abnormal stop by which the forklift truck stops travelling when the unloading determiner determines that there is no possibility of successful unloading of the pallet even by the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position, wherein the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position and the state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the unloading determiner determines that there is a possibility of successful unloading of the pallet by the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position. We paraphrase this claim as claiming a similar method for unloading from a forklift as claimed in the parent claim for loading to a forklift. Liu discloses in [0004]-[0005] and [0032] that its forklift method can be used both for stacking (i.e. unloading) and retrieving (i.e. loading) goods in the form of pallets and other articles.
Regarding claim 15,
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 11 and also:
further comprising a re-approach determiner configured to determine whether the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful based on the position and the state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the forklift truck reaches the cargo handling position again, wherein the re-approach controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck re-approaches the cargo handling position based on the position and the state of the pallet relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator when the approach determiner determines that the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, and the cargo handling controller controls the forklift truck so that the forklift truck performs unloading of the pallet when the re-approach determiner determines that the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful. Liu teaches in [0048] that on re-approach, i.e. adjustment of the forklift’s position, the method steps for re-approach may be repeated if the forklift is still not in the proper position. This amounts to the claimed method and its re-approach determiner. We see no difference between the previously claimed approach-determiner and the claimed re-approach determiner except whether the determination is made on approach or re-approach.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu and further in view of Yamanouchi, et al., US 2004/0083025 (hereinafter Yamanouchi).
Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the forklift truck includes a side shift cylinder configured to move a fork in a lateral direction of the forklift truck, the approach determiner determines whether a lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is equal to or less than a predetermined amount based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position, the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful when the lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is equal to or less than the predetermined amount, and the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful when the lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is not equal to or less than the predetermined amount. While Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu teaches the determination of a successful forklift approach, neither reference determines the lateral reach of a side-shift-capable forklift’s fork in comparison to a threshold value.
Yamanouchi, an invention in the field of industrial vehicle control, teaches:
wherein the forklift truck includes a side shift cylinder (71: fig. 15, [0091]) configured to move a fork in a lateral direction of the forklift truck, the approach determiner determines whether a lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is equal to or less than a predetermined amount based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position, the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful when the lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is equal to or less than the predetermined amount, and the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful when the lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is not equal to or less than the predetermined amount. Yamanouchi teaches the application of a threshold for lateral reach in [0326], a value beyond which the forks cannot be positioned to lift a target load. When this value is exceeded, the driver is notified of the unsuccessful approach. In combination with Araki and Liu, rather than the driver being notified, Liu’s re-approach method would be invoked to move the forklift truck to an appropriate position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Araki, Tanaka, and Liu, wherein the forklift truck includes a side shift cylinder configured to move a fork in a lateral direction of the forklift truck, the approach determiner determines whether a lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is equal to or less than a predetermined amount based on the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck calculated by the position calculator while the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position, the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is successful when the lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is equal to or less than the predetermined amount, and the approach determiner determines that the approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful when the lateral displaced amount of the forklift truck relative to the cargo handling target is not equal to or less than the predetermined amount, as taught by Yamanouchi, firstly because side-shift-capable forklifts with the claimed cylinders are a standard and commonplace type of forklift, widely used for many years, and secondly because when a side-shift-capable forklift is in position and the target object is out of the side-shift range of the forks, then plainly the forklift truck itself must be repositioned (i.e. must “re-approach”) in order to pick up the target object.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu and further in view of Tani, et al., US 2019/0352158 (hereinafter Tani).
Araki in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
wherein the target detector includes a first detector configured to detect the cargo handling target with a side of the forklift truck facing the cargo handling target, and a second detector configured to detect the cargo handling target with a front of the forklift truck facing the cargo handling target, and the position calculator calculates the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck based on detection data by the first detector when the forklift truck is at the start position, and calculates the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck based on detection data by the second detector when the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position. Araki teaches only a single front-facing sensor. However, Araki’s sensor can be used at any position, including start position and cargo handling position.
Tani, an invention in the field of forklift carriages, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
wherein the target detector includes a first detector (laser sensor 60: fig. 1) configured to detect the cargo handling target with a side of the forklift truck facing the cargo handling target, and a second detector (camera sensor 24: fig. 1) configured to detect the cargo handling target with a front of the forklift truck facing the cargo handling target, and the position calculator calculates the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck based on detection data by the first detector when the forklift truck is at the start position, and calculates the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck based on detection data by the second detector when the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position.Tani teaches the use of two forward-facing sensors on a fork-lift carriage in [0045] and [0060], a camera and a laser sensor used to determine target object location. Both can be used in any position of the carriage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Araki, Tanaka, and Liu, wherein the target detector includes a first detector configured to detect the cargo handling target with a side of the forklift truck facing the cargo handling target, and a second detector configured to detect the cargo handling target with a front of the forklift truck facing the cargo handling target, and the position calculator calculates the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck based on detection data by the first detector when the forklift truck is at the start position, and calculates the position of the cargo handling target relative to the forklift truck based on detection data by the second detector when the forklift truck is at the cargo handling position, as taught by Tani, because it is known in the art that a camera can readily determine the 3D position of an object for picking by a device such as a forklift fork where a ranging sensor such as a laser can only determine range, but that a ranging sensor can determine range with greater precision and reliability than a camera. Since for movement control and loading actions both 3D target object position as well as range are important considerations, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find the great precision offered by two sensors an advantage over a single sensor of either type.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Tanaka and Liu and further in view of Zou Le, US 9,637,310 (hereinafter Zou).
Araki in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 15 but not:
further comprising: a re-approach count determiner configured to determine whether number of times the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is performed reaches a predetermined upper limit value when the re-approach determiner determines that the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, and an abnormal stop controller configured to control the forklift truck for an abnormal stop by which the forklift truck stops travelling when the re-approach count determiner determines that number of times the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is performed reaches a predetermined upper limit value.Neither Araki, Tanaka, nor Liu counts a number of approach or re-approach failures or takes action when an approach failure threshold is met.
Zou, an invention in the field of mobile transport robots, teaches the limitation:
further comprising: a re-approach count determiner configured to determine whether number of times the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is performed reaches a predetermined upper limit value when the re-approach determiner determines that the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, and an abnormal stop controller configured to control the forklift truck for an abnormal stop by which the forklift truck stops travelling when the re-approach count determiner determines that number of times the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is performed reaches a predetermined upper limit value.Zou teaches mobile robot transport failure detection with corrective action to be taken in step 918 in C14/L64-C15/L10. This broadly maps to applicant’s and Araki, Tanaka, and Liu’s re-approach method. Zou then teaches in step 920 in C15/L11-38 that after a given number of failures for the first corrective action (i.e. re-approach failures exceeding a threshold) a second corrective action of stopping the robot may be taken, this method corresponding to applicant’s re-approach count determiner and abnormal stop controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Araki, Tanaka, and Liu, further comprising: a re-approach count determiner configured to determine whether number of times the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is performed reaches a predetermined upper limit value when the re-approach determiner determines that the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is unsuccessful, and an abnormal stop controller configured to control the forklift truck for an abnormal stop by which the forklift truck stops travelling when the re-approach count determiner determines that number of times the re-approach of the forklift truck to the cargo handling position is performed reaches a predetermined upper limit value, as taught by Zou, because repeated movement failures may indicate a total inability of a system to perform an action, and in this case it is plainly advantageous for the system to stop attempting to perform the action so manual intervention of an operator or supervisor can correct the fault or at least abort a task that cannot be completed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 13, while the use of hydraulic cylinders for the lateral displacement of forklift forks is known to the art, applicant’s particular method of determining success thresholds for the combination of lateral displacement, yaw angle, roll angle, and pitch angle was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. We note that considerable prior art of the applicant teaches the determination of yaw, roll, and pitch angles of pallets for forklifts, but not with the threshold determination of claim 13 and not in combination with lateral displacement. Reference Yamanouchi, cited in the rejection of claim 7, teaches the claimed lateral side-shift cylinder and a lateral displacement threshold, but fails to teach the three angle axes of the claim. Reference Liu’s method teaches establishing a proper angle for a forklift to load or unload a pallet, but the only angle it teaches is a yaw angle, and not applicant’s other two angle axes. Claim 14 inherits the potential allowability of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights