CTFR 18/944,367 CTFR 86902 DETAILED ACTION This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/944,367 filed on May 6, 2026 in which claims 1, 10, and 19 were amended. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 10-13, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jahani et al., US Publication 2024/0118696 ( hereinafter Jahani) in view of Cyn René Whitfield, Multiple Return … Multiple Data , 2017, Lidar Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 3, Spatial Media, Pages 1-3 ( hereinafter Whitfield) . Regarding claim 1 , Jahani discloses a method for augmenting LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) boundaries for routing an autonomous mobile robot, comprising “detecting, using LIDAR sensors on an autonomous mobile robot (AMR), a three-dimensional entity comprising a device coupled to an object …” (Jahani ¶¶ 20, 68) by receiving visual data from one or more sensors indicating the presence of a forklift and its tines (Jahani ¶ 68) and indicating that the one or more sensors include LiDAR sensors. (Jahani ¶ 20). Additionally, Jahani discloses “the detecting of the three-dimensional entity by the LIDAR sensors creating a pattern recognizable by the LIDAR sensors” (Jahani ¶ 41) by creating a point cloud of the data to detect the forklift. Further, Jahani discloses “recognizing the pattern using a program of a computer communicating with the LIDAR sensors and the AMR” (Jahani ¶ 67) by identifying the obstacle (i.e., recognizing the pattern). Moreover, Jahani discloses “translating, using the computer, the pattern into a boundary message including instructions for generating an artificial buffer for the AMR” (Jahani ¶ 67) by using the algorithm to convert (i.e., translating) the data into areas to avoid (i.e., an artificial buffer). Finally, Jahani discloses “generating the artificial buffer for the AMR, using the computer, with reference to the device, in response to the instructions translated by the computer in response to the AMR detecting the pattern using the LIDAR sensors” (Jahani ¶ 75) by generating a path to avoid the obstacles. Jahani does not appear to explicitly disclose that the forklift includes a first surface and a second surface and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “detecting, using LIDAR sensors on an autonomous mobile robot (AMR), a first surface and a second surface on a device coupled to an object, the detecting of the first surface and the second surface by the LIDAR sensors creating a pattern recognizable by the LIDAR sensors wherein a spatial relationship between LIDAR distance readings corresponding to the first surface and the second surface defines the pattern” However, Whitfield discloses a multiple return 3D LiDAR scanner connected to an autonomous mobile robot configured for “detecting, using LIDAR sensors on an autonomous mobile robot (AMR), a first surface and a second surface on a device coupled to an object” (Whitfield 3) by giving an example of a LiDAR sensor point cloud (i.e., a detection) including a first surface and a second surface on a device coupled to an object in the form of a telephone pole, which is known to those of ordinary skill in the art to include devices, such as insulators, surge arrestors, and transforms, that are coupled to an object, in the form of a power pole. Additionally, Whitfield discloses “the detecting of the first surface and the second surface by the LIDAR sensors creating a pattern recognizable by the LIDAR sensors wherein a spatial relationship between LIDAR distance readings corresponding to the first surface and the second surface defines the pattern” (Whitfield 1-2) where distances between reflective surfaces is used to establish the point cloud (i.e., the point cloud). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Whitfield was combined with Jahani, the recognized object of Jahani would include a first surface and a second surface on a device coupled to an object as taught by Whitfield. Therefore, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “detecting, using LIDAR sensors on an autonomous mobile robot (AMR), a first surface and a second surface on a device coupled to an object, the detecting of the first surface and the second surface by the LIDAR sensors creating a pattern recognizable by the LIDAR sensors wherein a spatial relationship between LIDAR distance readings corresponding to the first surface and the second surface defines the pattern,” rendering it obvious. Jahani and Whitfield are analogous art because they are from the “ same field of endeavor, ” namely that of LiDAR scanner. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jahani and Whitfield before him or her to modify the LiDAR scanner of Jahani to include the LiDAR scanner of Whitfield. The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that multiple return 3D LiDAR scanners are well-known in the art to be “one of the greatest inventions” in the field of LiDAR. (Whitfield 1). Regarding claim 10 , it merely recites a system for performing the method of claim 1. The system comprises various computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Jahani and Whitfield comprises computer hardware (Jahani ¶ 78) and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1. Regarding claim 19 , it merely recites a computer program product for performing the method of claim 1. The computer program comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Jahani and Whitfield comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1. Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20 , the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 10, and 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses “instructing, using the computer, the AMR to avoid the artificial buffer when the AMR is in motion” (Jahani ¶¶ 36, 75, see also ¶ 52) where the generated path is an instruction to avoid the obstacle (Jahani ¶ 75), which may be performed in real-time (i.e., while the AMR is in motion, Jahani ¶ 36). Regarding claims 3 and 12 , the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield at least teaches or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the program adjusts the artificial buffer in response to the pattern” (Jahani ¶ 36). Specifically, Jahani discloses that the processes are performed in “real-time,” which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean that these processes were occurring as the vehicle was in use and following an existing path. Thus, when Jahani would be understood to teach that when it recognizes a new, previously unseen obstacle, the exiting path (i.e., the artificial buffer) is adjusted in response to detecting the obstacle (i.e., the pattern). Therefore, this limitation is obvious. Regarding claims 4 and 13 , the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses “wherein the device includes an adjustable surface as the second surface” (Jahani ¶ 68) where the forklift tines are an adjustable surface. Further, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses “the adjustable surface being used to alter distance readings of the LIDAR sensors with respect to the first surface, in concert with adjustment of the adjustable surface” (Jahani ¶ 68) where the forklift tines are known to move vertically up and down, meaning that any LiDAR sensors would read altered distances as the forks move. Moreover, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses “the method further comprising: detecting, using the LIDAR sensors, the first surface and the adjustable surface as the second surface to detect the pattern” (Jahani ¶¶ 20, 68) by detecting the forklift as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above. Finally, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses “generating the artificial buffer based on the pattern” (Jahani ¶ 75) by generating a path to avoid the obstacles . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jahani in view of Whitfield, as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and in further view of Schoonmaker et al., US Patent 12,358,763 ( hereinafter Schoonmaker), which incorporates Weckbecker et al., US Publication 2018/0044149 ( hereinafter Weckbecker) by reference at col. 1, l. 64-col. 2, l. 5 . Regarding claims 5 and 14 , the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 4 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield does not appear to explicitly discloses “wherein the adjustable surface is adjustable manually or electromechanically.” However, Schoonmaker discloses detecting an adjustable surface using a LiDAR detector (Schoonmaker Abstract; col. 9, ll. 29-41; col. 10, ll. 55-60 ) “wherein the adjustable surface is adjustable manually or electromechanically” (Weckbecker ¶ 25) where the adjustable surface is adjustable by a linear motor, which is an electromechanical motor. Jahani, Whitfield, and Schoonmaker are analogous art because they are from the “ same field of endeavor, ” namely that of LiDAR scanners. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jahani, Whitfield, and Schoonmaker before him or her to modify the real-time detection of Jahani and Whitfield to include the monitoring the electro-mechanically adjustable surface of Schoonmaker. The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of such electromechanical motors are known to be “uncomplicated” for adjusting a surface, thereby increasing the ease of design and repair. (Weckbecker ¶ 25). Regarding claims 6 and 15 , the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 4 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses “wherein the adjustable surface is dynamically adjustable over a period of time” (Jahani ¶ 68) where the forklift tines are known to be dynamically adjustable over a period of time. Further, the combination of Jahani and Whitfield discloses “translating the patterns into the boundary message including the instructions for generating the artificial buffer based on the pattern detected from the adjustable surface and the first surface” (Jahani ¶ 67) by using the algorithm to convert (i.e., translating) the data into areas to avoid (i.e., an artificial buffer). The combination of Jahani and Whitfield does not appear to explicitly disclose “detecting, using the LIDAR sensors, the adjustable surface over the period of time to recognize the pattern.” However, Schoonmaker discloses “detecting, using the LIDAR sensors, the adjustable surface over the period of time to recognize the pattern” (Schoonmaker Abstract; col. 9, ll. 29-41; col. 10, ll. 55-60) by disclosing a system for using a sensor to measure the vertical movement of a crane (Schoonmaker Abstract) using LiDAR (Schoonmaker col. 10, ll. 55-60) over a time series of captures (Schoonmaker col. 9, ll. 29-41). Jahani, Whitfield, and Schoonmaker are analogous art because they are from the “ same field of endeavor, ” namely that of LiDAR scanners. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jahani, Whitfield, and Schoonmaker before him or her to modify the real-time detection of Jahani and Whitfield to include the monitoring the adjustable surface over time of Schoonmaker. The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Jahani and Whitfield teaches the “base device” for real-time detection of movement of forklifts and other work machines including vertically moving components by an autonomous mobile robot. Further, Schoonmaker teaches the “known technique” for monitoring the vertical positioning of a work vehicle over time that is applicable to the base device of Jahani and Whitfield. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a process would produce more accurate results by recognizing the movement of a potential obstacle. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed May 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks 10-22) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments filed May 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 23-27) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30. 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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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. /ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/944,367 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/944,367 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights