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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-23 are pending in this application. Claims 24-74 were canceled by preliminary amendment.
Specification
The 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. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13, 15-18, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite the word “forks”. While applicant’s disclosed fork may comprise multiple tines, applicant’s mobile robot only comprises a single fork and so the plural forks appears to be improper.
Claim 6 is further objected to because it recites, “wherein the at least one forks engaged-sensor comprises at least one fork tine having a plurality of sensors.” While a fork tine may comprise sensors, it seems improbable that a sensor would comprise fork tines, and indeed applicant’s sensors do not comprise fork tines. We presume this is a drafting error that could be repaired, for example, by reciting “wherein at least one fork tine comprises a plurality of sensors.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Claim 11 is a multiple dependent claim from which claim 12 may depend because of its own alternation of “any preceding claim”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action we consider that claim 12 depends from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
We acknowledge applicant’s definition of the term “horizontal infrastructure” in their paragraph [0035] of the instant specification. Of course, the usual meaning of “infrastructure” has no relation to applicant’s usage, but as applicant is entitled to act as their own lexicographer the meaning of the term is clear in the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by Tretyakov, Slava, US 2023/0137089 (hereinafter Tretyakov).
Regarding claim 1,
Tretyakov discloses:
An autonomous mobile robot (vehicle 1: fig. 1A), comprising:
at least one processor in communication with at least one computer memory device;Tretyakov discloses a variety of controllers for its robot including a lifting controller in [0099]. All controllers are computers, and all computers comprise processors and memory.
fork tines (unnumbered: fig. 1A) configured to engage a forks-engageable payload;
and a forks monitoring system (load placement and monitoring system: [0028]) comprising at least one forks-engaged sensor (sensors 2b, 3a-b, 6a-b: fig. 1A) configured to acquire data indicating at least partial engagement of the fork tines with the forks-engageable payload, and configured to determine if the fork tines are at least partially engaged with the forks-engageable payload based on outputs from the at least one forks-engaged sensor. Tretyakov discloses first in [0104] that its sensors 2a-b can be used to determine fork pockets in payloads, which is to say engagement between tines and the slots in pallets (pockets) in which tines are meant to engage. Moreover sensor 2b is mounted at the base of the fork. These are therefore forks-engaged sensors. Tretyakov further discloses in [0108] that its fork-mounted sensors 3a-b also detect the pockets for the purpose of engagement between tines and payload. Finally, sensors 6a-b, being mounted on the fork, are also forks-engaged and being used per [0110] to determine vehicle position and attitude may also be employed as part of the determination process for fork and tine engagement.
Regarding claim 2,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one sensor coupled to or within one or more of the fork tines. Tretyakov’s sensor 2b is coupled to its fork and its sensors 3a-b and 6a-b are within its robot’s fork tines.
Regarding claim 3,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one sensor coupled to or within each fork tine. Tretyakov’s sensors 3a-b and 6a-b are within each respective robot fork tine.
Regarding claim 4,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one sensor coupled to or within only one of the fork tines. Tretyakov’s sensors 3 and 6 are each (a or b) within exactly one of each of their respective robot fork tines.
Regarding claim 5,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one forks engaged-sensor comprises a plurality of sensors coupled to or within at least one fork tine. Tretyakov’s sensors 3a-b and 6-ab comprise the claimed plurality.
Regarding claim 6,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one forks engaged-sensor comprises at least one fork tine having a plurality of sensors. See claim objection above. Tretyakov discloses in fig. 1A each of its two fork tines comprises two sensors 3 and 6 (a and b).
Regarding claim 7,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 6 and also:
wherein the at least one fork tine having a plurality of sensors includes a fork tine having a plurality of sensors located at different locations along a length of the fork tine. This arrangement can be seen in Tretyakov’s fig. 1A wherein 3a-b, and 6a-b are at different locations.
Regarding claim 9,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises a sensor at an intermediate location of a fork tine. Tretyakov’s sensors 6a-b in fig. 1A are at an intermediate location of a fork tine.
Regarding claim 10,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises a sensor at a distal end of a fork tine. Tretyakov’s sensors 3a-b in fig. 1A are at a distal end of a fork tine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Xiang, J., CN 106966338 (hereinafter Xiang).
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises a sensor at a proximal end of a fork tine. While Tretyakov’s sensor 2b is at the proximal end of its fork, it is not at the proximal end of a fork tine.
Xiang, an invention in the field of forklifts, teaches:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises a sensor (7: fig. 1) at a proximal end of a fork tine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises a sensor at a proximal end of a fork tine, as taught by Xiang, because while a sensor at the distal end of a fork tine may detect initial engagement with a payload, a sensor at the proximal end of the tine can detect if the payload is properly seated on the tine itself, which is plainly an advantage in transporting a payload securely.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Haroutel, et al., US 4,805,950 (hereinafter Haroutel).
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one retractable feeler switch.Tretyakov does not disclose this type of sensor.
Haroutel, an invention in the field of gripping devices, teaches:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one retractable feeler switch.Haroutel teaches this kind of sensor in claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one retractable feeler switch, as taught by Haroutel, because while optical sensors have greater flexibility and can detect a wide variety of conditions, for the sole purpose of detecting physical engagement with an object a retractable feeler switch is cheaper and more reliable; moreover, such switches have been in common use for many years.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Schoening; Kenneth F, US 2023/0214621 (hereinafter Schoening).
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one strain gauge sensor. Tretyakov does not disclose this type of sensor.
Schoening, an invention in the field of RFID electronics, teaches the limitation:
wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one strain gauge sensor. Schoening teaches the use of a strain gauge sensor on a forklift tong (tine) in [0024] for the purpose of detecting a payload carried on the fork.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, wherein the at least one forks-engaged sensor comprises at least one strain gauge sensor, as taught by Schoening, because while optical sensors have greater flexibility and can detect a wide variety of conditions, for the sole purpose of detecting physical engagement with an object a strain gauge sensor is cheaper and more reliable; moreover, such sensors have been in common use for many years.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Chilson, et al., US 2005/0244259 (hereinafter Chilson).
Regarding claim 13,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
further comprising: a payload engagement module configured to adjust a position of the fork tines in response to a signal from the forks monitoring system indicating the fork tines are at least partially engaged with the forks-engageable payload. Tretyakov does not disclose the module or the adjustment.
Chilson, an invention in the field of AGV forklifts, teaches:
further comprising: a payload engagement module configured to adjust a position of the fork tines in response to a signal from the forks monitoring system indicating the fork tines are at least partially engaged with the forks-engageable payload. We consider the claimed “payload engagement module” to be an aspect of applicant’s control software and not a discrete device in itself. Chilson teaches the claimed adjustment in brief in [0014] and in detail in [0024]-[0026] and [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, further comprising: a payload engagement module configured to adjust a position of the fork tines in response to a signal from the forks monitoring system indicating the fork tines are at least partially engaged with the forks-engageable payload, as taught by Chilson, because having engaged a payload with a forklift fork, the payload may not be securely engaged and so it is necessary to adjust the fork in order to secure the load and prevent it from dropping or being damaged en route.
Regarding claim 14,
Tretyakov in view of Chilson teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
wherein the payload engagement module is configured to vertically adjust a height of the fork tines. Chilson teaches this vertical adjustment in [0024].
Regarding claim 15,
Tretyakov in view of Chilson teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
wherein the payload engagement module is configured to raise the fork tines in response to the forks monitoring system outputting a signal indicating the fork tines are engaged with a bottom deck of the forks-engageable payload. Tretyakov discloses this determination and raising the payload in [0151].
Regarding claim 16,
Tretyakov in view of Chilson teaches the limitations of claim 14 and also:
wherein the payload engagement module is configured to lower the fork tines in response to the forks monitoring system outputting a signal indicating the fork tines are engaged with a top deck of the forks-engageable payload. Tretyakov discloses lowering the payload in [0154].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Chilson and further in view of Shigemasa, et al., US 2023/0382703 (hereinafter Shigemasa).
Tretyakov in view of Chilson teaches the limitations of claim 13 but not:
wherein the payload engagement module is further configured to retract the fork tines in response to the forks monitoring system outputting a signal indicating the fork tines are disengaged from the forks-engageable payload. The references do not teach a retractable fork.
Shigemasa, an invention in the field of forklift automation, teaches:
wherein the payload engagement module is further configured to retract the fork tines in response to the forks monitoring system outputting a signal indicating the fork tines are disengaged from the forks-engageable payload.Shigemasa teaches retracting a fork in [0068] and also teaches that the autonomous forklift avoids the collapse of load, which plainly may occur if a fork is retracted prior to disengagement from the payload.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov and Chilson, wherein the payload engagement module is further configured to retract the fork tines in response to the forks monitoring system outputting a signal indicating the fork tines are disengaged from the forks-engageable payload, as taught by Shigemasa, because firstly forklifts with retractable forks are commonplace in the art, and second because it is widely understood in the art that a fork should not be retracted while carrying a payload because it will drop the payload.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Chilson and further in view of Fujita, et al., US 2003/0156934 (hereinafter Fujita).
Regarding claim 18,
Tretyakov in view of Chilson teaches the limitations of claim 13 but not:
wherein the forks monitoring system is configured to: indicate a first state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the fork tines are engaged with a top deck of the forks-engageable payload; indicate a second state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the fork tines are engaged with a bottom deck of the forks-engageable payload; and/or indicate a third state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the forks are positioned in a void between the top deck and the bottom deck of the forks-engageable payload. The references, while they teach the engagement of a fork with pockets or slots in a payload, do not distinguish upper, lower, and interior placement of the fork.
Fujita, an invention in the field of forklifts, teaches:
wherein the forks monitoring system is configured to: indicate a first state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the fork tines are engaged with a top deck of the forks-engageable payload; indicate a second state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the fork tines are engaged with a bottom deck of the forks-engageable payload; and/or indicate a third state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the forks are positioned in a void between the top deck and the bottom deck of the forks-engageable payload. Fujita teaches the case of the top deck in [0032] and [0034] and the bottom deck in [0028] and [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, wherein the forks monitoring system is configured to: indicate a first state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the fork tines are engaged with a top deck of the forks-engageable payload; indicate a second state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the fork tines are engaged with a bottom deck of the forks-engageable payload; and/or indicate a third state when the at least one forks-engaged sensor determines that the forks are positioned in a void between the top deck and the bottom deck of the forks-engageable payload, as taught by Fujita, because these types of pallets (payloads) are well known in the art, and it is plainly an advantage for a forklift to be able to lift all types by determining the means by which the pallet should be carried and whether a fork is properly engaged with the appropriate location in the pallet.
Regarding claim 19,
Tretyakov in view of Chilson and Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 18 and also:
wherein in the first state the payload engagement module is configured to vertically adjust a position of the fork tines downward relative to the top deck. Chilson teaches vertical adjustment either up or down in [0024] in order to engage the fork. In combination with Fujita, Chilson’s adjustment would be with respect to Fujita’s top deck.
Regarding claim 20,
Tretyakov in view of Chilson and Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 18 and also:
wherein in the second state the payload engagement module is configured to vertically adjust a position of the fork tines upward relative to the bottom deck.Chilson teaches vertical adjustment either up or down in [0024] in order to engage the fork. In combination with Fujita, Chilson’s adjustment would be with respect to Fujita’s bottom deck.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Chilson, and Fujita and further in view of Shigemasa and Fowler, Timothy J., US 3,580,190 (hereinafter Fowler).
Tretyakov in view of Chilson and Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 18 but not all aspects of:
wherein in the third state The references do not teach engagement with a payload interior, i.e. the claimed the third state.
the payload engagement module is configured to retract the fork tines from the forks-engageable payload.The references do not teach retractable fork tines.
Fowler, an invention in the field of pallets, teaches:
wherein in the third stateFowler teaches in C1/L4-18 that some pallets are designed to be engaged by forks in their interior space. Fujita’s or Tretyakov’s methods of detecting tine engagement could be used to determine engagement in Fowler’s third state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, Chilson, and Fujita, wherein in the third state, as taught by Fowler, because where a pallet or other payload’s intended carrying position is based on its interior rather than a bottom deck, plainly an autonomous forklift must be able to engage the interior and also detect engagement with the interior.
Shigemasa, an invention in the field of forklift automation, teaches:
the payload engagement module is configured to retract the fork tines from the forks-engageable payload.Shigemasa teaches retracting a fork in [0068] and also teaches that the autonomous forklift avoids the collapse of load, which plainly may occur if a fork is retracted prior to disengagement from the payload.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, Chilson, Fujita, and Fowler, the payload engagement module is configured to retract the fork tines from the forks-engageable payload, as taught by Shigemasa, because firstly forklifts with retractable forks are commonplace in the art, and second because it is widely understood in the art that a fork should not be retracted while carrying a payload because it will drop the payload.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretyakov in view of Fang, et al., CN 219383690 (hereinafter Fang). Note: reference Fang is sometimes indexed as Yang by some authorities.
Regarding claim 22,
Tretyakov discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
further comprising at least one sensor configured to collect sensor data of a horizontal infrastructure indicating a pose of a horizontal drop surface. While Tretyakov’s sensors are used to detect pose information, they are not disclosed explicitly to detect pose information regarding a drop surface.
Fang, an invention in the field of forklifts, teaches:
further comprising at least one sensor (detection device 30: [n0045]) configured to collect sensor data of a horizontal infrastructure indicating a pose of a horizontal drop surface. Fang also teaches this detection device (sensor) and pose determination in claim 1. We consider the determination of target shelf position and safe state to be the claimed pose information, and as a target to which items will be placed by the forklift, the shelf constitutes a horizontal drop surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot of Tretyakov, further comprising at least one sensor configured to collect sensor data of a horizontal infrastructure indicating a pose of a horizontal drop surface, as taught by Fang, because as Fang explains in its abstract, this improves the precision and safety of placing goods.
Regarding claim 23,
Tretyakov in view of Fang teaches the limitations of claim 22 and also:
wherein the payload engagement module is further configured to use the sensor data to position the forks-engageable payload on the horizontal surface.Fang teaches the positioning of the payload at the target location (horizontal surface) in [n0010] and [n0045].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,747,610 teaches bottom and top decks for pallets. US 11,295,471 and US 2014/0262551 teach fork sensors for weighing and detecting loads carried by a forklift.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights