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 statements (IDS) were filed on 01/21/2025, 01/22/2025, 06/18/2025, and 10/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
This action is in response to claims filed on 11/21/2024. Claims 2-21 are considered in this office action. Claims 2-21 have been added. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-21 are pending examination.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12153431B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are covered by the claims of the reference.
Pending Application 18/928311
U.S. Patent No. US 12153431 B2
Claim 2
Claim 1
The reference claim includes several identical limitations of the instant claim, and the remaining limitations are covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 3
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the first laser scanner comprises a first scanning LIDAR arranged to generate the first scan plane to collect at least a portion of the scan data.
Claim 4
Claim 3
The system of claim 2, wherein the first scan plane is oriented parallel to a ground plane.
Claim 5
Claim 1,
Claim 4
The reference claims include several identical limitations of the instant claim, and the remaining limitations are covered by the reference claims and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 6
Claim 5
The system of claim 4, wherein the second laser scanner comprises a second scanning LIDAR arranged to generate the second scan plane to collect at least a portion of the scan data.
Claim 7
Claim 6
The system of claim 5, wherein the second scan plane is oriented downward toward a ground plane, at a tilt angle below horizontal.
Claim 8
Claim 7
The system of claim 6, wherein the first scan plane is oriented parallel to the ground plane.
Claim 9
Claim 8
The system of claim 6, wherein the tilt angle is up to 10 degrees from horizontal toward the ground plane.
Claim 10
Claim 9
The system of claim 6, wherein the tilt angle is up to 5 degrees ± 2 degrees, from horizontal toward the ground plane.
Claim 11
Claim 10
The system of claim 6, wherein the tilt angle is up to 3 degrees ± 1 degree, from horizontal toward the ground plane.
Claim 12
Claim 11
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform a coarse fit operation on the scan data and then perform a fine fit operation on the scan data to determine if an object indicated by the scan data is an obstacle or the pallet.
Claim 13
Claim 12
The system of claim 11, wherein, as part of the course fit operation, the at least one processor is configured to process the scan data to determine a best score with respect to a plurality of digital pallet models, wherein the at least one processor is configured to step through an entire scan range, transform scan data into points, and score the points based on a best fit to a digital pallet model from the plurality of digital pallet models.
Claim 14
Claim 13
The system of claim 11, wherein, as part of the fine fit operation, the at least one processor is configured to iteratively process the scan data as long as a fit score relative to a digital pallet model from the plurality of digital pallet models continues to improve and to identify the pallet when the fit score is above the minimum score threshold.
Claim 15
Claim 14
The reference claim includes several identical limitations of the instant claim, and the remaining limitations are covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 16
Claim 15
The method of claim 14, further comprising: using the scan data, determining a degree of rotation of the pallet relative to a travel path of the pallet transport system.
Claim 17
Claim 16
The method of claim 15, further comprising: using the scan data, the at least one processor identifying the pallet from a plurality of digital pallet models.
Claim 18
Claim 17
The method of claim 16, further comprising: using the at least one processor, performing a coarse fit operation on the scan data and then performing a fine fit operation on the scan data to determine if an object indicated by the scan data is an obstacle or the pallet.
Claim 19
Claim 18
The method of claim 17, wherein the course fit operation comprises: processing the scan data to determine a best score with respect to a plurality of digital pallet models, including stepping through an entire scan range, transforming scan data into points, and scoring the points based on a best fit to a digital pallet model from the plurality of digital pallet models.
Claim 20
Claim 19
The method of claim 17, wherein the fine fit operation comprises: iteratively processing the scan data as long as a fit score relative to a digital pallet model from the plurality of digital pallet models continues to improve and to identify the pallet when the fit score is above the minimum score threshold.
Claim 21
Claim 20
The method of claim 14, wherein emitting outward from the first fork tip comprises emitting in a direction of mobile robot travel for pallet engagement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rose et al. (US 2018/0120465 A1) teaches methods and systems for pallet detection including a forklift configured with a base and tines, wherein the tines include a plurality of proximity sensors that send sensor data indicative of proximity of the tine relative to a pallet pocket to a computing system which navigates the forklift relative to the pallet based on the sensor data
Fischer et al. (US 2018/0081369 A1) teaches using planar distance sensors for pallet detection, wherein a robotic device causes a distance sensor to scan the horizontal coverage plane in an environment, compares the received sensor data to a pallet identification signature, and based on the comparison, detects a pallet located in the environment and determines a location and orientation of the detected pallet
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights