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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “chassis” must be shown with a reference number or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the implied language “An autonomous mobile robot (AMR) is provided,”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 8, 14, 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one engagement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the object of interest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the load presence sensor paddle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 depends from claim 16 and claim 28 depends from claim 19. Both claims 16 and 19 were canceled in the preliminary amendment received at the time of filing 11/4/2024.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11, 14, 29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Tretyakov (US2023/0137089).
An autonomous mobile robot (AMR) (“AGV”, fig. 1A), comprising:
a chassis (fig. 1A at 1), a navigation system (¶0131 “AGV navigates to a load pick-up area”, Fig. 5A at S20 & S70), and a load engagement portion (figures 6A & 6B);
a plurality of sensors (¶040 to ¶0052), including an object detection sensor (¶0091 “distance sensor”), a load identification sensor (¶0126 “The load is then scanned with the help of the upper range sensor 2a…A placement recognition algorithm identifies the load placement based on the range and/or additional image data”),
and a load presence sensor (¶0002 “pressure sensors to sense when the load”);
a load interaction system (throughout PGPUB “sensors and processing electronics (referred as sensor kit)”) configured to exchange information with the plurality of sensors (fig. 1B)
and configured to operate in a load engagement mode (“pick-up”) and a load drop mode (“drop-of”, ¶0114 “These areas (B) and (C) are pick-up (unloading) areas and drop-off (loading) areas.”), wherein in the load engagement mode, the object detection sensor determines a localization range of a load (¶0079 “The vehicle is equipped with a sensory and computing equipment (sensor kit) comprising range and optical sensors…to sense the environment around for localizing the vehicle in the operating area and controlling the load placing, and a computing unit for localization and navigation algorithms computation”), the load identification sensor determines a location of the load relative to the AMR (¶0051 “sensors and processing electronics (referred as sensor kit) to read and interpret visual codes that encode location and other associated data as fiducials to determine indoor locations”), and the load presence sensor signals that the AMR has successfully engaged with the load (¶0197 last sentence “On completion of the loading task the vehicle reports the execution success”).
Claim 2 Tretyakov discloses the mobile robot of claim 1, wherein the object detection sensor includes at least one planar scanner or other type of depth sensor (¶0046, 0049).
Claim 3 Tretyakov discloses the mobile robot of claim 2, wherein the at least one planar scanner is at least one LiDAR scanner (¶0046).
Claim 4 Tretyakov discloses the mobile robot of claim 3, wherein the at least one LiDAR scanner includes at least one fork tip scanner (¶0108 “fork” “range/distance sensors 3a and 3b…at the end of the forks”, ¶0148 “optional Lidar 305 (or 2b of the first embodiment)”).
Claim 5 Tretyakov discloses the mobile robot of claim 1, wherein the load detection presence sensor includes a pallet detection scanner, sensor, or system (¶0108 & fig. 1A, ¶0184, ¶0199).
Claim 6 Tretyakov discloses the mobile robot of claim 5, wherein the pallet detection scanner, sensor, or system includes a 3D sensor and/or a 3D camera (¶0065, ¶0108, ¶0199).
Claim 11 Tretyakov discloses the mobile robot of claim 1, wherein in the load drop mode the load interaction system is configured to use at least one of the plurality sensors the object detection sensor to perform object detection when approaching a load drop off zone (¶0124 1st sentence, ¶0198 1st sentence).
Claim 14 (as best understood) Tretyakov discloses the mobile robot of claim 1, wherein the load interaction system is configured to determine a load drop zone offset from the object of interest (OOI) (Tretyakov ¶0056, ¶0197 3rd sentence).
Claim 29 Tretyakov discloses wherein the plurality of sensors are further configured to selectively fuse data from among the plurality of sensors in each of the load engagement mode and a load drop mode (¶0041, ¶0092, ¶0110 2nd sentence).
Claims 15, 25, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Tretyakov (US2023/0137089).
A load interaction method of an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) (“AGV”, fig. 1A), comprising:
providing the AMR including:
a chassis (fig. 1A at 1), a navigation system (¶0131 “AGV navigates to a load pick-up area”, Fig. 5A at S20 & S70), and a load engagement portion (figures 6A & 6B);
a plurality of sensors (¶040 to ¶0052), including an object detection sensor (¶0091 “distance sensor”), a load identification sensor (¶0126 “The load is then scanned with the help of the upper range sensor 2a…A placement recognition algorithm identifies the load placement based on the range and/or additional image data”),
and a load presence sensor (¶0002 “pressure sensors to sense when the load”);
a load interaction system (throughout PGPUB “sensors and processing electronics (referred as sensor kit)”); and
the load interaction system exchanging information with the plurality of sensors (fig. 1B) and operating in either of a load engagement mode (“pick-up”) or a load drop mode (“drop-of”, ¶0114 “These areas (B) and (C) are pick-up (unloading) areas and drop-off (loading) areas.”), wherein in the load engagement mode, the object detection sensor determines a localization range of a load (¶0079 “The vehicle is equipped with a sensory and computing equipment (sensor kit) comprising range and optical sensors…to sense the environment around for localizing the vehicle in the operating area and controlling the load placing, and a computing unit for localization and navigation algorithms computation”), the load identification sensor determines a location of the load relative to the AMR (¶0051 “sensors and processing electronics (referred as sensor kit) to read and interpret visual codes that encode location and other associated data as fiducials to determine indoor locations”), and the load presence sensor signals that the AMR has successfully engaged with the load (¶0197 last sentence “On completion of the loading task the vehicle reports the execution success”).
Claim 25 Tretyakov discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising using at least one of the plurality sensors to perform object detection when approaching a load drop off zone (¶0124, ¶0126, ¶0198 & ¶0201).
Claim 31 Tretyakov discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of sensors are further configured to 31. selectively fuse data from among the plurality of sensors in each of the load engagement mode and a load drop mode (¶0041, ¶0092, ¶0110 2nd sentence).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov (US2023/0137089) in view of Laird (US2024/0375572).
Tretyakov does not disclose a paddle sensor.
Laird discloses a load handling device that makes use of paddle sensors (¶0111 last two sentences). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been well known to use paddle sensors as taught by Laird to improve the device of Tretyakov. A motivation for using paddle sensors would be to use a simple mechanical design that’s tried and true to verify the presence of a load. This combination of art follows the guidance from the KSR case law rationale C: use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claims 9 & 121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov (US2023/0137089) in view of Farahani et al (US8755923).
Tretyakov does not disclose a load location operation in a low-fidelity mode.
Farahani discloses load engagement operation for locating the load using a low-fidelity mode (claim 1 “performing a low fidelity optimization for the geometry” & col. 4 ll 29-48). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been well known to use a low fidelity mode as taught by Farahani to improve the load locating technique of Tretyakov. A motivation for using a low-fidelity mode would be to quickly locate the load before committing to a higher resource and cost of a high fidelity mode. This combination of art follows the guidance from the KSR case law rationale C: use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov (US2023/0137089) in view of Zevenbergen et al (US2024/0375572).
Tretyakov discloses a mobile robot a reference for dropping off a load (Tretyakov ¶0060, ¶0124 1st sentence, ¶0126 1st sentence).
Tretyakov does not disclose the art concept of object of interest (OOI) for locating loads.
Zevenbergen discloses an autonomous guided vehicle that loads and unloads using the objects of interest technique to help locating items (¶0062 especially 1st sentence). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known to use the art concept of “objects of interest” to aid in locating items to load and unload in a warehouse. A motivation for using OOI would be to provide real time verification of cargo. This combination of art follows the guidance from the KSR case law rationale C: use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov (US2023/0137089) in view of Farahani et al (US8755923).
Tretyakov does not disclose a load interaction system locating the load using a low-fidelity mode.
Farahani discloses load interaction system for locating the load using a low-fidelity mode (claim 1 “performing a low fidelity optimization for the geometry” & col. 4 ll 29-48). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been well known to use a low fidelity mode as taught by Farahani to improve the load locating technique of Tretyakov. A motivation for using a low-fidelity mode would be to quickly locate the load before committing to a higher resource an cost of a high fidelity mode. This combination of art follows the guidance from the KSR case law rationale C: use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov (US2023/0137089) in view of Zevenbergen et al (US2024/0375572).
Tretyakov discloses a mobile robot and a reference for dropping a load (Tretyakov ¶0060, ¶0124 1st sentence, ¶0126 1st sentence).
Tretyakov does not disclose the art concept of object of interest (OOI) for locating loads.
Zevenbergen discloses an autonomous guided vehicle that loads and unloads using the objects of interest concept to help locating items (¶0062 especially 1st sentence). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known to use the art concept of “objects of interest” to aid in locating items to load and unload in a warehouse. A motivation for using OOI would be to provide real time verification of cargo. This combination of art follows the guidance from the KSR case law rationale C: use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claims 30 & 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov (US2023/0137089) in view of Demir et al (US2021/0010814) as applied to claims 29 and 31 respectively above.
Tretyakov discloses a processor or “computing unit 206”, or “computing module” and fusing an output of the sensors “IMU - Inertial Measurement Unit 303 (see FIG. 6B)” ¶0092. Tretyakov does not disclose a confidence model for probability calculating.
Demir discloses a vehicle localization device that uses confidence modeling characteristics and limitations of the sensors and fuses an output of the sensors by scaling against the confidence model to build a probability map of a region about the AMR. (¶0011, claims 5 or 20). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well within the bounds of one of ordinary skill to upgrade the device of Tretyakov with the confidence modelling system of Demir. A motivation for this upgrade would be to use proactive predictive engineering instead of reactive. This combination of art follows the guidance from the KSR case law rationale D: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 33 & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov (US2023/0137089) in view of Zevenbergen et al (US20190193629) as applied to claims 1 and 15 respectively above.
Tretyakov discloses a mobile robot and a reference for dropping-off a load that utilizes a scanning sensor that scans for obstructions (Tretyakov ¶0104 & ¶0106 2nd sentence).
Tretyakov does not disclose the art concept of object of interest (OOI) for locating loads.
Zevenbergen discloses an autonomous guided vehicle that loads and unloads using the objects of interest concept to help locating items (¶0062 especially 1st sentence). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known to use the art concept of “objects of interest” to aid in locating items to load and unload in a warehouse. A motivation for using OOI would be to provide real time verification of cargo. This combination of art follows the guidance from the KSR case law rationale C: use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Claims 8, 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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 C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 Claims 9 & 12 are duplicates and they both depend directly from claim 1.