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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: From Figure 5, reference numbers "1" and "2" are not in the specification. From Figure 7, reference numbers "420" and "410C" are not in the specification. From Figure 13, reference number "1604" is not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0001], the parent application number 18/767492 is recited. This application has since become Patent Number 12,326,737. The patent number should be included in P[0001] to improve the quality of the document.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, recites a list of vehicle velocity, relative pose, steer direction, etc. and it appears that this limitation requires at least one of this list (based on the “or combinations thereof”), but may require all of the elements. The examiner suggests amending to be “based on at least one of vehicle velocity, relative pose…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a lighting component module configured to mount, and configured to generate in claims 16 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The lighting component module is interpreted as the depiction shown in Figures 15A and/or 15B.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the lighting component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 thru 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,203 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are recited with fewer limitations in the independent claims than the patented claims. The dependent claims are nearly identical.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1 in view of Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 18 (the examiner notes that the only difference between claims 1 and 18 is that 18 does not claimed the processors), Collett et al teach the claimed field enforcement system comprising a first materials handling vehicle comprising a first vehicle body and a first vehicle position processor, and a second materials handling vehicle comprising a second vehicle body and a second vehicle position processor, “In peer to peer mediated embodiments, vehicle to vehicle communication may be used to negotiate intersection behavior. A type of peer to peer transceiver (such as zigbee, Bluetooth, wifi-direct, UWB, and the like) may be used to identify other materials handling vehicles in the area. Such a peer to peer mediated embodiment may allow for intent to be shared between materials handling vehicles” P[0098], and “The computing device 700 may be communicatively coupled to one or more computing devices through a warehouse management system.…In embodiments, the computing device 700 may be part of the materials handling vehicle system of an autonomous or semi-autonomous system as described herein. In an embodiment, the computing device 700 includes at least one processor 702 and memory (non-volatile memory 708 and/or volatile memory 710).” P[0123], wherein
the claimed the first and second materials handling vehicles are configured to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment, “a materials handling vehicle to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment” (abstract), and “a fully-managed warehouse may be laid out and operate to allow multiple materials handling vehicles” P[0058];
the claimed first materials handling vehicle comprises a first ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the first vehicle body, “In peer to peer mediated embodiments, vehicle to vehicle communication may be used to negotiate intersection behavior. A type of peer to peer transceiver (such as zigbee, Bluetooth, wifi-direct, UWB, and the like) may be used to identify other materials handling vehicles in the area. Such a peer to peer mediated embodiment may allow for intent to be shared between materials handling vehicles” P[0098];
the claimed second materials handling vehicle comprises a second ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the second vehicle body, “In peer to peer mediated embodiments, vehicle to vehicle communication may be used to negotiate intersection behavior. A type of peer to peer transceiver (such as zigbee, Bluetooth, wifi-direct, UWB, and the like) may be used to identify other materials handling vehicles in the area. Such a peer to peer mediated embodiment may allow for intent to be shared between materials handling vehicles” P[0098];
each vehicle position processor is configured to:
the claimed transmit respective UWB signals comprising vehicle information between respective UWB antenna arrays of the first and second materials handling vehicles, “In peer to peer mediated embodiments, vehicle to vehicle communication may be used to negotiate intersection behavior. A type of peer to peer transceiver (such as zigbee, Bluetooth, wifi-direct, UWB, and the like) may be used to identify other materials handling vehicles in the area. Such a peer to peer mediated embodiment may allow for intent to be shared between materials handling vehicles” P[0098].
Collett et al do not teach the claimed determine a relative pose of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other, the claimed determine a first virtual field for the first materials handling vehicle and a second virtual field for the second materials handling vehicle, the claimed determine a field infringement occurrence when a portion of the first virtual field overlaps a portion of a second virtual field based on the relative pose, and the claimed operate at least one of the first and second materials handling vehicles based on the field infringement occurrence.
Thode teaches,
the claimed determine a relative pose of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other, “determining vehicle pose as, for example, the path validation tool P executes path validation logic to, in block 1312, determine vehicle pose along the proposed travel path. The method may include updating the dynamic vehicle boundary. For example, the logic may further be executed to update the dynamic vehicle boundary in block 1324 to account for changes in vehicle speed received as an input 1320 and changes in steering angle received as an input 1322. The logic may be executed to determine, in block 1314, whether the dynamic vehicle boundary of the vehicle is likely to intersect obstacles represented in the environmental layout data based on the determined vehicle pose at candidate positions along the proposed travel path.” P[0084], (Collett et al teaches the claimed transmitted UWB signals with vehicle information P[0098], see above);
the claimed determine a first virtual field for the first materials handling vehicle and a second virtual field for the second materials handling vehicle, “For example, the logic may further be executed to update the dynamic vehicle boundary in block 1324 to account for changes in vehicle speed received as an input 1320 and changes in steering angle received as an input 1322. The logic may be executed to determine, in block 1314, whether the dynamic vehicle boundary of the vehicle is likely to intersect obstacles represented in the environmental layout data based on the determined vehicle pose at candidate positions along the proposed travel path.” P[0084], the virtual field equates to the claimed environmental layout;
the claimed determine a field infringement occurrence when a portion of the first virtual field overlaps a portion of a second virtual field based on the relative pose, “The logic may then be further executed to determine a degree of potential impingement at the candidate positions by referring to the dynamic vehicle boundary of the materials handling vehicle and obstacle data represented in the environmental layout data.” P[0084], the degree of potential impingement at the candidate positions equates to the claimed field infringement occurrence; and
the claimed operate at least one of the first and second materials handling vehicles based on the field infringement occurrence, “after modifying the proposed travel path in block 1316 of FIG. 13, the path validation tool P may dynamically modify the proposed travel path to establish a dynamically modified travel path. The path validation tool P executes path validation logic to determine vehicle pose along the modified proposed travel path as the drive unit, steering unit, localization module, and navigation module cooperate to direct the materials handling vehicle 10 along the modified proposed travel path, and determine whether the dynamic vehicle boundary of the materials handling vehicle 10 is likely to intersect obstacles represented in the environmental layout data based on the determined vehicle pose at candidate positions along the modified proposed travel path. The path validation tool further executes path validation logic to determine a degree of potential impingement at the candidate positions by referring to the dynamic vehicle boundary of the materials handling vehicle 10 and obstacle data represented in the environmental layout data, dynamically modify the modified proposed travel path to mitigate the degree of potential impingement and establish a dynamically modified travel path configured to merge from and to the modified proposed travel path, and navigate the materials handling vehicle 10 along the dynamically modified travel path.” P[0093].
Collett et al would combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment with Thode by using the peer-to-peer UWB communication between the materials handling vehicles for updating dynamic vehicle boundary that determines the potential impingement, and modify the proposed travel path to mitigate the degree of potential impingement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al with materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce errors with respect to a materials handling vehicle's navigated travel path (Thode P[0090]).
Regarding claim 2 Collett et al and Thode teach the claimed field enforcement system of claim 1 (see above), Collett et al do not teach the claimed each of the first and second virtual fields comprise one of a static field or a dynamic field, wherein the dynamic field is configured to adjust size, shape, or both based on vehicle velocity, relative pose, steer direction, fork or operator compartment lift height, wire guidance status, vehicle model type, load weight, or combinations thereof.
Thode teaches, “The method may include updating the dynamic vehicle boundary. For example, the logic may further be executed to update the dynamic vehicle boundary in block 1324 to account for changes in vehicle speed received as an input 1320 and changes in steering angle received as an input 1322.” P[0084], the vehicle speed and steering angle equate to the claimed vehicle velocity and steer direction. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al with the updating dynamic vehicle boundary based on vehicle velocity and steering angle of Thode, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce errors with respect to a materials handling vehicle's navigated travel path (Thode P[0090]).
Regarding claim 20 Collett et al teach the claimed method for field enforcement between a first materials handling vehicle and a second materials handling vehicle, the first materials handling vehicle including a first vehicle body and a first ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the first vehicle body, the second materials handling vehicle including a second vehicle body and a second ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the second vehicle body, the processes of Figures 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B, and “In peer to peer mediated embodiments, vehicle to vehicle communication may be used to negotiate intersection behavior. A type of peer to peer transceiver (such as zigbee, Bluetooth, wifi-direct, UWB, and the like) may be used to identify other materials handling vehicles in the area. Such a peer to peer mediated embodiment may allow for intent to be shared between materials handling vehicles” P[0098], and “The computing device 700 may be communicatively coupled to one or more computing devices through a warehouse management system.…In embodiments, the computing device 700 may be part of the materials handling vehicle system of an autonomous or semi-autonomous system as described herein. In an embodiment, the computing device 700 includes at least one processor 702 and memory (non-volatile memory 708 and/or volatile memory 710).” P[0123], the method comprising:
the claimed transmitting respective UWB signals comprising vehicle information between respective UWB antenna arrays of the first and second materials handling vehicles, “In peer to peer mediated embodiments, vehicle to vehicle communication may be used to negotiate intersection behavior. A type of peer to peer transceiver (such as zigbee, Bluetooth, wifi-direct, UWB, and the like) may be used to identify other materials handling vehicles in the area. Such a peer to peer mediated embodiment may allow for intent to be shared between materials handling vehicles” P[0098], and “The materials handling vehicle 400 comprises communications hardware configured to access the remote database of pre-positioned warehouse objects 30.” P[0086].
Collett et al do not teach the claimed determining a relative pose of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other, the claimed determining a first virtual field for the first materials handling vehicle and a second virtual field for the second materials handling vehicle, the claimed determining a field infringement occurrence when a portion of the first virtual field overlaps a portion of a second virtual field based on the relative pose, and the claimed operating at least one of the first and second materials handling vehicles based on the field infringement occurrence.
Thode teaches,
the claimed determining a relative pose of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other, “determining vehicle pose as, for example, the path validation tool P executes path validation logic to, in block 1312, determine vehicle pose along the proposed travel path. The method may include updating the dynamic vehicle boundary. For example, the logic may further be executed to update the dynamic vehicle boundary in block 1324 to account for changes in vehicle speed received as an input 1320 and changes in steering angle received as an input 1322. The logic may be executed to determine, in block 1314, whether the dynamic vehicle boundary of the vehicle is likely to intersect obstacles represented in the environmental layout data based on the determined vehicle pose at candidate positions along the proposed travel path.” P[0084], (Collett et al teaches the claimed transmitted UWB signals with vehicle information P[0098], see above);
the claimed determining a first virtual field for the first materials handling vehicle and a second virtual field for the second materials handling vehicle, “For example, the logic may further be executed to update the dynamic vehicle boundary in block 1324 to account for changes in vehicle speed received as an input 1320 and changes in steering angle received as an input 1322. The logic may be executed to determine, in block 1314, whether the dynamic vehicle boundary of the vehicle is likely to intersect obstacles represented in the environmental layout data based on the determined vehicle pose at candidate positions along the proposed travel path.” P[0084], the virtual field equates to the claimed environmental layout;
the claimed determining a field infringement occurrence when a portion of the first virtual field overlaps a portion of a second virtual field based on the relative pose, “The logic may then be further executed to determine a degree of potential impingement at the candidate positions by referring to the dynamic vehicle boundary of the materials handling vehicle and obstacle data represented in the environmental layout data.” P[0084], the degree of potential impingement at the candidate positions equates to the claimed field infringement occurrence; and
the claimed operating at least one of the first and second materials handling vehicles based on the field infringement occurrence, “after modifying the proposed travel path in block 1316 of FIG. 13, the path validation tool P may dynamically modify the proposed travel path to establish a dynamically modified travel path. The path validation tool P executes path validation logic to determine vehicle pose along the modified proposed travel path as the drive unit, steering unit, localization module, and navigation module cooperate to direct the materials handling vehicle 10 along the modified proposed travel path, and determine whether the dynamic vehicle boundary of the materials handling vehicle 10 is likely to intersect obstacles represented in the environmental layout data based on the determined vehicle pose at candidate positions along the modified proposed travel path. The path validation tool further executes path validation logic to determine a degree of potential impingement at the candidate positions by referring to the dynamic vehicle boundary of the materials handling vehicle 10 and obstacle data represented in the environmental layout data, dynamically modify the modified proposed travel path to mitigate the degree of potential impingement and establish a dynamically modified travel path configured to merge from and to the modified proposed travel path, and navigate the materials handling vehicle 10 along the dynamically modified travel path.” P[0093].
Collett et al would combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment with Thode by using the peer-to-peer UWB communication between the materials handling vehicles for updating dynamic vehicle boundary that determines the potential impingement, and modify the proposed travel path to mitigate the degree of potential impingement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al with materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce errors with respect to a materials handling vehicle's navigated travel path (Thode P[0090]).
Claim(s) 3 thru 5, 8 thru 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1 and Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Castaneda et al Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0195121 A1.
Regarding claims 3 and 19 Collett et al and Thode teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1 and 18 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed field infringement occurrence is determined when the portion of the first virtual field overlapping the portion of second virtual field comprise matching field types comprising an awareness field type, a slow field type, and a stop field type. Castaneda et al teach, “the first detection zone 78A may further designate a "stop zone". Correspondingly, the second detection zone 78B may further designate a "first speed zone". Under this arrangement, if an object, e.g., some form of obstacle is detected within the first detection zone 78A, and the materials handling vehicle, e.g., truck 10, is traveling under remote control in response to a travel request, then the controller 103 may be configured to implement an action such as a "stop action" to bring the truck 10 to a stop. In this regard, travel of the truck 10 may continue once the obstacle is clear, or a second, subsequent travel request from the remote control device 70 may be required to restart travel of the truck 10 once the obstacle is cleared.” (P[0052] and Figure 3), and “If an object such as an obstacle is detected in the third detection zone 78C and the truck 10 is traveling in response to receiving a corresponding wirelessly transmitted travel request by the transmitter 70, then a third action may be performed, e.g., the truck 10 may be reduced in speed or otherwise limited to a second speed, e.g., approximately 2.5 mph (4 Km/h). Thus, the third detection zone may further designate a second speed zone. If no obstacles are detected in the first, second and third detection zones 78A, 78B, 78C, then the truck 10 may be remotely commanded to travel a limited amount, e.g., at a rate that is greater than the rate of speed when an obstacle is in the third detection zone, e.g., a speed of approximately 4 mph (6.2 Km/h).” (P[0062] and Figure 5).
Castaneda et al would be combined with Collett et al by updating the impingement zones for the desired obstacle clearance. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide for a more efficient operation of the vehicle (saving time) (Castaneda et al P[0005]).
Regarding claim 4 Collett et al and Thode teach the claimed field enforcement system of claim 1 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed each of the first and second virtual fields comprise a field type, the field type comprising, a slow field, and a stop field. Castaneda et al teach, “the first detection zone 78A may further designate a "stop zone". Correspondingly, the second detection zone 78B may further designate a "first speed zone". Under this arrangement, if an object, e.g., some form of obstacle is detected within the first detection zone 78A, and the materials handling vehicle, e.g., truck 10, is traveling under remote control in response to a travel request, then the controller 103 may be configured to implement an action such as a "stop action" to bring the truck 10 to a stop. In this regard, travel of the truck 10 may continue once the obstacle is clear, or a second, subsequent travel request from the remote control device 70 may be required to restart travel of the truck 10 once the obstacle is cleared.” (P[0052] and Figure 3), and “If an object such as an obstacle is detected in the third detection zone 78C and the truck 10 is traveling in response to receiving a corresponding wirelessly transmitted travel request by the transmitter 70, then a third action may be performed, e.g., the truck 10 may be reduced in speed or otherwise limited to a second speed, e.g., approximately 2.5 mph (4 Km/h). Thus, the third detection zone may further designate a second speed zone. If no obstacles are detected in the first, second and third detection zones 78A, 78B, 78C, then the truck 10 may be remotely commanded to travel a limited amount, e.g., at a rate that is greater than the rate of speed when an obstacle is in the third detection zone, e.g., a speed of approximately 4 mph (6.2 Km/h).” (P[0062] and Figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide for a more efficient operation of the vehicle (saving time) (Castaneda et al P[0005]).
Regarding claim 5 Collett et al, Thode and Castaneda et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1 and 4 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed stop field overlaps with a portion of the slow field, the slow field being larger than the stop field. Castaneda et al teach, the different zones 1, 2 and 3 overlap and are different sizes (Figures 3 thru 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide for a more efficient operation of the vehicle (saving time) (Castaneda et al P[0005]).
Regarding claim 8 Collett et al, Thode and Castaneda et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1 and 4 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed field infringement occurrence is determined based on an overlap of the slow fields, and the first and second materials handling vehicles are each configured to decelerate based on the field infringement occurrence. Castaneda et al teach, “the first detection zone 78A may further designate a "stop zone". Correspondingly, the second detection zone 78B may further designate a "first speed zone". Under this arrangement, if an object, e.g., some form of obstacle is detected within the first detection zone 78A, and the materials handling vehicle, e.g., truck 10, is traveling under remote control in response to a travel request, then the controller 103 may be configured to implement an action such as a "stop action" to bring the truck 10 to a stop. In this regard, travel of the truck 10 may continue once the obstacle is clear, or a second, subsequent travel request from the remote control device 70 may be required to restart travel of the truck 10 once the obstacle is cleared.” (P[0052] and Figure 3), “The detection of an obstacle within the second detection zone 78B (but not the first detection zone 78A) may cause the truck 10, e.g., via the controller 103 to alter at least one operational parameter, e.g., to slow down the truck 10 to a first predetermined speed V1, which is slower than the speed V2. That is, V1<V2. Once the obstacle is cleared from the second detection zone 78B, the truck 10 may resume its speed V2, or the truck 10 may maintain its speed V1 until the truck stops and the remote control device 70 initiates another travel request.” P[0055], and “If an object such as an obstacle is detected in the first detection zone 78A and the truck 10 is traveling in response to receiving a corresponding wirelessly transmitted travel request by the transmitter 70, then a first action may be performed, e.g., the truck 10 may be brought to a stop as described more fully herein. If an object such as an obstacle is detected in the second detection zone 78B and the truck 10 is traveling in response to receiving a corresponding wirelessly transmitted travel request by the transmitter 70, then a second action may be performed, e.g., the vehicle speed may be limited, reduced, etc. Thus, the second detection zone 78B may further designate a first speed zone. For example, the speed of the truck 10 may be reduced and/or limited to a first relatively slow speed, e.g., approximately 1.5 mph (2.4 Km/h).” (P[0061] and Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide for a more efficient operation of the vehicle (saving time) (Castaneda et al P[0005]).
Regarding claim 9 Collett et al, Thode and Castaneda et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1 and 4 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed when the field infringement occurrence is determined based on an overlap of the stop fields for each the first and second materials handling vehicles, at least one of the first and second materials handling vehicles is set to operate at a maximum speed of 1.0 miles per hour based on the overlap. Castaneda et al teach, “the first detection zone 78A may further designate a "stop zone". Correspondingly, the second detection zone 78B may further designate a "first speed zone". Under this arrangement, if an object, e.g., some form of obstacle is detected within the first detection zone 78A, and the materials handling vehicle, e.g., truck 10, is traveling under remote control in response to a travel request, then the controller 103 may be configured to implement an action such as a "stop action" to bring the truck 10 to a stop. In this regard, travel of the truck 10 may continue once the obstacle is clear, or a second, subsequent travel request from the remote control device 70 may be required to restart travel of the truck 10 once the obstacle is cleared.” (P[0052] and Figure 3), and “If an object such as an obstacle is detected in the third detection zone 78C and the truck 10 is traveling in response to receiving a corresponding wirelessly transmitted travel request by the transmitter 70, then a third action may be performed, e.g., the truck 10 may be reduced in speed or otherwise limited to a second speed, e.g., approximately 2.5 mph (4 Km/h). Thus, the third detection zone may further designate a second speed zone. If no obstacles are detected in the first, second and third detection zones 78A, 78B, 78C, then the truck 10 may be remotely commanded to travel a limited amount, e.g., at a rate that is greater than the rate of speed when an obstacle is in the third detection zone, e.g., a speed of approximately 4 mph (6.2 Km/h).” (P[0062] and Figure 5). When the vehicle is stopped because two vehicles are overlapping zones and infringing on the zones then, the maximum speed is zero (less than 1 MPH).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide for a more efficient operation of the vehicle (saving time) (Castaneda et al P[0005]).
Regarding claim 10 Collett et al and Thode teach the claimed field enforcement system of claim 1 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed at least one of the first and second materials handling vehicles is configured to slow or stop based on the field infringement occurrence. Castaneda et al teach, “the first detection zone 78A may further designate a "stop zone". Correspondingly, the second detection zone 78B may further designate a "first speed zone". Under this arrangement, if an object, e.g., some form of obstacle is detected within the first detection zone 78A, and the materials handling vehicle, e.g., truck 10, is traveling under remote control in response to a travel request, then the controller 103 may be configured to implement an action such as a "stop action" to bring the truck 10 to a stop. In this regard, travel of the truck 10 may continue once the obstacle is clear, or a second, subsequent travel request from the remote control device 70 may be required to restart travel of the truck 10 once the obstacle is cleared.” (P[0052] and Figure 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide for a more efficient operation of the vehicle (saving time) (Castaneda et al P[0005]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1, Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1 and Castaneda et al Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0195121 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Fuerstenberg et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0050719 A1.
Regarding claim 6 Collett et al, Thode and Castaneda et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1 and 4 (see above). Collett et al teach the claimed respective materials handling vehicle, materials handling vehicles P[0098]. Collett et al, Thode and Castaneda et al do not teach the claimed stop and slow fields are both within an awareness zone, and the awareness zone is representative of a zone surrounding the vehicle, detect one or more field infringements. Fuerstenberg et al teach, “FIG. 5 shows an example in which three protected zones 51, 52, 53 nestled in one another are defined relative to the vehicle 32. The inner zone 51 is a protected field; 52 and 53 are warning fields.” (P[0160] and Figure 5), “On a non-planned presence, different measures can be taken, for instance an alarm on a presence only in the outermost warning field 53; an alarm and deceleration on a presence in the middle warning field 52; and a complete braking on a non-planned presence in the inner protected field 51.” P[0163], and “Planned and/or non-planned infringements of protected fields and warning fields 51-53 can be defined and counted as events of interest, optionally separately for different protected/warning fields.” P[0166]. The multiple detection fields of Fuerstenberg et al would be combined into the detection zones of Castaneda et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al, materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode and the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al with the multiple detection fields for infringements of Fuerstenberg et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent collisions (Fuerstenberg et al P[0013]).
Regarding claim 7 Collett et al, Thode, Castaneda et al and Fuerstenberg et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1, 4 and 6 (see above). Collett et al, Thode and Castaneda et al do not teach the claimed stop field is representative of an area for vehicular travel at a minimum speed limit and the slow field is representative of an area of vehicular travel in which the respective materials handling vehicle would be reduced to the minimum speed limit. Fuerstenberg et al teach, “FIG. 5 shows an example in which three protected zones 51, 52, 53 nestled in one another are defined relative to the vehicle 32. The inner zone 51 is a protected field; 52 and 53 are warning fields.” (P[0160] and Figure 5), “If an object is recognized in a protected field, this can result in a complete stop, with a strong braking and further measures such as emitting a report and outputting an alarm perceptible to humans.” P[0161], and “On a non-planned presence, different measures can be taken, for instance an alarm on a presence only in the outermost warning field 53; an alarm and deceleration on a presence in the middle warning field 52; and a complete braking on a non-planned presence in the inner protected field 51.” P[0163]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al, materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode and the zones to maintain a desired distance from obstacles of Castaneda et al with the multiple detection fields for infringements of Fuerstenberg et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent collisions (Fuerstenberg et al P[0013]).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1 and Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuke Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0053021 A1.
Regarding claim 11 Collett et al and Thode teach the claimed field enforcement system of claim 1 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed first and second UWB antenna arrays each comprise one or more nodes mounted on each of the first and second materials handling vehicles. Fuke teaches, “while an antenna 6 of the in-vehicle UWB communication device 5 is provided at the center of a roof of the vehicle (outside the vehicle), the position of the antenna 6 can be changed optionally” P[0051]. The configuration of the antenna arrays of Fuke may be applied to the UWB communication equipment of Collett et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the antenna configuration of Fuke, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve convenience of a vehicle by automatically switching between validation and restriction of a specific function (Fuke P[0009]).
Regarding claim 12 Collett et al and Thode teach the claimed field enforcement system of claim 1 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed each node of the first UWB antenna array and the second UWB antenna array comprises a UWB antenna arranged and positioned in the respective UWB antenna array and mounted on the vehicle body such that a center of the respective UWB antenna array is calibrated with respect to a center of the respective materials handling vehicle on which the respective UWB antenna array is mounted. Fuke teaches, “while an antenna 6 of the in-vehicle UWB communication device 5 is provided at the center of a roof of the vehicle (outside the vehicle), the position of the antenna 6 can be changed optionally” P[0051]. The configuration of the antenna arrays of Fuke may be applied to the UWB communication equipment of Collett et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the antenna configuration of Fuke, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve convenience of a vehicle by automatically switching between validation and restriction of a specific function (Fuke P[0009]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1, Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1 and Fuke Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0053021 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hollar et al Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0294565 A1.
Regarding claim 13 Collett et al, Thode and Fuke teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1 and 12 (see above). Collett et al, Thode and Fuke do not teach the claimed each UWB antenna comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) including a PCB longitudinal axis, an antenna feature comprising an antenna longitudinal axis aligned in parallel with or perpendicular to the PCB longitudinal axis, and an antenna enclosure shaped and sized to receive the PCB and the antenna feature. PCBs are common and well known in the art and in general, and the configuration of the PCB is typically a matter of design choice. Hollar et al teach, “As illustrated in FIG. 9, the PCB board 205 and radiating element 201 are housed within the enclosure 901.” (P[0063] and Figure 9), and “the device may contain circuit elements to communicate through a secondary RF communication channel that may or may not use the radiating element 201 in addition to communicating through UWB” P[0072]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al, materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode and antenna configuration of Fuke with the PCB used with UWB communication of Hollar et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce costs and save space by including the UWB antenna on a PCB (Hollar et al P[0004], P[0007]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1, Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1, Fuke Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0053021 A1 and Hollar et al Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0294565 A1 as applied to claims 1, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Ohno et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0214112 A1 and Zhou et al Chinese Patent Application Publication Number CN 210404031 U (translation cited).
Regarding claim 14 Collett et al, Thode, Fuke and Hollar et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1, 12 and 13 (see above). Collett et al teach the claimed UWB antenna, the material handling vehicles may communicate using UWB P[0098]. Collett et al, Thode, Fuke and Hollar et al do not teach the claimed antenna feature with the antenna longitudinal axis aligned in parallel with the PCB longitudinal axis comprises a teardrop shape, with the antenna feature disposed at a shortest end of the tapered sidewalls. Ohno et al teach, “A pair of bosses (projections) 71a which is engaged with an inner edge portion of a mounting hole of the vehicle body is disposed on the lower surface (the surface on the side of the vehicle body) of the planar portion 71.” P[0060], “The antenna case 1 has a rib 1a (FIG. 3) for pressing the pad 3 against the whole circumference of the resin-made base 70.” P[0061], and “In the planar portion 71 of the resin base 70, two conductor plates 90 are attached (fixed) to the surface (lower surface) opposite to a placement surface (upper surface) of the metal-made base 60, by eight screws 103. One of the conductor plates 90 is located in front of the feeding cylindrical portion 62, and the other conductor plate 90 is located in rear of the feeding cylindrical portion 62.” P[0066] (Figures 1 thru 3). The shape of the antenna of Ohno et al would be applied to the UWB antenna used in Collett et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al, materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode, antenna configuration of Fuke and the PCB used with UWB communication of Hollar et al with the shark fin antenna shape of Ohno et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide a vehicle antenna device in which a reduction in the antenna gain can be avoided due to unwanted resonance between a metal-made base and a vehicle body (Ohno et al P[0005]).
Collett et al, Thode, Fuke, Hollar et al and Ohno et al do not teach the claimed teardrop shape comprising tapered in sidewalls of the PCB. Zhou et al teach, the water drop shape wireless communication nodes fixed device (translation page 2 paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al, materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode, antenna configuration of Fuke, the PCB used with UWB communication of Hollar et al and the shark fin antenna shape of Ohno et al with the water drop shape wireless communication nodes of Zhou et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce maintenance costs (Zhou et al abstract).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1, Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1, Fuke Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0053021 A1 and Hollar et al Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0294565 A1 as applied to claims 1, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Ohno et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0214112 A1.
Regarding claim 15 Collett et al, Thode, Fuke and Hollar et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1, 12 and 13 (see above). Collett et al, Thode, Fuke and Hollar et al do not teach the claimed antenna enclosure comprises a wall defining a pair of apertures to receive mounting prongs extending from the PCB, such that when a wall longitudinal axis of wall is disposed in parallel with the PCB longitudinal axis, the mounting prongs extend perpendicular to the PCB longitudinal axis to mount to the vehicle body at a ninety-degree angle, and when the wall longitudinal axis of wall is disposed perpendicular to with the PCB longitudinal axis, the mounting prongs extend in parallel with the PCB longitudinal axis to mount to the vehicle body at a zero-degree angle. Ohno et al teach, “A pair of bosses (projections) 71a which is engaged with an inner edge portion of a mounting hole of the vehicle body is disposed on the lower surface (the surface on the side of the vehicle body) of the planar portion 71.” P[0060], “The antenna case 1 has a rib 1a (FIG. 3) for pressing the pad 3 against the whole circumference of the resin-made base 70.” P[0061], and “In the planar portion 71 of the resin base 70, two conductor plates 90 are attached (fixed) to the surface (lower surface) opposite to a placement surface (upper surface) of the metal-made base 60, by eight screws 103. One of the conductor plates 90 is located in front of the feeding cylindrical portion 62, and the other conductor plate 90 is located in rear of the feeding cylindrical portion 62.” P[0066] (Figures 1 thru 3). The shape of the antenna of Ohno et al would be applied to the UWB antenna used in Collett et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al, materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode, antenna configuration of Fuke and the PCB used with UWB communication of Hollar et al with the shark fin antenna shape of Ohno et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide a vehicle antenna device in which a reduction in the antenna gain can be avoided due to unwanted resonance between a metal-made base and a vehicle body (Ohno et al P[0005]).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033882 A1 and Thode Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0059682 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al Patent Number 6,209,913 B1.
Regarding claim 16 Collett et al and Thode teach the claimed field enforcement system of claim 1 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed lighting component module configured to mount to the vehicle body, the lighting component comprising a plurality of symbols, the plurality of symbols comprising at least a first symbol with a first color representative of vehicle operation without error, a second symbol with a second color representative of a cautionary vehicle warning operation, and a third symbol comprising a third color representative of a negative vehicle warning operation. Ishikawa et al teach, “An instrument panel 28, which is shown in FIG. 1, is installed in the cabin. Indicators 29, which include various type of warning lights (warning lamps), and a liquid crystal display 30, which displays predetermined information with symbols and characters, are arranged on the instrument panel 28. An axle warning lamp 31 for warning the operator of an abnormality in the axle pivot control apparatus is also arranged on the instrument panel 28.” (column 4 lines 28 thru 36), “The warning lamp 31 emits a red light when there is an abnormality. If the operation status (lateral acceleration Gs and yaw acceleration ΔY/ΔT) meets the axle locking conditions, the warning lamp 31 emits a green light. If the load status (weight w and position H) meets the axle locking condition, the warning lamp 31 emits a yellow light. The operator can thus distinguish three types of information from these three colors.” (column 6 lines 39 thru 46), “If it is determined that there is an abnormality, the microcomputer 36 proceeds to step S30 and lights the first LED 32 so that the warning lamp 31 emits a red color.” (column 7 lines 2 thru 5), and if the warning lamp 31 emits a yellow light, this indicates that the operator should take precautions when steering the forklift 1 or when handling loads. If the warning lamp 31 emits a green color, this indicates that the operator should take precautions when steering the forklift 1. Accordingly, the color of the light emitted by the warning lamp 31 advises what precautions the operator should take if necessary (column 7 lines 33 thru 50) (Figures 4 and 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the warning lights of Ishikawa et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, notify the operator of more than one piece of information (Ishikawa et al column 2 lines 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16 Collett et al, Thode and Ishikawa et al teach the claimed field enforcement system of claims 1 and 16 (see above). Collett et al and Thode do not teach the claimed first color is green, the second color is yellow, and the third color is red, and wherein the lighting component module is configured to generate an associated alert based on whether the first symbol, second symbol, or third symbol is lit. Ishikawa et al teach, “An instrument panel 28, which is shown in FIG. 1, is installed in the cabin. Indicators 29, which include various type of warning lights (warning lamps), and a liquid crystal display 30, which displays predetermined information with symbols and characters, are arranged on the instrument panel 28. An axle warning lamp 31 for warning the operator of an abnormality in the axle pivot control apparatus is also arranged on the instrument panel 28.” (column 4 lines 28 thru 36), “The warning lamp 31 emits a red light when there is an abnormality. If the operation status (lateral acceleration Gs and yaw acceleration ΔY/ΔT) meets the axle locking conditions, the warning lamp 31 emits a green light. If the load status (weight w and position H) meets the axle locking condition, the warning lamp 31 emits a yellow light. The operator can thus distinguish three types of information from these three colors.” (column 6 lines 39 thru 46), “If it is determined that there is an abnormality, the microcomputer 36 proceeds to step S30 and lights the first LED 32 so that the warning lamp 31 emits a red color.” (column 7 lines 2 thru 5), and if the warning lamp 31 emits a yellow light, this indicates that the operator should take precautions when steering the forklift 1 or when handling loads. If the warning lamp 31 emits a green color, this indicates that the operator should take precautions when steering the forklift 1. Accordingly, the color of the light emitted by the warning lamp 31 advises what precautions the operator should take if necessary (column 7 lines 33 thru 50) (Figures 4 and 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems and methods for materials handling vehicles to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment of Collett et al and materials handling vehicle using an updating dynamic vehicle boundary for determining potential impingement and modify the travel path to mitigate the impingement of Thode with the warning lights of Ishikawa et al, in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, notify the operator of more than one piece of information (Ishikawa et al column 2 lines 1 and 2).
Related Art
The examiner points to Kwak et al PGPub 2019/0339713 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Kwak et al is directed to a plurality of autonomous mobile robots includes a first mobile robot having a first module for transmitting and receiving an Ultra-Wideband (UWB) signal, and a second mobile robot having a second module for transmitting and receiving the UWB signal. The second mobile robot follows the first mobile robot using the UWB signal. (abstract and Figures 7A and 7B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662