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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 and 10/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “foldable” longitudinal body and “first body pivotably connected to a second body” of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "106" and "108" have both been used to designate a bottom surface in [0051]. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “108” has been used to designate both a bottom surface and a movement direction in [0051]. In [0051], “bottom surface 108” should read “bottom surface 106”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "204" and "206" have each been used to designate both a second oscillation sensor and a third oscillation sensor; see [0089-0090]. In [0089], “a second oscillation sensor 204 and a third oscillation sensor 206” should read “a second oscillation sensor 206 and a third oscillation sensor 204”.
The drawings are objected to because the descriptions of Figures 7 and 9 appear to be switched in [0100]. Specifically, large oscillations at the top portion are shown in Fig. 9, not Fig. 7. Also, Examiner suggests Applicant to review the descriptions of Figs. 7 and 9 in [0041] and [0043].
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 11 has a step “Categorize the first signal through a machine learning algorithm” three times in 806, 808, 810. According to [00108], the second and third signals should also be categorized.
The drawings are objected to because the descriptions of Figures 6A and 6B appear to be switched in [0039-0040] and [0087]. Specifically, [0087] describes Fig. 6A as depicting linear acceleration of the mast when oscillations are acceptable and Fig. 6B as depicting linear acceleration of the mast when oscillations are not acceptable (exceeding a threshold). However, according to the numbers on the vertical axis of the plots, the linear acceleration in the x-axis in Fig. 6B is of a smaller magnitude than what is shown in Fig. 6A.
The drawings are objected to because the plots and legends of Figures 6A and 6B are indistinguishable in grayscale and therefore do not meet the standards set by 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (see MPEP 608.02). Figures 6A and 6B should be corrected for printing in black and white/grayscale, or if color drawings are desired, a petition must be filed (see below).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests including the problem addressed by the invention, e.g., suppression of oscillations, in the title.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Both [0041] and [0042] recite “Figures”, but only one figure is described in each paragraph.
In [0082], “inventor” should read “inventory”.
In [0092], “first, second, and second oscillation sensors 202, 206, 204” should read “first, second, and third oscillation sensors 202, 206, 204”.
In [0099], “second signals” should read “second signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “reduce oscillating movement” should read “reduce the oscillating movement” because the oscillating movement is previously recited in the receiving step.
In claim 3, “the method comprising” should read “the method further comprising”.
In claim 3, “reduce oscillating movement of the portion of the longitudinal body” should read “reduce the oscillating movement of the portion of the longitudinal body” because the oscillating movement of the portion of the longitudinal body is previously recited in the monitoring step.
In claim 6, “reduce oscillating movement of the bottom portion of the longitudinal body” should read “reduce the oscillating movement of the bottom portion of the longitudinal body” because the oscillating movement of the bottom portion of the longitudinal body is previously recited in the monitoring step of claim 6.
In claim 7, “receiving the signal” should read “the received signal”.
In claim 7, it is not clear if “a speed” of the longitudinal body is the same as the “current speed” of the robotic vehicle (which comprises the longitudinal body) previously recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “a speed” in claim 7 is assumed to be different from the “current speed” in claim 1.
In claim 9, “reduce oscillating movement” should read “reduce the oscillating movement” because the oscillating movement is previously recited in the claim.
In claim 11, “reduce oscillating movement of the portion” should read “reduce the oscillating movement of the portion” because the oscillating movement is previously recited in the claim.
In claim 13, “reduce oscillating movement of the bottom portion” should read “reduce the oscillating movement of the bottom portion” because the oscillating movement is previously recited in the claim.
In claim 16, the dimension in which the “length of the longitudinal body” and the “length of the ground platform” is measured is not stated. From the drawings, the only dimension in which the longitudinal body 110 is longer than the ground platform 102 is height, with the longitudinal body 110 atop the ground platform 102.
In claim 17, “the label being indicative of whether the training signal is of a first class or a second class” should read “the label being indicative of whether the training signal is of the first class or the second class” because the first class and the second class is previously recited in the claim.
In claim 17, “reduce oscillating movement” should read “reduce the oscillating movement” because the oscillating movement is previously recited in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-17 recite a “longitudinal body”. Longitudinal is a relative term, and the direction in which the longitudinal body is long is not indicated in the claims. However, it is clear from the drawings that the vertical height of selectively extendable frame 110 is greater than its other dimensions. For the purpose of examination, “longitudinal body” is interpreted as a label to refer to the corresponding structure (see below) and “longitudinal” is not a limiting descriptor of the structure. A similar word, “elongate”, is not a relative term.
Claims 11 and 13 recite “a… signal indicative of oscillating movement at the… portion of the longitudinal body” and “reduce oscillating movement of the… portion.” These claims differ from claims 3 and 6, which recite “a… signal… indicative of oscillating movement of the… portion of the longitudinal body.” For the purpose of examination, “a… signal indicative of oscillating movement at the… portion of the longitudinal body” and “a… signal… indicative of oscillating movement of the… portion of the longitudinal body” are considered equivalent.
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 longitudinal body extending from the ground platform for receiving and delivering a container” in claim 9; and
“a first body pivotably connected to a second body” in claim 15.
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.
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 9 recites the generic placeholder “a longitudinal body” plus functional language “extending from the ground platform for receiving and delivering a container” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. In paragraph [0020], the specification discloses the longitudinal body performs this function. In paragraph [0048], the specification discloses “a selectively extendable frame 110 extending outwardly from the movable platform 102.” A frame has been interpreted as the corresponding structure performing the claimed function “extending from the ground platform for receiving and delivering a container.”
Claim 15 recites the generic placeholder “a first body” plus functional language “pivotably connected to a second body” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. In paragraph [0026], the specification discloses the first body performs this function. However, no corresponding structure is recited. The closest structural support is found in [0081], which recites “the selectively extendable frame 110 may be configured as a telescopic frame, such that the first and second sections 112, 114 are foldable. In further non-limiting embodiments, the selectively extendable frame 110 may more than two sections which are configured to fold onto one another.” Still, the specification does not disclose sufficient structure for performing the function “pivotably connected to a second body” and does not clearly link the structure to the function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “a first body pivotably connected to a second body” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific structure sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
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 3-6 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim positively recites limitations of the robotic vehicle (for example, “wherein: the longitudinal body has a top end and a bottom end…”) and steps of the method for controlling the robotic vehicle (for example, “the method comprising: monitoring a second signal provided by the second sensor…”). See MPEP 2173.05(p): “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim the robotic vehicle (apparatus) or the method (method of using the apparatus). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 4-6 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the claim positively recites limitations of the robotic vehicle (for example, “wherein: the robotic vehicle further comprises a third sensor…”) and steps of the method for controlling the robotic vehicle (for example, “the method comprising: monitoring a third signal provided by the third sensor…”). See MPEP 2173.05(p): “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim the robotic vehicle (apparatus) or the method (method of using the apparatus). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “a first body pivotably connected to a second body” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a first body is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to “first body” is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Citations of publications not in the English language refer to the paragraph numbers of the English translations.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing et al. (CN 115593839 A; hereafter “Jing”) in view of Wu (CN 114647238 A).
Regarding claim 9, Jing discloses
A robotic vehicle for delivering containers within a warehouse (See “a material handling robot… to solve the technical problems of low material sorting efficiency and scheduling accuracy in large material storage warehouses” [n0003]. See material 6 (container) in Fig. 6 and [0079].), the robotic vehicle comprising:
a ground platform moveable along a ground surface (See transport mechanism 1 comprising a base and drive components to move the material handling robot [0054]. The wheels 11 turn on a ground surface. See also Figs. 1 and 2.);
a longitudinal body extending from the ground platform for receiving and delivering a container (See “the robotic arm 2 [longitudinal body] is mounted on the base of the transport mechanism 1 and is used to store [deliver] or retrieve [receive] different types of materials 6 [containers] from the shelf” [0055]. The lifting beams 22 form a frame extending from the ground platform; see Fig. 1. See also [0079].);
a sensor positioned on the longitudinal body for generating a signal indicative of… movement of the longitudinal body (See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. “The accelerometer, gyroscope and pressure sensor are used to obtain the current status of goods transportation. When a collision or material tipping occurs, the accelerometer and gyroscope will detect abnormal acceleration or angular acceleration” [0064]. Lifting platform 23 is part of robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body); see Fig. 1. See also [n0008] and [n0024].); and
receive the signal generated by the sensor (See “the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008].);
modify a current speed of the robotic vehicle if the signal is outside a threshold… so as to reduce… movement of the longitudinal body (See “When any value of the acceleration and angular velocity is greater than the corresponding maximum safe operating threshold, the operation of the material handling robot is stopped” [n0008]. Stopping the material handling robot includes modifying the current speed of the robot; see [0008] and [0018].).
However, Jing does not explicitly teach “a sensor positioned on the longitudinal body for generating a signal indicative of oscillating movement of the longitudinal body; and at least one processor communicatively connected to the sensor, the at least one processor being configured to: …compare the signal with a reference signal; and modify a current speed of the robotic vehicle if the signal is outside a threshold interval from the reference signal so as to reduce oscillating movement of the longitudinal body.”
Wu, also measuring oscillations of a robot, teaches
a sensor… for generating a signal indicative of oscillating movement…; and at least one processor communicatively connected to the sensor (See “The sensing component 113 [comprising current sensor 1131] is used to collect vibration data of the current moving section during the robot's movement and send the vibration data to the robot controller” [0096]. In this field, the robot controller is interpreted as being equivalent to a generic computer having a processor. See also [0053], [0100-0101], and [0117].), the at least one processor being configured to:
receive the signal generated by the sensor (See “The sensing component 113 [comprising current sensor 1131] is used to collect vibration data of the current moving section during the robot's movement and send the vibration data to the robot controller” [0096]. See also [0053], [0057], [0063-0064], [0079-0080], and [0100-0101].);
compare the signal with a reference signal (See “The robot controller 111 is used to compare the received vibration data with vibration reference data [reference signal], determine the vibration error based on the comparison result” [0097]. See also [0010], [0083-0085], [0098], and [0104].); and
…if the signal is outside a threshold interval from the reference signal… (See “the robot controller 111 is configured to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is normal when the vibration error is less than or equal to a preset threshold; and to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is abnormal when the vibration error is greater than the preset threshold” [0098]. The error of the signal generated by current sensor 1131 from the reference data being greater than a threshold is the same as the generated signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal defined by the reference data ± the preset threshold. See also [0063-0068], [0086-0090], [0104], and [0114].).
Jing discloses detecting abnormal acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration of the robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body) from an acceleration sensor and gyroscope placed thereon, indicating tipping of the material or robot (see [n0008] and [0064]). Wu teaches sensing vibration (oscillating movement) and comparing that sensor data to vibration reference data corresponding to the current speed of the robot to determine there is an abnormal ground surface if the sensed vibrations exceed a threshold interval [0096-0098]. Jing also discloses stopping the robot when the sensor data exceeds a safe operating threshold, thereby stopping the abnormal movement [n0008]. In combination, Jing and Wu teach “a sensor positioned on the longitudinal body for generating a signal indicative of oscillating movement of the longitudinal body; and at least one processor communicatively connected to the sensor, the at least one processor being configured to: receive the signal generated by the sensor; compare the signal with a reference signal; and modify a current speed of the robotic vehicle if the signal is outside a threshold interval from the reference signal so as to reduce oscillating movement of the longitudinal body.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the material-handling robot of Jing to compare sensor data of oscillatory movement to reference data and determine if the sensor data is outside a threshold as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of “predict[ing] whether there are any abnormalities on the road surface before damage occurs, effectively reducing the occurrence of situations where the robot cannot operate normally due to road surface damage or ground subsidence, thereby improving the robot's operational stability” (Wu, [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Jing/Wu discloses the limitations of claim 9 as addressed above, and Jing additionally discloses
wherein a length of the longitudinal body is larger than a length of the ground platform (See Fig. 1: robot arm 2 has a height much larger than the height of the transport mechanism 1.).
Regarding claim 1, Jing discloses
A method for controlling a robotic vehicle, the robotic vehicle including a ground platform movable on a ground surface, a longitudinal body extending from the ground platform, a sensor located along the longitudinal body, and a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor (See “a material handling robot” [n0003] comprising transport mechanism 1, including a base and drive components to move the material handling robot [0054]. The wheels 11 turn on a ground surface. See “the robotic arm 2 [longitudinal body] is mounted on the base of the transport mechanism 1” [0055]. The lifting beams 22 form a frame extending from the ground platform; see Fig. 1. See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. Lifting platform 23 is part of robotic arm 2; see Fig. 1. See “the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008]. See also Fig. 2.), the method comprising:
receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of… movement of the longitudinal body during operation of the robotic vehicle on the ground surface (See “during the execution of steps S1 to S9 by the control module, the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008]. “When a collision or material tipping occurs, the accelerometer and gyroscope will detect abnormal acceleration or angular acceleration” [0064]. During steps S1 to S9 [0068-0077], “The control module… controls the transportation mechanism to make the material handling robot move along the first navigation route” [0072] by driving Mecanum wheels 11 [0054]. See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. Lifting platform 23 is part of robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body); see Fig. 1.);
in response to the signal being outside a threshold… modifying a current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce… movement of the longitudinal body (See “When any value of the acceleration and angular velocity is greater than the corresponding maximum safe operating threshold, the operation of the material handling robot is stopped” [n0008]. Stopping the material handling robot includes modifying the current speed of the robot; see [0008] and [0018].).
However, Jing does not explicitly teach “receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of oscillating movement of the longitudinal body during operation of the robotic vehicle on the ground surface; receiving a reference signal representative of a normal operating state of the robotic vehicle; in response to the signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal: modifying a current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce oscillating movement of the longitudinal body.”
Wu, also measuring oscillations of a robot, teaches
receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of oscillating movement… during operation of the robotic vehicle on the ground surface (See “The sensing component 113 [comprising current sensor 1131] is used to collect vibration data of the current moving section during the robot's movement and send the vibration data to the robot controller” [0096]. The vibration data is analyzed to “determine whether there is a road surface abnormality in the current moving section of the robot… and send the road surface abnormality result and the current position information of the robot to the system server” (determine if the road/ground that the robot is currently moving/operating over has an abnormality) [0097]. In this field, the robot controller is interpreted as being equivalent to a generic computer having a processor. See also [0053], [0057], [0063-0064], [0079-0080], [0100-0101], and [0117].);
receiving a reference signal representative of a normal operating state of the robotic vehicle (See “The robot controller 111 is used to compare the received vibration data with vibration reference data [reference signal], determine the vibration error based on the comparison result” [0097]. To compare the current sensor data with past reference data, the robot controller 111 directly or indirectly received the reference data/signal. If the vibration error between the reference data and the received sensor data exceeds a threshold, the current position is determined to have a road surface abnormality [0097]; therefore, the reference data represents a normal operating state of the robot 11 on a normal road surface. See also [0010], [0076], [0083-0085], [0098], and [0104].);
…the signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal (See “the robot controller 111 is configured to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is normal when the vibration error is less than or equal to a preset threshold; and to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is abnormal when the vibration error is greater than the preset threshold” [0098]. The error of the signal generated by current sensor 1131 from the reference data being greater than a threshold is the same as the generated signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal defined by the reference data ± the preset threshold. See also [0063-0068], [0086-0090], and [0104].).
Jing discloses detecting abnormal acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration of the robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body) from an acceleration sensor and gyroscope placed thereon, indicating tipping of the material or robot (see [n0008] and [0064]). Wu teaches sensing vibration (oscillating movement) and comparing that sensor data to vibration reference data corresponding to the current speed of the robot to determine there is an abnormal ground surface if the sensed vibrations exceed a threshold interval [0096-0098]. Jing also discloses stopping the robot when the sensor data exceeds a safe operating threshold, thereby stopping the abnormal movement [n0008]. In combination, Jing and Wu teach “receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of oscillating movement of the longitudinal body during operation of the robotic vehicle on the ground surface; receiving a reference signal representative of a normal operating state of the robotic vehicle; in response to the signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal: modifying a current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce oscillating movement of the longitudinal body.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the material-handling robot of Jing to compare sensor data of oscillatory movement to reference data and determine if the sensor data is outside a threshold as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of “predict[ing] whether there are any abnormalities on the road surface before damage occurs, effectively reducing the occurrence of situations where the robot cannot operate normally due to road surface damage or ground subsidence, thereby improving the robot's operational stability” (Wu, [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Jing/Wu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Jing additionally discloses
wherein modifying the current speed of the robotic vehicle comprises reducing the current speed of the robotic vehicle (See “When any value of the acceleration and angular velocity is greater than the corresponding maximum safe operating threshold, the operation of the material handling robot is stopped” [n0008]. Stopping the material handling robot includes reducing the current speed of the robot; see also [0008] and [0018].).
Regarding claim 7, Jing/Wu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Jing additionally discloses
wherein receiving the signal generated by the sensor is indicative of at least one of: a speed, an angular velocity, a linear velocity, a displacement, an angular acceleration, and a linear acceleration of the longitudinal body (See “the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008]. See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. Lifting platform 23 is part of robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body); see Fig. 1. See also [0064].).
Regarding claim 8, Jing/Wu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Jing additionally discloses
further comprising redistributing a position of a container along a length of the longitudinal body (In step S6, the material transport robot picks up a material 6 at its “corresponding picking height” on a shelf using the lifting platform 23 of robotic arm 2 [0073]. The material 6 is a container; see Fig. 6 and [0079]. Then in step S7, “The control module 4 controls the lifting motor 21 to lower the height of the lifting plate 23 to the transportation height, which is usually lower than the picking height” [0074]. This is redistributing a position of a container along a length of the longitudinal body (robotic arm 2); see Fig. 1.), and
sending an alert to an operator (If, based on the sensor data, “the system determines that an abnormal collision has occurred and… the communication is normal, a first abnormal transportation record [alert] containing the current location information is generated and sent to the main control console so that the staff can retrieve the monitoring video at the location where the abnormality occurred” [n0024]. See also [0077] and [n0025]. See also [0071] and [0114] of Wu.).
Claims 3, 6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Wu, and further in view of Homburg and Jost (US 20080223134 A1; hereafter “Homburg”).
Regarding claim 3, Jing/Wu disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Jing additionally discloses
wherein: the longitudinal body has a top end and a bottom end, the bottom end connected to the ground platform (See Fig. 1: robotic arm 2 has a top end (near transmission pulley block 26) opposite the bottom end attached to transportation mechanism 1 [0055].);
the robotic vehicle further comprising a second sensor located on a portion of the longitudinal body between the top end and the bottom end, the second sensor being communicatively coupled to the processor; and the method comprising: monitoring a second signal provided by the second sensor indicative of… movement of the portion of the longitudinal body (See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. Either of the accelerometer and the gyroscope may be the second sensor, and the other the first sensor. The lifting platform 23 sits between the top end and the bottom end of the robotic arm 2; see Fig. 1. See “the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback [signal] from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008]. In addition, the lifting platform 23 also has a camera 24 and pressure sensor attached [0063]. See also [n0025], [0064], and [0073].);
in response to the second signal being outside a second threshold… modifying the current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce… movement of the portion of the longitudinal body (See “When any value of the acceleration and angular velocity is greater than the corresponding maximum safe operating threshold, the operation of the material handling robot is stopped” [n0008]. The word “corresponding” indicates the acceleration and angular velocity have different thresholds; there is thus a second threshold for the second signal from the second sensor. Stopping the material handling robot includes modifying the current speed of the robot; see [0008] and [0018]. See also a pressure threshold in [n0025].).
As in claim 1, Wu teaches
the… sensor being communicatively coupled to the processor (See “The sensing component 113 [comprising current sensor 1131] is used to collect vibration data of the current moving section during the robot's movement and send the vibration data to the robot controller” [0096]. In this field, the robot controller is interpreted as being equivalent to a generic computer having a processor.); and
in response to the… signal being outside a… threshold interval from a second reference signal… (See “the robot controller 111 is configured to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is normal when the vibration error is less than or equal to a preset threshold; and to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is abnormal when the vibration error is greater than the preset threshold” [0098]. The error of the signal generated by current sensor 1131 from the reference data being greater than a threshold is the same as the generated signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal defined by the reference data ± the preset threshold. Additional reference data corresponding to a “running stage” (the stages are acceleration, constant speed, or deceleration [0082]) can be combined with the previous reference data for comparison to the threshold interval [0085-0087]. See also [0063-0068], [0089-0090], [0104], and [0114].).
Jing discloses detecting abnormal acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration of the robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body) from an acceleration sensor and gyroscope placed thereon, indicating tipping of the material or robot (see [n0008] and [0064]). Wu teaches sensing vibration (oscillating movement) and comparing that sensor data to vibration reference data corresponding to the current speed of the robot to determine there is an abnormal ground surface if the sensed vibrations exceed a threshold interval [0096-0098]. Jing also discloses stopping the robot when the sensor data exceeds a safe operating threshold, thereby stopping the abnormal movement [n0008]. Together, Jing/Wu teach “in response to the second signal being outside a second threshold interval from a second reference signal: modifying the current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce oscillating movement of the portion of the longitudinal body.”
However, Jing/Wu do not explicitly teach “the sensor is a first sensor located at the top end of the longitudinal body, the signal being a first signal indicative of oscillating movement of the top end of the longitudinal body.”
Homburg, in the same field of endeavor (dynamic stability of masts), teaches
wherein: the longitudinal body has a top end and a bottom end… (See mast 11 with mast top 15 and mast base 16 in Fig. 1.);
the sensor is a first sensor located at the top end of the longitudinal body, the signal being a first signal indicative of oscillating movement of the top end of the longitudinal body (See horizontal acceleration sensors 13 at the mast top 15 in Fig. 1. See “mast 11 is excited to oscillate in the uppermost third of mast height h by the imbalance of imbalance exciter 12. The horizontal acceleration sensors 13 capture the acceleration measurements (acceleration signals) at their respective positions (measuring points) on mast 11 and transfer such for recording and/or analysis to capturing and/or analysis arrangement 21” [0099]. See also [0089] and [0094].);
…a second sensor located on a portion of the longitudinal body between the top end and the bottom end, the second sensor being communicatively coupled to the processor; and the method comprising: monitoring a second signal provided by the second sensor indicative of oscillating movement of the portion of the longitudinal body (See a plurality of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 and vertical acceleration sensors 14 on the portion of the longitudinal body between the mast top 15 and mast base 16 in Fig. 1. See “mast 11 is excited to oscillate in the uppermost third of mast height h by the imbalance of imbalance exciter 12. The horizontal acceleration sensors 13 capture the acceleration measurements (acceleration signals) at their respective positions (measuring points) on mast 11 and transfer such for recording and/or analysis to capturing and/or analysis arrangement 21” [0099]. See also [0089] and [0094].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the oscillation-sensing robot of Jing/Wu with additional oscillation sensors along the mast as taught by Homburg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of calculating “the maximum deflection of the mast at different excitement frequencies” and identifying defects in the mast (Wu, [0061-0063] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Jing/Wu/Homburg disclose the limitations of claim 3 as addressed above, and, similar to claim 3, Jing/Wu teaches
wherein: the robotic vehicle further comprises a third sensor… (See in Jing: lifting platform 23 has a camera 24 and pressure sensor attached [0063]. See also [n0025], [0064], and [0073].),
the third sensor being communicatively coupled to the processor (See in Wu: “The sensing component 113 [comprising current sensor 1131] is used to collect vibration data of the current moving section during the robot's movement and send the vibration data to the robot controller” [0096]. In this field, the robot controller is interpreted as being equivalent to a generic computer having a processor.); and
in response to the third signal being outside a threshold interval from a third reference signal: modifying the current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce oscillating movement of the bottom portion of the longitudinal body (Jing discloses detecting abnormal acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration of the robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body) from an acceleration sensor and gyroscope placed thereon, indicating tipping of the material or robot (see [n0008] and [0064]). Jing also discloses detecting an abnormal pressure with a pressure sensor on the robotic arm 2; see [0063] and [n0025]. Wu teaches sensing vibration (oscillating movement) and comparing that sensor data to vibration reference data corresponding to the current speed of the robot to determine there is an abnormal ground surface if the sensed vibrations exceed a threshold interval [0096-0098]. The error of the signal generated by current sensor 1131 from the reference data being greater than a threshold is the same as the generated signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal defined by the reference data ± the preset threshold. Jing also discloses stopping the robot when the sensor data exceeds a safe operating threshold, thereby stopping the abnormal movement; see [n0008] and [n0025]. See also [0063-0068], [0089-0090], [0104], and [0114] of Wu.).
Homburg additionally discloses
wherein: the robotic vehicle further comprises a third sensor positioned on a bottom portion, the bottom portion located between the second sensor and the bottom end… (See the third set of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 on a bottom portion of mast 11 below a first set of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 at the mast top 15 and a second set of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 on the middle portion of mast 11 in Fig. 1. See also the vertical acceleration sensors 14 near the mast base 16 in Fig. 1. See also [0094] and [0099].); and
the method further comprising: monitoring a third signal provided by the third sensor indicative of oscillating movement of the bottom portion of the longitudinal body (See “mast 11 is excited to oscillate in the uppermost third of mast height h by the imbalance of imbalance exciter 12. The horizontal acceleration sensors 13 capture the acceleration measurements (acceleration signals) at their respective positions (measuring points) on mast 11 and transfer such for recording and/or analysis to capturing and/or analysis arrangement 21” [0099]. See also [0089] and [0094].).
Thus, the combination of Jing/Wu/Homburg as a whole teaches the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Jing/Wu disclose the limitations of claim 9 as addressed above, and Jing additionally discloses
wherein: the longitudinal body comprises a top end and a bottom end, the bottom end being connected to the ground platform (See Fig. 1: robotic arm 2 has a top end (near transmission pulley block 26) opposite the bottom end attached to transportation mechanism 1 [0055].).
However, Jing/Wu do not explicitly teach “the sensor is a first sensor for generating a first signal positioned at the top end of the longitudinal body such that the first signal generated by the first sensor is indicative of oscillating movement of the top end of the longitudinal body.”
Homburg, in the same field of endeavor (dynamic stability of masts), teaches
wherein: the longitudinal body comprises a top end and a bottom end… (See mast 11 with mast top 15 and mast base 16 in Fig. 1.); and
the sensor is a first sensor for generating a first signal positioned at the top end of the longitudinal body such that the first signal generated by the first sensor is indicative of oscillating movement of the top end of the longitudinal body (See horizontal acceleration sensors 13 at the mast top 15 in Fig. 1. See “mast 11 is excited to oscillate in the uppermost third of mast height h by the imbalance of imbalance exciter 12. The horizontal acceleration sensors 13 capture the acceleration measurements (acceleration signals) at their respective positions (measuring points) on mast 11 and transfer such for recording and/or analysis to capturing and/or analysis arrangement 21” [0099]. See also [0089] and [0094].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the oscillation-sensing robot of Jing/Wu with additional oscillation sensors along the mast as taught by Homburg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of calculating “the maximum deflection of the mast at different excitement frequencies” and identifying defects in the mast (Wu, [0061-0063] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Jing/Wu/Homburg disclose the limitations of claim 10 as addressed above, and Homburg additionally teaches
a second sensor positioned at a portion of the longitudinal body for generating a second signal indicative of oscillating movement at the portion of the longitudinal body, the portion being between the top end and the bottom end of the longitudinal body; and… receive the second signal generated by the second sensor (See a plurality of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 and vertical acceleration sensors 14 on the portion of the longitudinal body between the mast top 15 and mast base 16 in Fig. 1. See “mast 11 is excited to oscillate in the uppermost third of mast height h by the imbalance of imbalance exciter 12. The horizontal acceleration sensors 13 capture the acceleration measurements (acceleration signals) at their respective positions (measuring points) on mast 11 and transfer such for recording and/or analysis to capturing and/or analysis arrangement 21” [0099]. See also [0089] and [0094].).
Jing additionally discloses
further comprising: a second sensor positioned at a portion of the longitudinal body for generating a second signal… (See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. Either of the accelerometer and the gyroscope may be the second sensor, and the other the first sensor. The lifting platform 23 sits between the top end and the bottom end of the robotic arm 2; see Fig. 1. See “the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback [signal] from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008]. In addition, the lifting platform 23 also has a camera 24 and pressure sensor attached [0063]. See also [n0025], [0064], and [0073].);
receive the second signal generated by the second sensor (See “the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback [signal] from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008].);
modify the current speed of the robotic vehicle if the second signal is outside a second threshold… so as to reduce… movement of the portion (See “When any value of the acceleration and angular velocity is greater than the corresponding maximum safe operating threshold, the operation of the material handling robot is stopped” [n0008]. The word “corresponding” indicates the acceleration and angular velocity have different thresholds; there is thus a second threshold for the second signal from the second sensor. Stopping the material handling robot includes modifying the current speed of the robot; see [0008] and [0018]. See also a pressure threshold in [n0025].).
Similar to claim 9, Wu additionally teaches
the at least one processor being communicatively connected to the… sensor (See “The sensing component 113 [comprising current sensor 1131] is used to collect vibration data of the current moving section during the robot's movement and send the vibration data to the robot controller” [0096]. In this field, the robot controller is interpreted as being equivalent to a generic computer having a processor.), the at least one processor being configured to:
compare the… signal with a second reference signal (See “the robot controller 111 is configured to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is normal when the vibration error is less than or equal to a preset threshold; and to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is abnormal when the vibration error is greater than the preset threshold” [0098]. The error of the signal generated by current sensor 1131 from the reference data being greater than a threshold is the same as the generated signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal defined by the reference data ± the preset threshold. Additional reference data corresponding to a “running stage” (the stages are acceleration, constant speed, or deceleration [0082]) can be combined with the previous reference data for comparison to the threshold interval [0085-0087]. See also [0063-0068], [0089-0090], [0104], and [0114].); and
…if the second signal is outside a second threshold interval from the second reference signal… (See “the robot controller 111 is configured to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is normal when the vibration error is less than or equal to a preset threshold; and to determine that the road surface of the current moving section of the robot is abnormal when the vibration error is greater than the preset threshold” [0098]. The error of the signal generated by current sensor 1131 from the reference data being greater than a threshold is the same as the generated signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal defined by the reference data ± the preset threshold. Additional reference data corresponding to a “running stage” (the stages are acceleration, constant speed, or deceleration [0082]) can be combined with the previous reference data for comparison to the threshold interval [0085-0087]. See also [0063-0068], [0089-0090], [0104], and [0114].).
Jing discloses detecting abnormal acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration of the robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body) from an acceleration sensor and gyroscope placed thereon, indicating tipping of the material or robot (see [n0008] and [0064]). Wu teaches sensing vibration (oscillating movement) and comparing that sensor data to vibration reference data corresponding to the current speed of the robot to determine there is an abnormal ground surface if the sensed vibrations exceed a threshold interval [0096-0098]. Homburg teaches recording and analyzing data from multiple sensors of a mast’s oscillations [0099]. Jing also discloses stopping the robot when the sensor data exceeds a safe operating threshold, thereby stopping the abnormal movement [n0008]. Together, Jing/Wu/Homburg teach “modify the current speed of the robotic vehicle if the second signal is outside a second threshold interval from the second reference signal so as to reduce oscillating movement of the portion.”
Thus, the combination of Jing/Wu/Homburg as a whole teaches the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Jing/Wu/Homburg disclose the limitations of claim 11 as addressed above, and additionally disclose that the height of the second sensor can be adjusted (because the accelerometer and gyroscope are attached to the lifting platform 23 which raises and lowers, scanning a shelf from bottom to top; see [0063] and [0073-0074] of Jing) such that “the first sensor [at the mast top 15 as taught by Homburg in Fig. 1] and the second sensor are evenly spaced along the longitudinal body.”
Moreover, Homburg discloses
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are evenly spaced along the longitudinal body (See “horizontal acceleration measurements are determined at one or several measuring levels distributed over the mast height” [0048], where the “several acceleration sensors, 13, 14… are located distributed over the mast height of mast 11” [0094]. Furthermore, “the measurement points are evenly distributed over the measurement level on the mast” [0050].).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known method of distributing the sensors evenly around the mast (Homburg, [0050]) could have been applied to distributing the sensors evenly along the mast because the exact locations of the sensors are a design choice. The sensors would have performed the same function at their locations along the mast, so the choice of evenly distributing the sensors would have had a predictable result of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have evenly distributed the oscillation sensors of Homburg along the robotic arm of the oscillation-sensing robot of Jing/Wu/Homburg.
Regarding claim 13, Jing/Wu/Homburg disclose the limitations of claim 11 as addressed above, and Homburg additionally discloses
further comprising: a third sensor positioned at a bottom portion of the longitudinal body for generating a third signal indicative of oscillating movement at the bottom portion of the longitudinal body, the bottom portion being between the bottom end and the second sensor (See the third set of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 on a bottom portion of mast 11, below both a first set of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 at the mast top 15 and a second set of horizontal acceleration sensors 13 on the middle portion of mast 11, but above the mast base 16 in Fig. 1. See also the vertical acceleration sensors 14 near the mast base 16 in Fig. 1. See “mast 11 is excited to oscillate in the uppermost third of mast height h by the imbalance of imbalance exciter 12. The horizontal acceleration sensors 13 capture the acceleration measurements (acceleration signals) at their respective positions (measuring points) on mast 11” [0099]. See also [0048], [0094], and [0099].); and
receive the third signal generated by the third sensor (See “The horizontal acceleration sensors 13 capture the acceleration measurements (acceleration signals) at their respective positions (measuring points) on mast 11 and transfer such for recording and/or analysis to capturing and/or analysis arrangement 21” [0099]. See also [0089] and [0094].).
Similar to claim 11, Jing/Wu teaches
the at least one processor being communicatively connected to the third sensor (See in Wu: “The sensing component 113 [comprising current sensor 1131] is used to collect vibration data of the current moving section during the robot's movement and send the vibration data to the robot controller” [0096]. In this field, the robot controller is interpreted as being equivalent to a generic computer having a processor.), the at least one processor being configured to:
compare the third signal with a third reference signal; and modify the current speed of the robotic vehicle if the third signal is outside a third threshold interval from the third reference signal so as to reduce oscillating movement of the bottom portion (Wu teaches sensing vibration (oscillating movement) and comparing that sensor data to vibration reference data corresponding to the current speed of the robot to determine there is an abnormal ground surface if the sensed vibrations exceed a threshold interval [0096-0098]. The error of the signal generated by current sensor 1131 from the reference data being greater than a threshold is the same as the generated signal being outside a threshold interval from the reference signal defined by the reference data ± the preset threshold. Jing also discloses stopping the robot (modifying the current speed) when the accelerometer or gyroscope sensor data exceeds a safe operating threshold, thereby stopping the abnormal movement; see [n0008] and [n0025]. See also [n0008] and [0063-0064] of Jing and [0063-0068], [0089-0090], [0104], and [0114] of Wu.).
Thus, the combination of Jing/Wu/Homburg as a whole teaches the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Jing/Wu/Homburg disclose the limitations of claim 13 as addressed above, and additionally disclose that the height of the second sensor can be adjusted (because the accelerometer and gyroscope are attached to the lifting platform 23 which raises and lowers, scanning a shelf from bottom to top; see [0063] and [0073-0074] of Jing) such that “the first sensor [at the mast top 15 as taught by Homburg in Fig. 1], the second sensor, and the third sensor [in the lower third of the mast 15 as taught by Homburg in Fig. 1 and [0048]] are evenly spaced along the longitudinal body.”
Moreover, Homburg discloses
wherein the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor, are evenly spaced along the longitudinal body (See “horizontal acceleration measurements are determined at one or several measuring levels distributed over the mast height” [0048], where the “several acceleration sensors, 13, 14… are located distributed over the mast height of mast 11. Specifically, for this purpose, at least two horizontal acceleration sensors 13 are positioned along a line parallel to mast axis 19 in the lowest third, in the middle third and the upper third (close to mast top 15) of mast height h of mast 11” [0094]. Furthermore, “the measurement points are evenly distributed over the measurement level on the mast” [0050].).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known method of distributing the sensors evenly around the mast (Homburg, [0050]) could have been applied to distributing the sensors evenly along the mast because the exact locations of the sensors are a design choice. The sensors would have performed the same function at their locations along the mast, so the choice of evenly distributing the sensors would have had a predictable result of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have evenly distributed the oscillation sensors of Homburg along the robotic arm of the oscillation-sensing robot of Jing/Wu/Homburg.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Wu, and further in view of Elazary et al. (EP 3283407 B1; hereafter “Elazary”).
Regarding claim 15, Jing/Wu disclose the limitations of claim 9 as addressed above. However, Jing/Wu do not explicitly teach “wherein the longitudinal body is foldable and comprises a first body pivotably connected to a second body.”
Elazary, in the same field of endeavor (warehouse robots), teaches
wherein the longitudinal body is foldable and comprises a first body pivotably connected to a second body (In Fig. 2, see extendible lift 230 comprising 10 bodies, each body pivotably connected to at least two other bodies. See “The extendible lift 230 is a folding or collapsible framework that can expand to lift the robot retriever 240 to any of several heights” [0020].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the oscillation-sensing robot of Jing/Wu with the extendable lift of Elazary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of configuring the robot with a smaller or larger lift suitable for the height of the shelving in a given warehouse (Elazary, [0020]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Lee et al. (KR 20230071533 A; hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 17, Jing discloses
A method for controlling a robotic vehicle, the robotic vehicle including a ground platform movable on a ground surface, a longitudinal body extending from the ground platform, a sensor located along the longitudinal body, and a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor (See “a material handling robot” [n0003] comprising transport mechanism 1, including a base and drive components to move the material handling robot [0054]. The wheels 11 turn on a ground surface. See “the robotic arm 2 [longitudinal body] is mounted on the base of the transport mechanism 1” [0055]. The lifting beams 22 form a frame extending from the ground platform; see Fig. 1. See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. Lifting platform 23 is part of robotic arm 2; see Fig. 1. See “the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008]. See also Fig. 2.), the method comprising:
receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of… movement of the longitudinal body during operation of the robotic vehicle on the ground surface (See “during the execution of steps S1 to S9 by the control module, the control module continuously collects the acceleration and angular velocity feedback from the acceleration sensor and gyroscope” [n0008]. “When a collision or material tipping occurs, the accelerometer and gyroscope will detect abnormal acceleration or angular acceleration” [0064]. During steps S1 to S9 [0068-0077], “The control module… controls the transportation mechanism to make the material handling robot move along the first navigation route” [0072] by driving Mecanum wheels 11 on the ground [0054]. See “an accelerometer and a gyroscope are installed at the bottom of the lifting platform 23” [0063]. Lifting platform 23 is part of robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body); see Fig. 1.);
…modifying a current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce… movement of the longitudinal body (See “When any value of the acceleration and angular velocity is greater than the corresponding maximum safe operating threshold, the operation of the material handling robot is stopped” [n0008]. Stopping the material handling robot includes modifying the current speed of the robot; see [0008] and [0018].).
However, Jing does not explicitly teach “receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of oscillating movement of the longitudinal body during operation of the robotic vehicle on the ground surface; feeding the signal to a machine learning algorithm for determining a predicted class, the machine learning algorithm having been trained to predict whether the signal is of a first class or a second class based on a training signal and a label, the label being indicative of whether the training signal is of a first class or a second class; and in response to the predicted class: modifying a current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce oscillating movement of the longitudinal body.”
Lee, also detecting oscillation data from industrial robots, teaches
receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of oscillating movement of the longitudinal body during operation of the robot… (See “First, in the step (S110) of generating the vibration data, the first sensor (111) provided in the robot (10) in the fault diagnosis system (100) detects vibrations occurring during the operation of the robot (10) and generates vibration data” [0042]. See also [0044], [0047], [0056-0059], and [0090].);
feeding the signal to a machine learning algorithm for determining a predicted class, the machine learning algorithm having been trained to predict whether the signal is of a first class or a second class based on a training signal and a label, the label being indicative of whether the training signal is of a first class or a second class (Feeding: see “in a method for diagnosing whether a robot (10) is faulty in a fault diagnosis system (100), a step (S110) of generating vibration data by detecting vibration occurring during the operation of the robot (10) using a first sensor (111) provided in the robot (10), a step (S120) of converting the vibration data into an image… and a step (S130) of diagnosing [predicting] whether the robot (10) is faulty [a predicted class] based on an output value obtained by inputting the image into a pre-trained neural network model (131)” [0020]. The neural network model 131 is a machine learning algorithm. Training: see “vibration data [training signal] for a robot (10) in a normal state [first class] and vibration data [training signal] for a robot (10) in a fault state [second class] may be collected and labeled to form learning data, and then the neural network model (131) may be implemented through a learning process” [0082]. See also [0050-0051], [0061], and [0096].); and
in response to the predicted class… (See “Additionally, the step of diagnosing whether there is a fault (S130) may include a step (not shown) of determining the type of fault by considering the frequency of the vibration when the robot (10) is diagnosed as having a fault. Furthermore, the step of diagnosing whether the above is faulty (S130) may include a step (not shown) of predicting the lifespan of the robot (10) based on the output value when the robot (10) is diagnosed as normal” [0052-0053].).
Jing discloses detecting abnormal acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration of the robotic arm 2 (longitudinal body) from an acceleration sensor and gyroscope placed thereon, indicating tipping of the material or robot (see [n0008] and [0064]). Lee teaches sensing vibration (oscillating movement) and analyzing that sensor data with a trained neural network model to determine if the robot has a fault [0037], where the training vibration data was labeled [0082]. Jing also discloses stopping the robot when the sensor data exceeds a safe operating threshold (i.e., is determined to be abnormal), thereby stopping the abnormal movement [n0008]. In combination, Jing and Lee teach “receiving a signal generated by the sensor indicative of oscillating movement of the longitudinal body during operation of the robotic vehicle on the ground surface; feeding the signal to a machine learning algorithm for determining a predicted class, the machine learning algorithm having been trained to predict whether the signal is of a first class or a second class based on a training signal and a label, the label being indicative of whether the training signal is of a first class or a second class; and in response to the predicted class: modifying a current speed of the robotic vehicle so as to reduce oscillating movement of the longitudinal body.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the material-handling robot of Jing to use machine learning to determine if the sensed oscillations are faulty/abnormal or safe/normal as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of “accurately diagnosing faults or predicting lifespan without structural changes to the robot” (Lee, [0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Jing/Wu/Homburg disclose the limitations of claim 3 as addressed above, including “comparing the first signal of the first sensor and the second signal of the second sensor” to thresholds before stopping the robot (Jing, [n0008]). Lee also teaches “comparing the first signal of the first sensor and the second signal of the second sensor” to each other [0046]. Homburg further teaches “determining whether the longitudinal body is experiencing a higher-risk oscillation type or a lower-risk oscillation type” [0104].
However, Jing/Wu/Homburg does not teach “wherein: the higher-risk oscillation type occurs when the first signal and the second signal are in phase; and the lower-risk oscillation type occurs when the first signal and the second signal are out of phase.”
Examiner has not found prior art in a reasonable combination that teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 4 contains allowable subject matter. The closest prior art found in Examiner’s search are Jing, Wu, and Homburg as detailed above.
Claim 5 also contains allowable subject matter because it is dependent on claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights