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 1-10 and 12-26 are pending in this application. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 were amended by preliminary amendment, claim 11 was canceled, and claims 16-26 are new.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 6-10, 12-13, 19-20, and 22-25 recite the unusual term “underride shuttle”, which appears to be a private usage of the applicant. We acknowledge applicant’s definition of the term in their instant specification paragraphs [0001]-[0003], denoting a conventional AGV comprising a mobile base or platform that carries detachable storage units and other structures atop the base and is capable of mounting and depositing such structures as desired.
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.
Claims 7, 13, 20, and 22 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.
Claims 7 and 13 recite “a protective field”. This is not a standard term in the warehousing or robotic arts, and the term is neither formally defined nor fully explained in the instant specification. A “protective field” suggests a science-fictional “force field”, which is not a feature normally understood to be associated with industrial robots or indeed with any real device. While electromagnetic shielding is known in various arts, such shielding does not appear to be consistent with applicant’s use of “protective field”. We speculate that applicant’s protective field is actually a zone of detection for collision-avoidance, but the instant specification and claims provide insufficient support for this guesswork. In the absence of a clear understanding of “protective field”, the claims are indefinite. Claim 22 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 7. For the purpose of examination on the merits in this office action, we interpret “protective field” as “zone of detection or avoidance”.
Claim 13 further recites, “wherein the at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle comprises a protective field in an environment surrounding the underride shuttle, a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle.” We do not understand this claim language. Regardless of what sort of real entity a protective field may be, it cannot be comprised by a parameter, which is a unit of data. While this usage is supported by paragraph [0024] of the instant specification, the notion of a protective field as a parameter is not understandable in context there, either. In contrast, the parameters listed in [0020] as alternatives to the adaptation of a protective field are easily understood as units of data. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider that the limitation “comprises a protective field in an environment surrounding the shuttle” has been redacted, and so the claim reads “wherein the at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle comprises a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle” which in effect claims the parameters of paragraph [0020]. We note as an aside that if a protective field is indeed a zone of detection or avoidance, then the dimensions of the protective field could indeed be understood as parameters, but as noted above this interpretation is only speculative. As a further aside, we note that the claim recites “at least one” of the parameters, and so given that a maximum speed is taught by reference Lin (see rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below), the matter of the protective field and its possible dimensions is not crucial to the claim’s prior art rejection in any case.
Claim 20 recites “diagonally opposite”. This term is not understood and amounts to a point of indefiniteness in the claim. As regards the claimed at least two sensors, two or more entities may be radially or diametrically opposite around a central point of reference, but the idea that two things are diagonally related in the absence of a diagonal reference line provided by some other structure is not understood. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we take “diagonally opposite” to mean “opposite” with respect to some central point of reference such as a center point of a robot’s load-bearing platform.
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, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 19-21, 23-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014102274 (hereinafter Schaffer) in view of Brazeau, et al., US 2016/0236867 (hereinafter Brazeau).
[Note that both PE2E and Espacenet translations of Schaffer leave much to be desired; no superior translation was found elsewhere. In particular, the attached Espacenet translation uses the word “canal” to mean “channel” or “aisle”, and “bearing” to mean “storage system” or “rack system”.]
Regarding claim 1,
Schaffer discloses:
A device for detecting and handling different types of load carriers (16: fig. 4A; different types in [0017] and [0061]) on an underride shuttle (channel vehicle 22: fig. 4A), The claimed device is the channel vehicle itself (underride shuttle) and its comprised sensors and controller.
a second sensor arrangement (68,70 as part of 82: fig. 4B) [having a different sensor type] than the first sensor arrangement and designed to detect information regarding a type of load carrier and to output corresponding second sensor data;See the next section for the “different sensor type”. Schaffer discloses detection of load type (“type of load carrier”) in [0017] and [0061].
a control unit (control unit 26: fig. 1; controlling robots, [0033]) which is operatively coupled to the first sensor arrangement and the second sensor arrangement to obtain the first and second sensor data, wherein the control unit is configured to output control signals to adapt at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle in response to detecting the correct pickup of the load carrier by the first sensor arrangement and based on the type of load carrier detected by the second sensor arrangement;The operating parameter determined by Schaffer in [0017] and [0061] is the pallet type or load carrier type. As explained in [0061], knowing the dimensions of the carrier helps avoid operational problems with carrier positioning, so the carrier type itself is an operational parameter.
However, Schaffer does not disclose all aspects of:
the device comprising: a first sensor arrangement designed to detect a correct pickup of a load carrier on a load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle and to output corresponding first sensor data;While Schaffer discloses the use of its sensor arrangement for detecting correct load pickup and placement, it does not disclose that this determination occurs through a separate sensor group of a different kind than the one used for determining the type of the load carrier in [0017]. Rather, Schaffer’s first sensor arrangement is intended for collision avoidance. We therefore rely on a second reference for these sensors.
Brazeau, an invention in the same field as Schaffer, teaches:
the device comprising: a first sensor arrangement (925: fig. 9A, [0079]) designed to detect a correct pickup of a load carrier on a load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle and to output corresponding first sensor data,In addition to its sensor 925 used for the claimed purpose Brazeau discloses a wide variety of other sensors in [0036]-[0040] and, for example, figs. 2A-B, “having a different sensor type” as required by the limitation above, otherwise disclosed by Schaffer.
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 and method of Schaffer, the device comprising: a first sensor arrangement designed to detect a correct pickup of a load carrier on a load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle and to output corresponding first sensor data, (the second sensor arrangement “having a different sensor type” from the first), as taught by Brazeau, because the use of sensors on AGVs such as applicant’s underride shuttle in order to determine correct pickup and placement of a load carrier is commonplace and well known in the art, and because as Brazeau explains in [0079], such sensors can help stabilize an unbalanced load and can prevent a robot from attempting to carry a load for which it is not properly rated.
Regarding claim 3,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the first sensor arrangement comprises at least two spaced sensors.Brazeau teaches this arrangement in its fig. 9A wherein four spaced sensors 925 can be seen.
Regarding claim 4,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the second sensor arrangement comprises a unit for reading a data carrier assigned to the load carrier.Brazeau teaches sensors for detecting RFIDs and bar-codes (“data carriers”) on the load carrier in [0040].
Regarding claim 6,
Schaffer discloses:
An underride shuttle, (channel vehicle 22: fig. 4A)
comprising: a vehicle body (unnumbered: fig. 4A) having a plurality of wheels (rollers 42: fig. 4A);
a load-carrying platform displaced vertically relative to the vehicle body;Schaffer discloses an unnumbered lifting mechanism in [0038]. Lifting is vertical displacement.
a device for detecting and handling different types of load carriers on the underride shuttle, where the device comprises:The claimed device is the channel vehicle itself (underride shuttle) and its comprised sensors and controller.
a second sensor arrangement (68,70 as part of 82: fig. 4B [having a different sensor type] than the first sensor arrangement and designed to detect information regarding a type of load carrier and to output corresponding second sensor data;See the next section for the “different sensor type”. Schaffer discloses detection of load type (“type of load carrier”) in [0017] and [0061].
and a control unit (control unit 26: fig. 1; controlling robots, [0033]) operatively coupled to the first sensor arrangement and the second sensor arrangement to obtain the first and second sensor data, wherein the control unit is configured to output control signals to adapt at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle in response to detecting the correct pickup of the load carrier by the first sensor arrangement and based on the type of load carrier detected by the second sensor arrangement;The operating parameter determined by Schaffer in [0017] and [0061] is the pallet type or the load carrier type. As explained in [0061], knowing the dimensions of the carrier helps avoid operational problems with carrier positioning, so the carrier type itself is an operational parameter.
and a central control unit (warehouse management computer 24: fig. 1) operatively coupled to the control unit of the device.
However, Schaffer does not disclose all aspects of:
a first sensor arrangement designed to detect a correct pickup of a load carrier on the load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle and to output corresponding first sensor data; While Schaffer discloses the use of its sensor for detecting correct load pickup and placement, it does not disclose this determination occurs through a separate sensor group of a different kind than the one used for determining the type of the load carrier in [0017]. Rather, Schaffer’s first sensor arrangement is intended for collision avoidance. We therefore rely on a second reference for these sensors.
Brazeau, an invention in the same field as Schaffer, teaches:
first sensor arrangement (925: fig. 9A, [0079]) designed to detect a correct pickup of a load carrier on the load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle and to output corresponding first sensor data;In addition to its sensor 925 used for the claimed purpose Brazeau discloses a wide variety of other sensors in [0036]-[0040] and, for example, figs. 2A-B, “having a different sensor type” as required by the limitation above, otherwise disclosed by Schaffer.
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 and method of Schaffer, a first sensor arrangement designed to detect a correct pickup of a load carrier on the load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle and to output corresponding first sensor data, (the second sensor arrangement “having a different sensor type” from the first), as taught by Brazeau, because the use of sensors on AGVs such as applicant’s underride shuttle in order to determine correct pickup and placement of a load carrier is commonplace and well known in the art, and because as Brazeau explains in [0079], such sensors can help stabilize an unbalanced load and can prevent a robot from attempting to carry a load for which it is not properly rated.
Regarding claim 9,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
further comprising at least one further sensor unit for determining a further state parameter of the load carrier, the underride shuttle, or an environment surrounding the underride shuttle, wherein the central control unit is configured to adapt the at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle based on the further state parameter. For this claim we consider the operational parameter to be adapted to be the positioning of the load carrier as taught by Brazeau in [0079], wherein a weight sensor (the claimed one further sensor unit) determines a weight state parameter that is used to help adjust the position of the load carrier so as to avoid an unbalanced load. Brazeau teaches “one or more weight or load sensors” in [0079], the “or more” (four different sensors as seen in fig. 9A) being the claimed “at least one further sensor”.
Regarding claim 10,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
wherein the underride shuttle is configured to pick up the different types of load carriers and transport the different types of load carriers using the load-carrying platform. Schaffer discloses this capability in [0002] and depicts it in figs. 3A-B.
Regarding claim 12,
Schaffer discloses:
A method for detecting and handling different types of load carriers (16: fig. 4A; different types in [0017] and [0061]) on an underride shuttle (channel vehicle 22: fig. 4A),
detecting, using a second sensor arrangement of the device (68,70 as part of 82: fig. 4B), information regarding a type of load carrier;Schaffer discloses detection of load type (“type of load carrier”) in [0017] and [0061].
and adjusting at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle in response to detecting a the correct pick-up of the load carrier and based on the type of load carrier. The operating parameter determined by Schaffer in [0017] and [0061] is the pallet type or load carrier type. As explained in [0061], knowing the dimensions of the carrier helps avoid operational problems with carrier positioning, so the carrier type itself is an operational parameter.
However, Schaffer does not teach all aspects of:
the method comprising: detecting, using a first sensor arrangement of a device, a correct pick-up of a load carrier on a load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle;While Schaffer discloses the use of its sensor for detecting correct load pickup and placement, it does not disclose this determination occurs through a separate sensor group of a different kind than the one used for determining the type of the load carrier in [0017]. Rather, Schaffer’s first sensor arrangement is intended for collision avoidance. We therefore rely on a second reference for these sensors.
Brazeau, an invention in the same field as Schaffer, teaches:
the method comprising: detecting, using a first sensor arrangement (925: fig. 9A, [0079]) of a device, a correct pick-up of a load carrier on a load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle;We consider the claimed device to be Brazeau’s (or Schaffer’s, in combination) shuttle itself along with its comprised sensors and 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 and method of Schaffer, the method comprising: detecting, using a first sensor arrangement of a device, a correct pick-up of a load carrier on a load-carrying platform of the underride shuttle, as taught by Brazeau, because the use of sensors on AGVs such as applicant’s underride shuttle in order to determine correct pickup and placement of a load carrier is commonplace and well known in the art, and because as Brazeau explains in [0079], such sensors can help stabilize an unbalanced load and can prevent a robot from attempting to carry a load for which it is not properly rated.
Regarding claim 14,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 12 and also:
wherein the second sensor arrangement comprises a plurality of reader units detection of information regarding the type of load carrier configured to detect the type of load carrier. Brazeau teaches in [0040] a plurality of sensors including at least a laser bar code scanner and a RFID reader configured to detect the tags in the bottom of carried bins (load carriers) that can identify the type of the load carrier.
Regarding claim 15,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 12 and also:
wherein the detection of information regarding the type of load carrier further comprises: validating the detected information regarding the type of load carrier. Schafer discloses in [0017] comparing the scanned bottom profile of a load carrier to a database of load carrier bottom profiles. This constitutes the claimed validation step.
Regarding claim 16,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the first sensor arrangement comprises at least one optical sensor.Brazeau teaches in [0039] its sensors may include laser sensors (optical sensors) or cameras (also optical sensors), and Schaffer also discloses optical sensors in [0035].
Regarding claim 19,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 3 and also:
wherein the at least two spaced sensors are arranged opposite to one another on the underride shuttle.Brazeau teaches this arrangement in its fig. 9A wherein four spaced sensors 925 can be seen, two pairs being opposite one another.
Regarding claim 20,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 3 and also:
wherein the at least two spaced sensors are positioned diagonally opposite to one another on the underride shuttleWhile we do not understand the term “diagonally opposite” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), given the four sensors 925 of Brazeau arranged in a cross pattern in its fig. 9A, two pairs of sensors are both opposite one another; moreover there are diagonals between each adjacent pair of sensors moving around the circle defined by the cross.
Regarding claim 21,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the data carrier comprises at least one of a NFC, a RFID, a Bluetooth LE, and a QR code. Brazeau teaches RFIDs and barcodes in [0040].
Regarding claim 23,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein the at least one further sensor unit comprises a weight sensor unit configured to determine a weight of the load carrier. Brazeau teaches a weight sensor in [0079].
Regarding claim 24,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
wherein the load carrier comprises at least one data carrier comprising encoded information about a type of load carrier associated with the load carrier. Brazeau discloses bins (load carriers) bearing data carriers such as RFIDs and barcodes in [0040] that encode data about the load carriers.
Regarding claim 26,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 12 and also:
wherein the second sensor arrangement is configured to detect the type of load carrier by reading at least one data carrier associated with the load carrier, wherein the at least one data carrier comprises coded information about the load carrier.Brazeau teaches in [0040] a plurality of sensors including at least a laser bar code scanner and a RFID reader configured to detect the tags (data carriers) in the bottom of carried bins (load carriers), which tags identify the type of the load carrier.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Brazeau and further in view of Ye, Lei, US 2021/0331542 (hereinafter Ye).
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the first sensor arrangement comprises at least one inductive sensor. Neither reference teaches the use of induction sensors.
Ye, an invention in the same field as the other references and the applicant, teaches:
wherein the first sensor arrangement comprises at least one inductive sensor (46: fig. 3, [0042], [0051]).
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 and method of Schaffer and Brazeau, wherein the first sensor arrangement comprises at least one inductive sensor, as taught by Ye, because such sensors are widely used in the art for determining position, and Ye’s use of the sensor is for the same claimed purpose as the applicant and Brazeau, namely determining the position of a load to be carried by a robot.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Brazeau and further in view of Çağ Üniversitesi, “20 Pallet Types Presentation”, 2021 (hereinafter Çağ).
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not fully teach:
wherein the second sensor arrangement is configured to distinguish at least 10 different types of load carriers. While Schaffer teaches the distinguishing of all the various load carrier profiles in its warehouse, and while it teaches there are a “large number” of such profiles in [0058], it does not teach a particular quantity. Though a “large number” is plausibly greater than 10, this term is essentially indefinite.
Çağ, a publication about pallet types, teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein the second sensor arrangement is configured to distinguish at least 10 different types of load carriers.Çağ teaches 20 different types of pallets (“load carriers”) in page 2.
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 and method of Schaffer and Brazeau, wherein the second sensor arrangement is configured to distinguish at least 10 different types of load carriers, as taught by Çağ, because it is well known in the art that warehouses may contain a large number of pallet types where the number is greater than 10, and given the requirement to distinguish them so as to determine correct placement and avoid unbalanced loads or overburdened robots as taught by Schaffer and Brazeau, the benefit of distinguishing all the known types of pallets would be plain. Failure to distinguish one of Çağ’s types from another might result in one of these negative outcomes.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Brazeau and further in view of Lutz, Eric, US 2009/0244551 (hereinafter Lutz).
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 16 but does not fully teach:
wherein the at least one optical sensor comprises at least one light barrier.While Schaffer and Brazeau both teach optical sensors, they do not teach whether or not those optical sensors are light barriers.
Lutz an invention in the field of carrier device load detection, teaches:
wherein the at least one optical sensor comprises at least one light barrier (unnumbered, [0012]).Lutz teaches the use of a light barrier for load detection in [0012].
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 and method of Schaffer and Brazeau, wherein the at least one optical sensor comprises at least one light barrier, as taught by Lutz, because a light barrier is a well-known means of determining the position of an object, and this is the purpose of applicant’s optical sensor.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Brazeau and further in view of Purohit, et al., US 2022/0009759 (hereinafter Purohit).
Regarding claim 7,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 6, but not all aspects of:
further comprising at least one scanner unit configured to monitor a protective field in an environment surrounding the underride shuttle for a presence of objects, wherein the central control unit of the underride shuttle is configured to adapt the protective field based on the detected type of load carrier. Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret “protective field” as “detection or avoidance zone.” While Schaffer determines load carrier type and both Schaffer and Brazeau’s robots are equipped with object-detection or anti-collision scanners that must have a collision or object detection zone associated with them, neither reference teaches the adaptation of a detection zone based on load carrier type.
Purohit, an invention in the field of industrial vehicle detection and ranging, teaches the missing aspect of:
further comprising at least one scanner unit configured to monitor a protective field in an environment surrounding the underride shuttle for a presence of objects, wherein the central control unit of the underride shuttle is configured to adapt the protective field based on the detected type of load carrier.Purohit teaches in [0062] that a vehicle’s detection zone may be changed on the basis of its load type.
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 and method of Schaffer and Brazeau, further comprising at least one scanner unit configured to monitor a protective field in an environment surrounding the underride shuttle for a presence of objects, wherein the central control unit of the underride shuttle is configured to adapt the protective field based on the detected type of load carrier, as taught by Purohit, because the choice of load carrier can dramatically alter the dimensions of a robotic vehicle, thus changing its overhead and lateral clearance for traversing aisles, moving under racks, and avoiding nearby robots and other obstacles. Since collision avoidance is a universally acknowledged goal for mobile robotics, changing a robot’s detection zone to avoid collision would be a benefit obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 7, and also:
further comprising a third control unit (Purohit, 202, 304: figs. 2-3) coupled to the central control unit and configured to adapt the protective field based on the detected type of load carrier. Purohit teaches a dedicated control module 304 as part of processing device 202 in its [0037]-[0038]. In [0037] Purohit teaches that this device may be remote-controlled by another controller as part of system 200. In combination with Schaffer and Brazeau, adding Purohit’s control unit adds a third control unit to a first central or system controller and a second local or vehicle controller.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Brazeau and further in view of Lin, et al., CN 115380305 (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 8,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 6, but not all aspects of:
wherein the at least one operating parameter includes a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius, or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle.While Schaffer teaches the detection of load type, neither reference teaches the change of one of the listed operating parameters in response to load type.
Lin, an invention in the field of mobile robotics, teaches:
wherein the at least one operating parameter includes a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius, or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle.Lin teaches the imposition of a maximum speed based on cargo type in [n0123].
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 and method of Schaffer and Brazeau, wherein the at least one operating parameter includes a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius, or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle, as taught by Lin, because load carrier type plainly affects the mass, center of gravity, and stability of the robot bearing the load carrier, and thus imposing a maximum speed based on the type will help prevent accidents associate with the robot’s operation.
Regarding claim 13,
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 12, but not all aspects of:
wherein the at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle comprises [[a protective field in an environment surrounding the underride shuttle,]] a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, in this office action we redact the claim text inside double brackets [[ ]]. While Schaffer teaches the detection of load type, neither reference teaches the change of one of the listed operating parameters in response to load type. Note that if the bracketed text were not redacted, the “at least one” of the claim would still lead to rejection using reference Lin on the same grounds.
Lin, an invention in the field of mobile robotics, teaches:
wherein the at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle comprises a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle.Lin teaches the imposition of a maximum speed based on cargo type in [n0123].
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 and method of Schaffer and Brazeau, wherein the at least one operating parameter of the underride shuttle comprises a maximum speed, a maximum acceleration, a minimum curve radius or a maximum lateral acceleration of the underride shuttle, as taught by Lin, because load carrier type plainly affects the mass, center of gravity, and stability of the robot bearing the load carrier, and thus imposing a maximum speed based on the type will help prevent accidents associate with the robot’s operation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Brazeau and further in view of Beer, Christian, US 2018/0057263 (hereinafter Beer).
Schaffer in view of Brazeau teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not all aspects of:
wherein the first sensor arrangement is position-sensitive in a millimeter range. Neither reference teaches the sensitivity of their sensors.
Beer, an invention in the field of industrial robotics, teaches:
wherein the first sensor arrangement is position-sensitive in a millimeter range. Beer teaches millimeter-precision for a location sensor in [0182].
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 and method of Schaffer and Brazeau, wherein the first sensor arrangement is position-sensitive in a millimeter range, as taught by Beer, because sensor precision is a universal desideratum for robotic devices, and because many widely used commercial sensors possess sub-millimeter precision.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0259549 teaches the change of a detection zone (“protective field” as interpreted in this office action) over time. EP 2455323 teaches a robotic-vehicle-mounted light barrier sensor.
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