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 .
1. This application has been examined. The preliminary amendments filed 8/28/24 and 1/28/25 have been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending.
2. The IDS filed 10/28/24 has been considered.
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is unclear as to what structure is being indicated by the reference label “113” as shown in Fig. 1A. For example, paragraph [0048] describes the indicated element as a “charging interface” whereas paragraphs [0049, 0055, 0066, 0067, 0071, 0081] describe the element as a “carriage”.
Appropriate correction is required.
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “113” in Fig. 1A has been used to designate both a “charging interface” and “carriage” as discussed above.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0089419).
A. As per claim 1, Kim discloses:
An autonomous mobile robot (AMR) (Fig. 2:100) [0007- unmanned forklift; 0051- unmanned forklift 100 may be an unmanned transfer robot, for example, an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) or an automated guided vehicle (AGV), that is provided with the fork 120 and the lifting device 130 to transfer the pallets], comprising:
a carriage actuation and feedback system configured to robotically control a carriage to control a height of a pair of forks (Fig. 2:130) [0007- forklift controller configured to control operation of the unmanned forklift; 0077- The forklift controller 114 is configured to control the operation of the lifting device 130 to raise or lower the fork 120 according to a control signal];
at least one sensor (Fig. 1:111) configured to acquire sensor data over multiple planes in a direction of the forks during actuation of the carriage that raises and lowers the forks [0007- configured to radiate laser light and convert range data … to 3D point cloud data; 0009- lidar may be installed at the fork and configured to vary a vertical position according to raising or lowering operation of the fork], wherein the at least one sensor includes a sensor (Fig. 1:111) that is located between the forks (Fig. 1:120); and
an infrastructure localization system configured to combine the sensor data from the multiple planes into dense point cloud data (Fig. 4A) and identify an infrastructure from the dense point cloud data (Fig. 4A:10) (Fig. 7:S10-S30).
B. As per claim 12, as above whereby the autonomous mobile robot performs the functions as noted above and as set forth in the claimed method steps.
C. As per claims 2 and 13, as above whereby the infrastructure localization system is configured to transform sensor data for individual poses of the infrastructure to a common frame of reference to combine the sensor data from the multiple planes (Fig. 5).
D. As per claims 3 and 14, as above whereby at least one of the sensors is downwardly directed to acquire sensor data beneath the raised forks (Fig. 2, bottom).
E. As per claims 5 and 16, as above whereby at least one sensor is located beneath the raised forks (Fig. 2, bottom).
F. As per claims 6 and 17, as above whereby at least one sensor is located above the forks when the forks are lowered (Fig. 2, top).
G. As per claims 7 and 18, as above whereby at least one sensor comprises a multi-ring LiDAR sensor [0007- radiate laser light … 3D point cloud; 0009- lidar may be installed at the fork and configured to vary a vertical position] (i.e., provide lidar scans along planes at different heights).
H. As per claims 8 and 19, as above whereby the sensor may move in response to the forks [0009- lidar may be installed at the fork and configured to vary a vertical position; 0063- lidar 111 is installed in a frame of the fork 120, and thus may vary its vertical position according to the operation of the fork 120 without a separate lifting device].
7. 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0089419) in view of Stacy (US 2022/0081271).
As per claims 10 and 21, Kim is applied as above whereby a carriage moves up and down along a mast, thus raising and lowering the forks (Fig. 2). Kim discloses a fork lift controller to control the raising and lowering of the forks according to a control signal [0077]. Kim does not disclose the specific details of the mechanical structures which enable the forks to be raised/lowered while supporting a load. One of ordinary skill in the material handling arts would have been knowledgeable in the mechanics of raising a load and systems commonly used prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Stacy is in the same field of endeavor of material handling vehicles (i.e., forklifts [0003], including autonomous control [0025]). Stacy describes the mast/carriage configuration as being controlled by hydraulic control elements (Abs.: a mast, a carriage supported by the mast, a hydraulic cylinder configured to raise and lower the carriage along the mast, forks or a platform coupled to the carriage and configured to support a load wherein raising and lowering the carriage raises and lowers the forks or the platform and thereby raises and lowers the load supported thereon). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to utilize known mechanical configurations, such as hydraulic control as exemplified by Stacy, in the autonomous mobile robot (forklift) of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have provided the mechanical means of raising and lowering the carriage along the mast of Kim, thus raising and lowering the forks and the load supported thereon. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 4, 9, 11, 15, 20 and 22 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.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular,
• Shah et al. (US 2020/0223676)- autonomous forklift with sensor positioned between the forks (Fig. 3); sensor may comprise 3D lidar which enables the determination of the pose of an object in the environment [0040].
• Wang et al. (US 2020/0103508)- discloses multi-line lidar which provides 3D information including vertical field of views; includes structure for rotating lidar for 360° coverage.
• Weiss et al. (US 8,169,596)- forklift vehicle having a multi-plane laser scanner which creates a light curtain; used primarily to detect objects located on the side of the vehicle opposite the forks (Fig. 4).
• Padmal et al. (Elevated LiDAR based Sensing for 6G - 3D Maps with cm Level Accuracy)- generation of a map of the environment using lidar; applications for robots in factory settings; processes 3D point clouds.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2.
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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661