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 Objections
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8 and 13 are missing one of “and”, “or”, and “and/or”. For the purpose of prior art analysis, Examiner assumes “and/or” similar to other dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (KR20150105930A). Examiner herein relies on translated copy of Yamamoto attached with current Office Action for citations.
In regards to claim 1, Yamamoto teaches, An autonomously moving transport system, comprising a control apparatus, an obstacle recognition device and a drive unit, (See fig. 2-3, unmanned carrier vehicle 1, vehicle body control part 1C, person detection sensor 8b, page 3, The rear part of the fork type unmanned conveying vehicle 1 is provided with the drive part 6 in which the drive motor etc. which drive and drive the left rear wheel w2 are provided) wherein the drive unit is configured to move the autonomously moving transport system along a travel route with a specific travel parameter, (See page 5, On the basis of the information of the inductive sensor 8a (see FIG. 1), the vehicle body control unit 1C drives the fork-type unmanned transport vehicle 1 on a predetermined path, brakes, or performs a fork…page 14, the fork type unmanned carrier vehicle 1 performs the automatic operation by identifying its own position (specifically) based on the information of the environmental map unattended by the operation of the vehicle body control unit 1C…page 6, in the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1, the traveling speed is classified into four speeds of "ultra low speed" (ultra low speed including speed 0), "low speed", "medium speed" and "high speed"…page 5, the vehicle body control unit 1C decelerates the fork type unmanned vehicle 1 when detecting an obstacle in the deceleration control region G (see FIG. 2) based on the information of the sensor 8b for detecting persons. When the obstacle is detected in the stop control area T (see Fig. 2), the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 is stopped.)
wherein the obstacle recognition device is configured to detect an object in a monitored zone of the autonomously moving transport system and to transmit corresponding object information to the control apparatus, (See page 3, The cause detection sensor 8b detects an obstacle in the stop control region T and an obstacle in the deceleration control region G when the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 moves backward…page 15, the vehicle body control unit 1C determines whether there is an obstacle in the stop control region T (see FIG. 2) by the detection signal of the sensor 8b for detecting persons (S401 in FIG. 18)…page 16, When it is determined that an obstacle is detected in the deceleration control area G (Yes in S403)… the body control unit 1C sets the target speed of the fork type unmanned vehicle 1 to a safe speed and decelerates (S405).)
wherein the control apparatus is configured to divide the monitored zone into a travel corridor and at least one first secondary corridor, wherein the travel route runs through the travel corridor, (See fig. 2, which expressly describes a top-view illustration of the detection range of sensor 8b, within which both “T” and “G” appear as distinct bounded regions…page 3, The cause detection sensor 8b detects an obstacle in the stop control region T and an obstacle in the deceleration control region G when the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 moves backward. In addition, in FIG. 2, the case where the structure K, such as a pillar and a wall, exists in the deceleration control area region G is shown. A single sensor 8b whose detection space encompasses two named, bounded, adjacent sub-regions (T and G) necessarily embodies a monitored zone that is divided into those sub-regions. Also, looking at fig. 2, travel route runs through the zone when moving backward)
wherein the control apparatus is further configured to determine, based on the object information, whether the detected object is located in the travel corridor or in the at least one first secondary corridor, and (See page 15, the vehicle body control unit 1C determines whether there is an obstacle in the stop control region T (see FIG. 2) by the detection signal of the sensor 8b for detecting persons (S401 in FIG. 18)…page 16, When it is determined that an obstacle is detected in the deceleration control area G (Yes in S403),)
wherein the control apparatus is configured to adapt a travel parameter differently when the object is located in the first secondary corridor than when the object is located in the travel corridor. (See page 15, When it is determined that there is an obstacle in the stop control area T (Yes in S401), the body control unit 1C sets the target speed to "0" to cut off the power supply of the traveling motor, and brakes the fork type unmanned carrier vehicle…page 16, When it is determined that an obstacle is detected in the deceleration control area G (Yes in S403)… the body control unit 1C sets the target speed of the fork type unmanned vehicle 1 to a safe speed and decelerates (S405).)
In regards to claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the transport system is configured to transport goods. (See page 1, Unlike for general unmanned trucks, forklifts protrude from the body and load cargo on the fork, so that the space occupied by the cargo in front of the body creates a space for the cargo…page 14, The fork type unmanned carrier vehicle 1 performs unmanned automatic operation)
In regards to claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the control apparatus is configured to set the travel parameter in the case of a detected object in the travel corridor such that the transport system: a) stops; (See page 15, When it is determined that there is an obstacle in the stop control area T (Yes in S401), the body control unit 1C sets the target speed to "0" to cut off the power supply of the traveling motor, and brakes the fork type unmanned carrier vehicle) b) reduces its speed relative to a maximum permitted speed for the current position on the travel route; (See page 16, When it is determined that an obstacle is detected in the deceleration control area G (Yes in S403)… the body control unit 1C sets the target speed of the fork type unmanned vehicle 1 to a safe speed and decelerates (S405).)and/or c) travels at the maximum permitted speed for the current position on the travel route.
In regards to claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the first secondary corridor directly adjoins the travel corridor towards the side of said travel corridor. (See fig. 2, “T” and “G”)
In regards to claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 5, wherein the first secondary corridor directly adjoins the travel corridor at the left side thereof and wherein the first secondary corridor directly adjoins the travel corridor at the right side thereof. (See fig. 2, “T” and “G”)
In regards to claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the object information is:a) a position of the object in the monitored zone; (See fig. 2, “K”, page 3, The detection sensor of the person 8b detects an obstacle in three dimensions, and the positional information of the obstacle on the environment map is specified by replacing the positional information of the person using the person detection sensor 8b with the information on the horizontal plane.) and/or b) a speed of the object; and/or c) a direction of movement of the object.
In regards to claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the control apparatus is configured to set the travel parameter based on the object information of an object detected in the first secondary corridor such that the autonomously moving transport system:a) stops; (See page 15, When it is determined that there is an obstacle in the stop control area T (Yes in S401), the body control unit 1C sets the target speed to "0" to cut off the power supply of the traveling motor, and brakes the fork type unmanned carrier vehicle)b) reduces its speed relative to a maximum permitted speed for the current position on the travel route; (See page 16, When it is determined that an obstacle is detected in the deceleration control area G (Yes in S403)… the body control unit 1C sets the target speed of the fork type unmanned vehicle 1 to a safe speed and decelerates (S405).)c) travels at the maximum permitted speed for the current position on the travel route.
In regards to claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the control apparatus, upon detection of an object in the first secondary corridor, is configured to set the travel parameter such that the travel speed of the autonomously moving transport system can be set in dependence on:a) the distance of the detected object from the autonomously moving transport system; (See page 3, The detection sensor of the person 8b detects an obstacle in three dimensions…page 6, When the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 travels in one direction (for example, traveling backward or forward), the braking distance at the speed at which the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 travels in one direction is measured. The distance to which the fork-type driverless vehicle 1 is stopped at the braking distance and does not collide with the obstacle is set as the monitoring area A. That is, a certain amount of margin is given to the braking distance…When the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 turns the curve, the braking distance from the speed at which the curve travels to the stop by deceleration of the brake is set, and a distance having a margin not to collide with the obstacle is set. Here, the margin means to leave a margin of 10 to 50 cm, for example…page 7, Since the speed of the fork-type unmanned transport vehicle 1 becomes faster than the set number 4 in FIG. 7F, the rearward monitoring area Ag1 in the traveling direction is the rear in the traveling direction in FIG. 7F. It is set to extend longer to the rear side than the monitoring area Af1 on the side.)and/or b) the speed of the detected object; and/or c) the direction of movement of the detected object.
In regards to claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 9, wherein the travel speed of the autonomously moving transport system and:a) the distance of the detected object; and/or b) the speed of the detected object; and/or c) the direction of movement of the detected object are linked to one another a linear or non-linear function. (See page 6, the braking distance at the speed at which the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 travels in one direction is measured. The distance to which the fork-type driverless vehicle 1 is stopped at the braking distance and does not collide with the obstacle is set as the monitoring area A. That is, a certain amount of margin is given to the braking distance....For example, the deceleration can be obtained by dividing the brake braking force by the mass including the cargo of the fork type driverless vehicle 1. The time from the equation equivalent to the speed to the stop can be obtained by integrating the deceleration with time, and the braking distance is calculated by integrating the deceleration with time twice. Double integration of deceleration produces non-linear relationship between speed and braking distance)
In regards to claim 11, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 10, wherein the linear or non-linear function is a quadratic or logarithmic function. (See page 6, the braking distance at the speed at which the fork type unmanned transport vehicle 1 travels in one direction is measured. The distance to which the fork-type driverless vehicle 1 is stopped at the braking distance and does not collide with the obstacle is set as the monitoring area A. That is, a certain amount of margin is given to the braking distance....For example, the deceleration can be obtained by dividing the brake braking force by the mass including the cargo of the fork type driverless vehicle 1. The time from the equation equivalent to the speed to the stop can be obtained by integrating the deceleration with time, and the braking distance is calculated by integrating the deceleration with time twice. Double integration of deceleration produces non-linear relationship (quadratic) between speed and braking distance)
In regards to claim 14, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the control apparatus is configured to also divide the monitored zone at least into a second secondary corridor, wherein the first secondary corridor is arranged between the travel corridor and the second secondary corridor, and wherein the control apparatus is configured, on a detection of an object in the second secondary corridor that comprises the same distance from the autonomously moving transport system and/or the same speed and/or the same direction of movement as an object that is detected in the first secondary corridor, to adapt a travel parameter such that the speed at which the autonomously moving transport system moves is higher if such an object is detected in the second secondary corridor than if it is detected in the first secondary corridor. (See fig. 2, where three different zones are depicted, “A”, “T”, and “G”. Assuming “G” zone is claimed second secondary corridor and “T” zone is claimed “first secondary corridor”, and “A” zone is claimed travel corridor, detection of object in “G” zone provides deceleration and safe speed whereas detecting object in “T” zone provides target speed to “0”, triggering emergency stop)
In regards to claim 17, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the control apparatus is configured to transmit at least the travel corridor to the obstacle recognition device. (See page 10, Then, the information of the monitoring area A is output from the obstacle detection safety control unit 1S to the rear and front obstacle sensors 2, 3, and 4, and the monitoring area is set by the rear and front obstacle sensors 2, 3, and 4…page 14, First, the obstacle detection safety control unit 1S (refer to FIG. 3) selects the monitoring area A from the information of "running speed", "steering direction", and "loading," and then the front and rear obstacle sensors 2, 3. And 4) (S101 in FIG. 15). This principle can apply equally to sensor 8B’s operation within “T” and “G”)
In regards to claim 18, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1, wherein the obstacle recognition device comprises at least one ToF sensor, (See page 3, In the upper part of the drive part 6, the detection sensor 8b of 3D position recognition is provided.)one lidar sensor, one FMCW sensor, one 3D camera, (see page 3, In the upper part of the drive part 6, the detection sensor 8b of 3D position recognition is provided. )one radar sensor and/or one ultrasonic sensor.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (KR20150105930A) in view of Ohmura (US Patent 10407061)
In regards to claim 12, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the control apparatus, upon detection of an object in the first secondary corridor, is configured to set the travel parameter such that the travel speed…(see rejection of claim 1) however, does not specifically teach, …the travel speed of the autonomously moving transport system:a) is higher with an increasing distance of the object from the autonomously moving transport system; and/or b) is lower with an increasing speed of the object in the direction of the travel route of the autonomously moving transport system; and/or c) is higher with an increasing speed of the object away from the travel route of the autonomously moving transport system.
Ohmura further teaches, …the travel speed of the autonomously moving transport system:a) is higher with an increasing distance of the object from the autonomously moving transport system; and/or b) is lower with an increasing speed of the object in the direction of the travel route of the autonomously moving transport system; and/or c) is higher with an increasing speed of the object away from the travel route of the autonomously moving transport system.. (See abstract, ECU 10 is configured to: detect an object (a parked vehicle 3, a pedestrian 6, a traffic signal 7) external to the vehicle 1; determine a speed distribution area 40 extending at least in a lateral area of the object in the travelling direction and defining a distribution of an allowable upper limit of the relative speed of the vehicle 1 with respect to the object in a travelling direction; calculate the relative speed with respect to the object in the travelling direction; and execute an avoidance control (S14) for restricting the relative speed so that the relative speed does not exceed the allowable upper limit. The speed distribution area 40 is determined such that the allowable upper limit is made lower as a lateral distance from the object becomes smaller. In other words, allowable upper limit is higher as the lateral distance becomes larger (travel speed is higher with increasing distance of the object))
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yamamoto to further comprise apparatus taught by Ohmura because more precise safe distance and speed can be calculated and utilized by the autonomous vehicle by taking into account moving objects. Therefore, accuracy and efficiency can be improved.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (KR20150105930A) in view of KHAFAGY; Hafiz Shafeek et al. (US 20170043767 A1)
In regards to claim 13, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1.
Yamamoto does not specifically teach, wherein the control apparatus, upon detection of an object in the first secondary corridor, is configured in the event that:a) a distance between the object and the autonomously moving transport system is smaller than a first distance value, to set the travel parameter such that the autonomously moving transport system stops; b) a distance between the object and the autonomously moving transport system is greater than the first distance value and smaller than a second distance value, to set the travel parameter for the speed of the autonomously moving transport system in dependence on the distance, wherein the speed value is selected as greater as the distance increases; c) a distance between the object and the autonomously moving transport system is greater than the second distance value, to set the travel parameter for the speed of the autonomously moving transport system to a maximum permitted speed value for the current position on the travel route.
Khafagy further teaches, wherein the control apparatus, upon detection of an object in the first secondary corridor, is configured in the event that:a) a distance between the object and the autonomously moving transport system is smaller than a first distance value, to set the travel parameter such that the autonomously moving transport system stops; b) a distance between the object and the autonomously moving transport system is greater than the first distance value and smaller than a second distance value, to set the travel parameter for the speed of the autonomously moving transport system in dependence on the distance, wherein the speed value is selected as greater as the distance increases; c) a distance between the object and the autonomously moving transport system is greater than the second distance value, to set the travel parameter for the speed of the autonomously moving transport system to a maximum permitted speed value for the current position on the travel route. (See claim 1, a controller configured to in response to a detected forward object and an adaptive cruise control mode being active, control the engine and braking system to decelerate the vehicle, and in response to a distance to the detected forward object falling below a first predefined threshold and a vehicle speed falling below a second predefined threshold with the adaptive cruise control mode being active, automatically control the braking system to apply a braking torque to brake the vehicle to a full stop and hold the vehicle stationary in an absence of powertrain torque based on a current road grade, and auto-stop the engine.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yamamoto to further comprise apparatus taught by Khafagy because vehicle’s fuel economy can be improved as well as improve safety by performing automatic stop upon detecting that object is very close (paragraph 39).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (KR20150105930A) in view of AU; KWONG WING et al. (US 20100114416 A1)
In regards to claim 15, Yamamoto teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 1.
Yamamoto does not specifically teach, wherein the control apparatus is configured to adapt the travel parameter also in dependence on an intensity value of the obstacle recognition device and/or a noise of the obstacle recognition device and/or a reflector recognition of the obstacle recognition device and/or a fog recognition by the obstacle recognition device.
Au further teaches, wherein the control apparatus is configured to adapt the travel parameter also in dependence on an intensity value of the obstacle recognition device and/or a noise of the obstacle recognition device and/or a reflector recognition of the obstacle recognition device and/or a fog recognition by the obstacle recognition device. (See abstract, A system and method for providing information for autonomous vehicle navigation are disclosed. The system comprises at least one laser scanner configured to perform one or more range and intensity scans of an area around the autonomous vehicle…paragraph 21, range scan and intensity scan data are processed with navigation data to provide a situation awareness, which includes the detection of traversable areas, non-traversable areas, or obstacles, as well as identifying the markings on the road area. Traversable areas include, for example, roads, large flat areas, and the like. Non-traversable areas include, for example, road curbs, pedestrian walkways, steep slopes, and the like. Obstacles include objects of a certain size and height that a vehicle cannot traverse over, such as other vehicles, pedestrians, and the like.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yamamoto to further comprise apparatus taught by Au because use of lidar sensors are far more superior in terms of accuracy of detecting obstacles compared to conventional cameras, therefore, accurate measurement would have been achieved.
In regards to claim 16, Yamamoto-Au teaches the autonomously moving transport system according to claim 15, wherein the travel parameter is a speed. (See Yamamoto page 15, When it is determined that there is an obstacle in the stop control area T (Yes in S401), the body control unit 1C sets the target speed to "0" to cut off the power supply of the traveling motor,)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights