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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025, 02/05/2026, and 07/07/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1780” has been used to designate both the next to last step and last step in Fig. 17.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1880” has been used to designate both the next to last step and last step in Fig. 18.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 of copending Application No. 18/919,234 (reference application) in view of Chilson et al. (US 20100266381), hereinafter “Chilson”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because corresponding claim of the reference application discloses all the limitations except determining a pose of a previous pallet in an immediate prior row relative to the row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot in the trailer is done using one or more sensors integrated with the autonomous mobile robot.
Chilson discloses determining by one or more sensors integrated with the autonomous mobile robot, a pose of a previous pallet in an immediate prior row relative to the row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot in the trailer (para. [0043], [0059]; detecting the end of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads with appropriately configured pressure sensor or sensors. The sensor 100 may also be used to determine the position of the end wall 56 when loading an empty transport, or if the transport arrives partially full, the distance to any pallets or loads in the transport). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 18/919,234 and incorporate the teaching of Chilson of using sensors integrated to improve the usability of the autonomous vehicle in various types of containers with unknown interior configurations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/919,240 (present application)
18/919,234 (reference copending application)
Claim 11. An autonomous mobile robot comprising: a fork configured to carry a pallet stacked with a load;
Claim 11. An autonomous mobile robot comprising: a fork configured to carry a pallet stacked with a load;
one or more sensors;
one or more sensors;
one or more processors; and
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising:
determining, by an autonomous mobile robot carrying a first pallet on a fork, that a next pallet to be loaded onto a trailer is a first pallet in a row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot;
determining, by an autonomous mobile robot carrying a first pallet on a fork, that a next pallet to be loaded onto a trailer is a first pallet in a row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot;
determining, sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot in the trailer;
determining a pose of a previous pallet in an immediate prior row relative to the row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot in the trailer;
determining a front plane for a previous row based on the pose of the previous pallet;
determining a front plane for a previous row based on the pose of the previous pallet;
navigating to first goal position at least partially inside the trailer, wherein the first goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and a pose of the trailer;
navigating to first goal position at least partially inside the trailer, wherein the first goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and a pose of the trailer;
side-shifting the fork toward a side wall of the trailer until one or more sensors of the autonomous mobile robot detect contact between the pallet and the side wall of the trailer;
side-shifting the fork toward a side wall of the trailer until one or more sensors of the autonomous mobile robot detect contact between the pallet and the side wall of the trailer;
side-shifting the fork back away from the trailer wall by a predetermined distance to prevent the first pallet from scraping the side wall of the trailer during navigation or dropping;
side-shifting the fork back away from the trailer wall by a predetermined distance to prevent the first pallet from scraping the side wall of the trailer during navigation or dropping;
navigating in a straight line forward from the first goal position to a second goal position that is within a predetermined threshold distance of a drop position within the trailer, wherein the second goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and the pose of the trailer; and
navigating in a straight line forward from the first goal position to a second goal position that is within a predetermined threshold distance of a drop position within the trailer, wherein the second goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and the pose of the trailer; and
dropping the first pallet from the fork at the second goal position in the trailer.
dropping the first pallet from the fork at the second goal position in the trailer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson et al. (US 20100266381), hereinafter “Chilson”, in view of Thompson et al. (US 4595331 A), hereinafter “Thompson”.
Regarding claim 1, Chilson discloses a method comprising: determining, by an autonomous mobile robot carrying a first pallet on a fork, that a next pallet to be loaded onto a trailer is a first pallet in a row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot (para. [0034],[0040], [0052]; Fig. 1-2; AGV 10, pallet 72 on fork 16, loading the leftmost pallets near the threshold 52 in Fig. 4a, 4e where there is insufficient space for the AGV);
determining, by one or more sensors integrated with the autonomous mobile robot, a pose of a previous pallet in an immediate prior row relative to the row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot in the trailer (para. [0043], [0059]; detecting the end of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads with appropriately configured pressure sensor or sensors. The sensor 100 may also be used to determine the position of the end wall 56 when loading an empty transport, or if the transport arrives partially full, the distance to any pallets or loads in the transport);
determining a front plane for a previous row based on the pose of the previous pallet (para. [0040], [0052]; When the AGV 10 approaches the load location, these optical sensors could be switched on to find the fork pockets. Based on the detected position of the fork pockets, the AGV 10 would modify its path of travel; the AGV creates a data profile of the interior of the transport 50);
navigating to first goal position at least partially inside the trailer, wherein the first goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and a pose of the trailer (para. [0043]-[0044]; navigating to the intended load position and detecting the end of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads);
side-shifting the fork toward a side wall of the trailer until one or more sensors of the autonomous mobile robot detect contact between the pallet and the side wall of the trailer (para. [0044]-[0045], shifting the forks towards the side of the transport 50. Encoders 23 detect that the position of the fork pairs 16 is no longer changing, the load is presumed to have contacted the sides 54 of the transport 50);
navigating in a straight line forward from the first goal position to a second goal position that is within a predetermined threshold distance of a drop position within the trailer, wherein the second goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and the pose of the trailer (para. [0044]; after shifting the AGV continues to travel in the forward direction until detecting the end 56 of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads on the transport 50); and
dropping the first pallet from the fork at the second goal position in the trailer (para. [0044]; the load is lowered onto the base of the transport 50).
Chilson does not disclose side-shifting the fork back away from the trailer wall by a predetermined distance to prevent the first pallet from scraping the side wall of the trailer during navigation or dropping.
Thompson discloses a method of automatically loading a transport vehicle with sensor-controlled travel and positioning of a carried load so that the load is placed at a predetermined or otherwise correct distance from a transport-vehicle side wall (col. 11, lines 4-17; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson so that after using contact with the sidewall to establish a known lateral reference, by reversing the existing bidirectionally side-shifting mechanism to create Thomson's predetermined clearance distance from the wall. This modification would predictably preserve close, space-efficient pallet placement while preventing the pallet from dragging or scrapping against the wall during the subsequent forward movement and deposition, which would be detrimental to breakable items like pallets of beer. The modification would have required only routine programming of the encoder-controlled side shift mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success without requiring redesign or change of the system's basic operating principle.
Regarding claim 8, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chilson further discloses determining a pose of the first pallet (para. [0040]; When the AGV 10 approaches the load location, these optical sensors could be switched on to find the fork pockets. Based on the detected position of the fork pockets, the AGV 10 would modify its path of travel);
backing off the trailer (para. [0047]; after depositing the load, the secondary guidance system will then be used to guide the AGV 10 back to approximately the same location where the secondary guidance system was first enabled);
picking up a second pallet from a staging area (para. [0047]; Once at this location, the primary guidance system will then be used to guide the AGV 10 on its travels; for example, to pick up another load);
navigating to a third goal position within the trailer, wherein the third goal position is determined based on the pose of the first pallet and the pose of the trailer (para. [0045], [0051]; the transport 50 can be loaded one load at a time alternating from one side of the vehicle to the other by side shifting means. Placement of the first pallet on one side determines the available position for the second pallet. In determining the transport path, the system must determine the skew of the transport 50 in relation to the loading dock as well as any lateral offset of the center of the transport threshold from the center of the loading dock bay 82);
determining that a portion of the second pallet overlapping the first pallet is greater than a predetermined threshold (para. [0045]; when one side of the trailer is occupied by a previously dropped load, an overlap between the first pallet and second pallet is created since the AGV is approaching along the center line of trailer);
side-shifting the fork toward a side of the first pallet until one or more sensors of the autonomous mobile robot detect contact between the side of the first pallet and a side of the second pallet (para. [0044]-[0045], shifting the forks towards the side of the transport 50. Encoders 23 detect that the position of the fork pairs 16 is no longer changing, the load is presumed to have contacted the sides 54 of the transport 50 );
navigating forward to a fourth goal position within the trailer that is within a predetermined threshold distance of a second drop position within the trailer, wherein the fourth goal position is determined based on the pose of the first pallet and the pose of the trailer (para. [0044]; after shifting the AGV continues to travel in the forward direction until detecting the end 56 of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads on the transport 50); and
dropping the second pallet from the fork at the fourth goal position in the trailer (para. [0044]; the load is lowered onto the base of the transport 50).
Thompson discloses a method of automatically loading a transport vehicle with sensor-controlled travel and positioning of a carried load so that the load is placed at a predetermined or otherwise correct distance from a transport-vehicle side wall (col. 11, lines 4-17; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson so that after using contact with the sidewall to establish a known lateral reference, by reversing the existing bidirectionally side-shifting mechanism to create Thomson's predetermined clearance distance from the wall. This modification would predictably preserve close, space-efficient pallet placement while preventing the pallet from dragging or scrapping against the wall during the subsequent forward movement and deposition, which would be detrimental to breakable items like pallets of beer. The modification would have required only routine programming of the encoder-controlled side shift mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success without requiring redesign or change of the system's basic operating principle.
Regarding claim 10, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chilson further discloses the one or more sensors includes one or more of a 3D lidar, a stereo camera, a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (para. [0042], [0047]; sensors can be analog sonic sensors, a laser-type, a laser scanner with moving beam-type, or an optical/vision; inertial guidance system).
Regarding claim 11, Chilson discloses an autonomous mobile robot comprising: a fork configured to carry a pallet stacked with a load (para. [0034], [0040]; AMR 10, fork 16, for carrying pallet 72 stacked with a load 60);
one or more sensors (para. [0042]; Fig. 2, sensors 20, 30);
one or more processors (para. [0064], [0082]; controller on AGV);
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising (para. [0040]; the AGV may be programmed to interact with the load; controller uses the data profile to calculate an optimal route):
determining, by an autonomous mobile robot carrying a first pallet on a fork, that a next pallet to be loaded onto a trailer is a first pallet in a row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot (para. [0034],[0040], [0052]; Fig. 1-2; AGV 10, pallet 72 on fork 16, loading the leftmost pallets near the threshold 52 in Fig. 4a, 4e where there is insufficient space for the AGV);
determining, by one or more sensors integrated with the autonomous mobile robot, a pose of a previous pallet in an immediate prior row relative to the row where the trailer does not have sufficient space to fully accommodate the autonomous mobile robot in the trailer (para. [0043], [0059]; detecting the end of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads with appropriately configured pressure sensor or sensors. The sensor 100 may also be used to determine the position of the end wall 56 when loading an empty transport, or if the transport arrives partially full, the distance to any pallets or loads in the transport);
determining a front plane for a previous row based on the pose of the previous pallet (para. [0040], [0052]; When the AGV 10 approaches the load location, these optical sensors could be switched on to find the fork pockets. Based on the detected position of the fork pockets, the AGV 10 would modify its path of travel; the AGV creates a data profile of the interior of the transport 50);
navigating to first goal position at least partially inside the trailer, wherein the first goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and a pose of the trailer (para. [0043]-[0044]; navigating to the intended load position and detecting the end of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads);
side-shifting the fork toward a side wall of the trailer until one or more sensors of the autonomous mobile robot detect contact between the pallet and the side wall of the trailer (para. [0044]-[0045], shifting the forks towards the side of the transport 50. Encoders 23 detect that the position of the fork pairs 16 is no longer changing, the load is presumed to have contacted the sides 54 of the transport 50);
navigating in a straight line forward from the first goal position to a second goal position that is within a predetermined threshold distance of a drop position within the trailer, wherein the second goal position is determined based on the pose of the previous pallet and the pose of the trailer (para. [0044]; after shifting the AGV continues to travel in the forward direction until detecting the end 56 of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads on the transport 50); and
dropping the first pallet from the fork at the second goal position in the trailer (para. [0044]; the load is lowered onto the base of the transport 50).
Chilson does not disclose side-shifting the fork back away from the trailer wall by a predetermined distance to prevent the first pallet from scraping the side wall of the trailer during navigation or dropping.
Thompson discloses a method of automatically loading a transport vehicle with sensor-controlled travel and positioning of a carried load so that the load is placed at a predetermined or otherwise correct distance from a transport-vehicle side wall (col. 11, lines 4-17; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson so that after using contact with the sidewall to establish a known lateral reference, by reversing the existing bidirectionally side-shifting mechanism to create Thomson's predetermined clearance distance from the wall. This modification would predictably preserve close, space-efficient pallet placement while preventing the pallet from dragging or scrapping against the wall during the subsequent forward movement and deposition, which would be detrimental to breakable items like pallets of beer. The modification would have required only routine programming of the encoder-controlled side shift mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success without requiring redesign or change of the system's basic operating principle.
Regarding claim 18, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Chilson further discloses determining a pose of the first pallet (para. [0040]; When the AGV 10 approaches the load location, these optical sensors could be switched on to find the fork pockets. Based on the detected position of the fork pockets, the AGV 10 would modify its path of travel);
backing off the trailer (para. [0047]; after depositing the load, the secondary guidance system will then be used to guide the AGV 10 back to approximately the same location where the secondary guidance system was first enabled);
picking up a second pallet from a staging area (para. [0047]; Once at this location, the primary guidance system will then be used to guide the AGV 10 on its travels; for example, to pick up another load);
navigating to a third goal position within the trailer, wherein the third goal position is determined based on the pose of the first pallet and the pose of the trailer (para. [0045], [0051]; the transport 50 can be loaded one load at a time alternating from one side of the vehicle to the other by side shifting means. Placement of the first pallet on one side determines the available position for the second pallet. In determining the transport path, the system must determine the skew of the transport 50 in relation to the loading dock as well as any lateral offset of the center of the transport threshold from the center of the loading dock bay 82);
determining that a portion of the second pallet overlapping the first pallet is greater than a predetermined threshold (para. [0045]; when one side of the trailer is occupied by a previously dropped load, an overlap between the first pallet and second pallet is created since the AGV is approaching along the center line of trailer);
side-shifting the fork toward a side of the first pallet until one or more sensors of the autonomous mobile robot detect contact between the side of the first pallet and a side of the second pallet (para. [0044]-[0045], shifting the forks towards the side of the transport 50. Encoders 23 detect that the position of the fork pairs 16 is no longer changing, the load is presumed to have contacted the sides 54 of the transport 50 );
navigating forward to a fourth goal position within the trailer that is within a predetermined threshold distance of a second drop position within the trailer, wherein the fourth goal position is determined based on the pose of the first pallet and the pose of the trailer (para. [0044]; after shifting the AGV continues to travel in the forward direction until detecting the end 56 of the transport 50 or previously loaded loads on the transport 50); and
dropping the second pallet from the fork at the fourth goal position in the trailer (para. [0044]; the load is lowered onto the base of the transport 50).
Thompson discloses a method of automatically loading a transport vehicle with sensor-controlled travel and positioning of a carried load so that the load is placed at a predetermined or otherwise correct distance from a transport-vehicle side wall (col. 11, lines 4-17; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson so that after using contact with the sidewall to establish a known lateral reference, by reversing the existing bidirectionally side-shifting mechanism to create Thomson's predetermined clearance distance from the wall. This modification would predictably preserve close, space-efficient pallet placement while preventing the pallet from dragging or scrapping against the wall during the subsequent forward movement and deposition, which would be detrimental to breakable items like pallets of beer. The modification would have required only routine programming of the encoder-controlled side shift mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success without requiring redesign or change of the system's basic operating principle.
Regarding claim 20, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Chilson further discloses the one or more sensors includes one or more of a 3D lidar, a stereo camera, a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (para. [0042], [0047]; sensors can be analog sonic sensors, a laser-type, a laser scanner with moving beam-type, or an optical/vision; inertial guidance system).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson et al. (US 2010/0266381), hereinafter “Chilson”, in view of Thompson et al. (US 4595331 A), hereinafter “Thompson”, and in further view of Payson (US 20220169166 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chilson in view of Thompson does not disclose the side wall of the trailer includes a lip along a bottom of the side wall of the trailer, and the lip of the side wall of the trailer is beneath the first pallet when the contact between a lateral side of the first pallet and the side wall of the trailer is detected, and the predetermined distance that the fork side-shifts back is determined based on a width of the lip.
Payson discloses a trailer with a loading floor including wheel wells protruding in to the loading floor from the bottom of the sidewall of the trailer. Payson also discloses placing pallets in the trailer floor next to the protruding wheel wells (para. [0114]-[0115]; Figs. 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson in view of Thompson so that after using contact with the sidewall to establish a known lateral reference, by reversing the side-shifting mechanism to create the predetermined clearance distance from the wall, so that includes an additional offset to account for the width of the wheel well, to provide unobstructed path during landing of the pallet. This modification would predictably preserve close, space-efficient pallet placement while preventing the pallet from hitting the wheel well and damage breakable items like pallets of beer being loaded in to the vehicle. The modification would have required only routine programming of the encoder-controlled side shift mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success without requiring redesign or change of the system's basic operating principle.
Regarding claim 14, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Chilson in view of Thompson does not disclose the side wall of the trailer includes a lip along a bottom of the side wall, the lip of the side wall of the trailer is beneath the first pallet when the contact between a lateral side of the first pallet and the side wall of the trailer is detected, and the steps further comprises side-shifting the fork back away from the trailer wall by a distance corresponding to a width of the lip before navigating forward to the second goal position.
Payson discloses a trailer with a loading floor including wheel wells protruding in to the loading floor from the bottom of the sidewall of the trailer. Payson also discloses placing pallets in the trailer floor next to the protruding wheel wells (para. [0114]-[0115]; Figs. 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson in view of Thompson so that after using contact with the sidewall to establish a known lateral reference, by reversing the side-shifting mechanism to create the predetermined clearance distance from the wall, so that includes an additional offset to account for the width of the wheel well, to provide unobstructed path during landing of the pallet. This modification would predictably preserve close, space-efficient pallet placement while preventing the pallet from hitting the wheel well and damage breakable items like pallets of beer being loaded in to the vehicle. The modification would have required only routine programming of the encoder-controlled side shift mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success without requiring redesign or change of the system's basic operating principle.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson et al. (US 2010/0266381), hereinafter “Chilson”, in view of Thompson et al. (US 4595331 A), hereinafter “Thompson”, and in further view of Clark Material Handling Company – operator’s manual, hereinafter “Clark”.
Regarding claim 7, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chilson in view of Thompson does not disclose determining the fork extends beyond a side of first pallet by a distance; dropping off the first pallet at the first goal position; moving back for a predetermined distance that is greater than the determined distance that the fork extends beyond the first pallet’s side; and lifting the first pallet again before navigating to the second goal position.
Clark discloses a method of picking up and moving loads by a forklift when the forks are longer than the load and extending beyond the load. The method comprises moving the fork tips under the load without extending beyond the load, raising the load to clear the floor, backing out several inches or any necessary distance, setting the load down and moving forward until the load is positioned against the carriage (page 87). Clark also discloses forks extending beyond the load cause damage or tipping of other adjacent loads of materials behind the load being moved (page 87; Clark discloses a method of picking a load when forks are extending beyond the load but one of ordinary skill in the art could understand the same procedure can be applied in reverse when dropping a pallet to a location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson in view of Thompson, and further incorporate the teaching in Clark to place a load when the forks are extended beyond the pallet by first dropping the pallet, moving back a predetermined distance to prevent the forks from emerging beyond the pallet and lifting the pallet again before navigating to the second goal position to prevent the forks from damaging or tipping of other adjacent loads or materials behind the load being moved during dropping at a target location (Clark: page 87).
Regarding claim 17, Chilson in view of Thompson, discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Chilson in view of Thompson does not disclose determining the fork extends beyond a side of first pallet by a distance; dropping off the first pallet at the first goal position; moving back for a predetermined distance that is greater than the determined distance that the fork extends beyond the first pallet’s side; and lifting the first pallet again before navigating to the second goal position.
Clark discloses a method of picking up and moving loads by a forklift when the forks are longer than the load and extending beyond the load. The method comprises moving the fork tips under the load without extending beyond the load, raising the load to clear the floor, backing out several inches or any necessary distance, setting the load down and moving forward until the load is positioned against the carriage (page 87). Clark also discloses forks extending beyond the load cause damage or tipping of other adjacent loads or materials behind the load being moved (page 87; Clark discloses a method of picking a load when forks are extending beyond the load but one of ordinary skill in the art could understand the same procedure can be applied in reverse when dropping a pallet to a location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chilson in view of Thompson, and further incorporate the teaching in Clark to place a load when the forks are extended beyond the pallet by first dropping the pallet, moving back a predetermined distance to prevent the forks from emerging beyond the pallet and lifting the pallet again before navigating to the second goal position to prevent the forks from damaging or tipping of other adjacent loads or materials behind the load being moved during dropping at a target location (Clark: page 87).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 15-16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoofard et al. (US 20200239242) discloses an automated the process of loading and/or unloading a trailer where an automated fork lift truck with side shifting, and integrated sensors for sensor-based guidance inside the trailer, where the AMT picks up a pallet, enters the trailer, places it based on sensed trailer conditions, then returns for the next pallet (para. [0026],[0089]-[0093]; Figs. 9A-9L).
Cooper (US 20170253441 ) discloses an automated loading system for loading the last pallets in to a trails that uses clamps to sense contact with the sidewall of the trailer to align the loads inside the trailer. It also discloses an alignment assembly positioned outside the trailer that is engaged by the vehicle to aid in positioning the pallets inside the trailer when the sidewall of the trailer cannot be used to align the pallets (Figs. 2-4).
US 20160090284 discloses an automated forklift with sensors for detecting the destination location for a pallet for obstructions and adjusts at least one of position, orientation and movement of the load carrier based on the sensed information to prevent preventing crashes between a load and/or load carrier, and obstacles when moving the load (para. [0041]-[0042], [0045], [0051]; Figs. 2-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
/TEMESGEN M. MARU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights