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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 were filed by the applicant on 01/21/2025. Claims 1-4 were cancelled by the applicant and new claims 5-8 filed on 01/21/2025 were submitted for examination. Claims 5-8 have been examined.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 06/25/2026. Claims 5-8 have been amended. Claim 9 has been added to the claim set. Claims 5-9 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 7 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”), filed 06/25/2026, with respect to Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) stating “… Applicant notes that the Examiner has considered certain terms in claim 5 to be limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant does not concede that that interpretation is correct and respectfully informs the Examiner that Applicant does not intend or wish to invoke means-plus-function interpretation with the recitations in the claims. Nonetheless, even if such interpretation of the claim elements in question were correct, Applicant submits that the application fully discloses structures for performing each of the functions in question…” have been considered and are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Claim Interpretations are not claim rejections and that the Examiner agrees that sufficient structure is provided in the Specification for the “control unit”, “drive system”, and “measuring device”, however, as explained in MPEP § 2181, generic placeholders used for the recited claimed functions (i.e., “unit”, “system”, or “device”) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the Examiner maintains Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 7-13 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 5, and the corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 stating “… Regarding independent claim 5… Ulbrich does not teach a light beam that passes above the load carried by the fork… Ulbrich therefore does not teach or suggest "the detection device ... able to emit a light beam directed toward a front of the autonomous forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone, the detection device being fixed to the lifting member so that the light beam passes above the load being carried by the fork," as recited in amended independent claim 5… Applicant submits that, for at least the reasons discussed above, independent claim 5 is not obvious over Svensson, Ulbrich, Shigemasa, Faimali, Guo, and Kawauchi, alone or in any combination… Claims 6-8 are dependent directly or indirectly upon independent claim 5… Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 103 rejections be withdrawn…” have been considered and are not persuasive.
The Examiner submits that Svensson et al. US 20160090283 A1 (“Svensson”) already discloses an autonomous forklift system with a detection device fixed on a lifting member such that a detection zone in front of the forklift for the detection device passes above a transported load in order to detect objects in front of the forklift and above the transport load and Ulbrich et al. US 20240067510 A1 (“Ulbrich”) was referenced to teach a sensor the emits light to detect objects.
Specifically, Svensson discloses recited claim 5 limitation a detection device for contactless detection of an obstacle, the detection device being mobile conjointly with the lifting member and able to detect toward a front of the autonomous forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone, the detection device being fixed to the lifting member so that the detection zone passes above the load being carried by the fork (See at least [0061] of Svensson – “… A fork-lift truck 1′ has picked up a load according to the procedure … where the optical detector 3′ has been in position 14. The fork-lift truck 1′ has now approached a racking, see FIG. 4… The optical detector 3′ assumes position 13, such that it can detect over the load 7, as can be viewed from FIG. 4. As the load carrier 2 lifts the load 7 up, the optical detector 3′ detects any protruding feature of the rack…”).
Although Svensson does not specifically disclose the detection device being fixed to the lifting member so that the light beam passes above the transported load, Ulbrich, in the same field of in the same field of endeavor teaches the detection device being able to emit a light beam directed toward a front of the forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone, so that the light beam passes above the transported load (See at least [0012] of Ulbrich – “… The AIT has at least one LIDAR … can thereby also detect obstacles at height…the LIDARs are tilted, so that the angle to the vertical is preferably between about 5° and 20°…”). Thus, Svensson discloses an autonomous forklift system featuring a detection device fixed on a lifting member such that a detection zone in front of the forklift for the detection device passes above a transported load and uses detected object information and height input information to raise a forklift load carrier assembly and deliver cargo to a determined available slot on a rack structure, while Ulbrich teaches an autonomous forklift system that uses lidar sensors to detect obstacles in front of the forklift. The Examiner further submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed in Svensson to include the feature of the detection device being able to emit a light beam directed toward a front of the forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone as taught by Ulbrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect obstacles in front of the forklift and pass this information to a controller as specified in at least [0012] and [0024] of Ulbrich.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of independent claim 5, and the corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“control unit” provided in claim 5
“drive system” provided in claim 5
“measuring device” provided in claim 5
“displacement measuring device” provided in claim 9
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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 “means” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the “means” is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“determination means” provided in claim 9
The specification and drawings were used to define the generic placeholder specified above (items a-e):
Specification – “The control unit 14 comprises hardware and software means for controlling the operation of the drive system 6 … The control unit 14 is also used to control autonomous movement of the lifting member 2… The drive system comprises at least one electric motor or internal combustion engine (not represented) for driving the wheels 15 of the truck 1… measuring device 9 may comprise a rangefinder… measuring device 13a… being configured to acquire information representing the movement of the truck 1 and to transmit it to a control unit 14… preferably comprises at least one rotary encoder able to measure the rotation of at least one of the wheels 15 of the forklift truck 1... determination means comprises an
all-or-nothing sensor …the all-or-nothing sensor being able to detect the indicator…corresponds to an orientation of the wheels according to a longitudinal axis of the forklift truck…”
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 currently recites:
“… the rectilinear movement being determined as purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear according to an equation as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein angle represents the direction angle of the displacement of the autonomous forklift truck relative to a longitudinal axis of the autonomous forklift truck measured at a given instant by the direction sensor, in degrees, distance represents the distance covered by the autonomous forklift truck measured by the displacement measuring device between two successive acquisitions, in millimeters, and K represents a predetermined limit value corresponding to a maximum admissible transverse displacement of the autonomous forklift truck…”
The Examiner notes that the limitation reciting “purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Additionally the summation equation provided in claim 9 is not bounded as the claim does not specifically recite what bounding parameter the summation is being performed over (i.e., is the summation being performed over a specified time interval? A starting point and an end point? A specified distance travelled from one point to another?).
Examiner note to help applicant overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections:
Applicant may overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections by amending claim 9, to specifically recite:
“… the rectilinear movement being determined as that relates an angle multiplied by a distance to a value represented by K
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
50
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the angle in the equation represents a the distance in the equation represents the distance covered by the autonomous forklift truck measured by the displacement measuring device between two successive acquisitions, in millimeters, and K represents a predetermined limit value corresponding to a maximum admissible transverse displacement of the autonomous forklift truck; and
a step of depositing the load on the structure at the deposition position, the step of depositing being carried out if the rectilinear movement of the autonomous forklift truck is determined to be
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson et al. US 20160090283 A1 (“Svensson”) in view of Ulbrich et al. US 20240067510 A1 (“Ulbrich”) and Shigemasa et al. US 20230382703 A1 (“Shigemasa”).
For claim 5, Svensson discloses a method of transporting and depositing a load by means of an autonomous forklift truck (See at least [0090]-[0091] of Svensson – “… a method is achieved which allows for safe delivery of a load… The step of approaching a predetermined position where a load 7, 8 is to be delivered comprises in one example lifting the load carrier 2… a lifting of the load carrier might be required … The lifting procedure can be performed automatically by an autonomous fork-lift truck 1, for example via a load carrier control unit 5… It is important that the truck has the information of the height of the slot 16… via the autonomous system operating the truck…”), the autonomous forklift truck comprising:
a lifting member comprising a fork that is mobile vertically and is provided with at least one arm for lifting loads (See at least [0044] – “… The load carrier could have only one fork, but in general there are two forks included in the load carrier…”, and [0091] of Svensson – “… The lifting procedure can be performed automatically by an autonomous fork-lift truck 1, for example via a load carrier control unit 5…”);
a drive system for moving the autonomous forklift truck (See at least [0044] of Svensson – “… The fork-lift truck 1 in general also comprises a drive motor that is used for driving a drive wheel and thus moving the fork-lift truck 1 in a desired direction…”);
a control unit able to control operation of the drive system to guide the autonomous forklift truck autonomously and able to control a vertical movement of the fork of the lifting member (See at least [0043]-[0049] of Svensson – “… an autonomous fork-lift truck the warehouse is preferably provided with a general guidance system that makes it possible for an automated truck to move and navigate for example down to … of a predetermined position… The fork-lift truck 1 in general also comprises a drive motor that is used for driving a drive wheel and thus moving the fork-lift truck 1 in a desired direction … A load carrier control unit 5 controls … a drive motor for a movement of the load carrier in particular in a longitudinal direction of the fork-lift truck 1… controlling a reach function of a fork-lift truck 1 that comprises such a function, the lift function, the side shift function etc…”);
a detection device for contactless detection of an obstacle, the detection device being mobile conjointly with the lifting member and able to detect toward a front of the autonomous forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone, the detection device being fixed to the lifting member so that the detection zone passes above the load being carried by the fork (See at least [0061] of Svensson – “… A fork-lift truck 1′ has picked up a load according to the procedure … where the optical detector 3′ has been in position 14. The fork-lift truck 1′ has now approached a racking, see FIG. 4… The optical detector 3′ assumes position 13, such that it can detect over the load 7, as can be viewed from FIG. 4. As the load carrier 2 lifts the load 7 up, the optical detector 3′ detects any protruding feature of the rack…”);
wherein the control unit receives information representing the height of the fork and representing a presence or an absence of an obstacle in the predefined plane detection zone coming from the detection device and able to control the drive system and the vertical movement of the fork of the lifting member as a function of the information (See at least [0050] – “… The optical analysing unit 4′ can be part of the load carrier control unit 5 …”and [0079]-[0091] of Svensson – “…steps allow that an automatic repositioning of the load carrier 2 can be performed… Further steps… approaching a predetermined position where a load 7, 8 is to be delivered… detecting a slot 16 where the load is to be delivered within the second field of view 13 or the first field of view including the space above the second three-dimensional object… determining by means of said at least optical analysing unit 4, 4′ whether the slot 16 allows delivering or not depending on if the slot 16 is empty, contains a load, or there are other obstructing means in this slot 16… if it is determined in the previous step to allow delivery… positioning the cargo 7 in the empty slot 16… The step of approaching a predetermined position where a load 7, 8 is to be delivered comprises in one example lifting the load carrier 2… The lifting procedure can be performed automatically by an autonomous fork-lift truck 1, for example via a load carrier control unit 5… By giving a specific input command, for example a specific height or a specific level of shelf in case the shelves have predetermined heights which are stored in the truck, the operator can then give cause to an automatic lifting of the load carrier 2 according to the input command… via the autonomous system operating the truck…” Examiner notes that the carrier control unit receives optical detection information and inputs for a height to lift the load carrier to the appropriate height for delivery of the cargo 7), and
the method comprising the following steps:
a step of positioning the autonomous forklift truck relative to a structure intended to support the load in an approach position relative to the structure (See at least [0034] – “…The method then further comprises the steps of approaching a predetermined position where a load is to be delivered, optionally attaining the second position and/or orientation with the second field of view by the optical detector, detecting a slot where the load is to be delivered within the second field of view or the first field of view including the space above the second three-dimensional object, determining by means of said at least optical analysing unit whether the slot allows delivering or not depending on if the slot is empty, contains a load, or there are other obstructing means in this slot, and, if it is determined in the previous step to allow delivery, providing a visual indication or positioning the cargo in the empty slot…” and Fig. 4 of Svensson – forklift approaching rack);
when the autonomous forklift truck has reached the approach position, a step of heightwise positioning of the fork of the lifting member and a step of obstacle detection by the detection device in a control volume (See at least [0061] of Svensson – “… A fork-lift truck 1′ has picked up a load according to the procedure described with the second embodiment, where the optical detector 3′ has been in position 14. The fork-lift truck 1′ has now approached a racking, see FIG. 4. The fork-lift truck 1′ has found its position, for example by a general navigation system. The optical detector 3′ assumes position 13, such that it can detect over the load 7, as can be viewed from FIG. 4. As the load carrier 2 lifts the load 7 up, the optical detector 3′ detects any protruding feature of the rack. Protruding features can for example be a cargo 7′ or a part of the racking 15… These measures can be, stop the lifting process, alter the position of the load by controlling the drive motor of the fork-lift truck 1′, or, if it is determined that the protrusions are so far extending that it is not possible to pass, the lifting process is replaced by lowering the cargo and a new position is taken by the fork-lift truck 1…”);
a step of forward movement of the autonomous forklift truck relative to the structure to a deposition position if no obstacle has been detected in the control volume by the detection device during the step of obstacle detection (See at least [0084] of Svensson – “… Further steps… approaching a predetermined position where a load 7, 8 is to be delivered… detecting a slot 16 where the load is to be delivered within the second field of view 13 or the first field of view including the space above the second three-dimensional object… determining by means of said at least optical analysing unit 4, 4′ whether the slot 16 allows delivering or not depending on if the slot 16 is empty, contains a load, or there are other obstructing means in this slot 16… if it is determined in the previous step to allow delivery … positioning the cargo 7 in the empty slot 16…”); and
a step of depositing the load on the structure at the deposition position (See at least [0084] of Svensson – “…Further steps… if it is determined in the previous step to allow delivery … positioning the cargo 7 in the empty slot 16…” and Fig. 5 of Svensson – cargo 7 is loaded on the rack in slot 16 when the slot 16 is empty).
Svensson fails to specifically disclose the detection device being able to emit a light beam directed toward a front of the autonomous forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone, the detection device being fixed to the lifting member so that the light beam passes above the load being carried by the fork;
the method comprising the following steps:
a step of obstacle detection by the detection device in a control volume swept by the light beam.
However, Ulbrich, in the same field of endeavor teaches the detection device being able to emit a light beam directed toward a front of the autonomous forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone, the detection device being fixed to the lifting member so that the light beam passes above the load being carried by the fork (See at least [0012] of Ulbrich – “… The AIT has at least one LIDAR … can thereby also detect obstacles at height…the LIDARs are tilted, so that the angle to the vertical is preferably between about 5° and 20°…”);
the method comprising the following steps:
a step of obstacle detection by the detection device in a control volume swept by the light beam (See at least [0024] of Ulbrich – “…the LIDARs, cover the relevant/important detection area and can detect obstacles/persons … at least one “protective field” or typically several such protective fields are defined within a memory of the sensors … as an obstacle … is recognized in this area, the sensor passes on this information about the obstacle or person to the controller…”). Thus, Svensson discloses an autonomous forklift system that uses detected object information and height input information to raise a forklift load carrier assembly and deliver cargo to a determined available slot on a rack structure, while Ulbrich teaches an autonomous forklift system that uses lidar sensors to detect obstacles in front of the forklift.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed in Svensson to include the feature of the detection device being able to emit a light beam directed toward a front of the autonomous forklift truck and sweeping at least one predefined plane detection zone as taught by Ulbrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect obstacles in front of the forklift and pass this information to a controller as specified in at least [0012] and [0024] of Ulbrich.
Furthermore, Svensson also fails to specifically disclose a measuring device for determining a height of the fork of the lifting member relative to the ground,
wherein the control unit receives information representing the height of the fork relative to the ground coming from the measuring device.
However, Shigemasa, in the same field of endeavor teaches a measuring device for determining a height of the fork of the lifting member relative to the ground (See at least [0056] of Shigemasa – “… the lift height sensor 24 is a sensor that detects the height Hf from the ground to the upper surfaces 28c of the forks 28 when the forklift 1 is located on the horizontal ground…”),
wherein the control unit receives information representing the height of the fork relative to the ground coming from the measuring device (See at least [0024] of Shigemasa – “… second aspect of the present disclosure is a control device. The control device is a control device configured to control a forklift to unload a transport pallet onto an unloading place, the forklift including … a lift height sensor configured to detect a lift height of the fork… The control device … configured to control …raising and lowering of the fork… perform an operation of pulling out the fork when … a lift height value detected by the lift height sensor is within the lift height range…”). Thus, Svensson discloses an autonomous forklift system that uses detected object information and height input information to raise a forklift load carrier assembly and deliver cargo to a determined available slot on a rack structure, while Shigemasa teaches an autonomous forklift system that uses a height sensor for the fork assembly in order to control the raising and lowering of the fork to unload a transport pallet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed in Svensson to include the feature of a measuring device for determining a height of the fork of the lifting member relative to the ground as taught by Shigemasa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to raise and lower a fork according to a height range and perform successful unloading of a pallet as specified in at least [0024] of Shigemasa.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson in view of Ulbrich and Sigemasa, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Guo et al. US 20220067960 A1 (“Guo”).
For claim 6, Svensson fails to specifically disclose wherein the step of obstacle detection comprises:
a substep of activation of the detection device when the fork of the lifting member has reached a predetermined first height Z1 relative to the ground during heightwise positioning of the fork; and
a substep of deactivation of the detection device when the fork of the lifting member has reached a second height Z2 relative to the ground that is different from the predetermined first height Z1.
However, Guo, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the step of obstacle detection comprises:
a substep of activation of the detection device when the fork of the lifting member has reached a predetermined first height Z1 relative to the ground during heightwise positioning of the fork (See at least [0042] of Guo – “…the working state monitoring module 410 can monitor the height where the fork is located, the carried weight, or the operation action of the fork. If it is monitored that the fork moves to a height where the stock container to be moved is located and the action of lifting up the stock container to be moved is completed, the container image capturing module 420 is triggered to continuously capture the RGBD image frames…”); and
a substep of deactivation of the detection device when the fork of the lifting member has reached a second height Z2 relative to the ground that is different from the predetermined first height Z1 (See at least [0042] of Guo – “…If it is monitored that the fork moves to a height where a target storage position is located and the action of releasing the stock container to be moved is finished, the container image capturing module 420 is controlled to stop the image capturing action…”). Thus, Svensson discloses an autonomous forklift system that uses detected object information and height input information to raise a forklift load carrier assembly and deliver cargo to a determined available slot on a rack structure, while Guo teaches a forklift system that monitors a container and continuously captures image frames when the fork moves to a height where the stock container to be moved is located and lifting the stock container is completed and stops image capturing when the fork moves to a height where a target storage position is located and releasing the stock container is completed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed in Svensson to include the feature of activating the detection device when the fork of the lifting member has reached a predetermined first height relative to the ground during heightwise positioning of the fork as taught by Guo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to monitor the moving of a stock container as specified in at least [0042] of Guo.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson in view of Ulbrich and Shigemasa, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kawauchi et al. US 20230002204 A1 (“Kawauchi”).
For claim 7, Svensson fails to specifically disclose further comprising a step of controlling rectilinear movement of the autonomous forklift truck to the deposition position during the step of forward movement.
However, Kawauchi, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising a step of controlling rectilinear movement of the forklift truck to the deposition position during the step of forward movement (See at least [0025] of Kawauchi – “… When the unmanned forklift 90 unloads a cargo, the unmanned forklift 90 aligns a position in the right-left direction (Fy-direction) of the unmanned forklift 90 with a predetermined position in the right-left direction (Y-direction) of the line serving as an unloading target, and stops a side (−Fx-side) provided with the fork 902 toward the rack R. That is, a front surface of each line of the racks R is a stop position of the unmanned forklift 90…”). Thus, Svensson discloses an autonomous forklift system that uses detected object information and height input information to raise a forklift load carrier assembly and deliver cargo to a determined available slot on a rack structure, while Kawauchi teaches an unmanned forklift that aligns the fork with a rack at a stop position towards the rack to unload cargo.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed in Svensson to include the feature of controlling rectilinear movement of the forklift truck to the deposition position during the step of forward movement as taught by Kawauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to align the forklift with an unloading target as specified in at least [0025] of Kawauchi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson in view of Ulbrich, Shigemasa, and Kawauchi, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Faimali et al. US 20220089420 A1 (“Faimali”).
For claim 8, Svensson fails to specifically disclose wherein the step of depositing the load on the structure in the deposition position is carried out if the rectilinear movement of the autonomous forklift truck is purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear.
However, Faimali, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the step of depositing the load on the structure in the deposition position is carried out if the rectilinear movement of the autonomous forklift truck is purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear (See at least [0098]-[0105] of Faimali – “… The cycle of depositing a loading unit 110 in a tunnel 106 of the rack 100 … If the tunnel 106 is suitable for the deposit, the vehicle 10 arrives at the target and stops… the fork holder plate 13 is rotated to align it perfectly with the rack 100 itself… the vehicle 10 completes the operation of depositing the loading unit 110 by lowering the vertical height of the forks 12 to deposit the loading unit 110 on the upper plane 104 supporting the lateral guides 103… the present invention has the advantage of precisely correcting errors of alignment of the fork holder plate with the front of the warehouse … allowing shuttles to be picked and deposited in a precise and repeatable manner…”). Thus, Svensson discloses an autonomous forklift system that uses detected object information and height input information to raise a forklift load carrier assembly and deliver cargo to a determined available slot on a rack structure, while Faimali teaches a forklift system that only deposits a load onto a rack if proper alignment of the forklift to the rack is achieved to complete a depositing operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed in Svensson to include the feature of depositing the load on the structure in the deposition position if the rectilinear movement of the autonomous forklift truck is purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear as taught by Faimali, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to perfectly align the forklift with a rack and complete a depositing operation as specified in at least [0098]-[0105] of Faimali.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter, but would be allowable if the claim rejections from previous sections of this office action were resolved.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is Svensson et al. US 20160090283 A1 (“Svensson”), Ulbrich et al. US 20240067510 A1 (“Ulbrich”), Shigemasa et al. US 20230382703 A1 (“Shigemasa”), Guo et al. US 20220067960 A1 (“Guo”), Kawauchi et al. US 20230002204 A1 (“Kawauchi”), and Faimali et al. US 20220089420 A1 (“Faimali”).
Svensson discloses an autonomous forklift system featuring a detection device fixed on a lifting member such that a detection zone in front of the forklift for the detection device passes above a transported load and uses detected object information and height input information to raise a forklift load carrier assembly and deliver cargo to a determined available slot on a rack structure.
Ulbrich teaches an autonomous forklift system that uses lidar sensors to detect obstacles in front of the forklift.
Shigemasa teaches an autonomous forklift system that uses a height sensor for the fork assembly in order to control the raising and lowering of the fork to unload a transport pallet.
Guo teaches a forklift system that monitors a container and continuously captures image frames when the fork moves to a height where the stock container to be moved is located and lifting the stock container is completed and stops image capturing when the fork moves to a height where a target storage position is located and releasing the stock container is completed.
Kawauchi teaches an unmanned forklift that aligns the fork with a rack at a stop position towards the rack to unload cargo.
Faimali teaches a forklift system that only deposits a load onto a rack if proper alignment of the forklift to the rack is achieved to complete a depositing operation.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following claimed subject matter:
“the rectilinear movement being determined as purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear according to an equation as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein angle represents the direction angle of the displacement of the autonomous forklift truck relative to a longitudinal axis of the autonomous forklift truck measured at a given instant by the direction sensor, in degrees, distance represents the distance covered by the autonomous forklift truck measured by the displacement measuring device between two successive acquisitions, in millimeters, and K represents a predetermined limit value corresponding to a maximum admissible transverse displacement of the autonomous forklift truck; and
a step of depositing the load on the structure at the deposition position, the step of depositing being carried out if the rectilinear movement of the autonomous forklift truck is determined to be purely rectilinear or substantially rectilinear according to the equation”
Examiner note to help applicant overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections:
Applicant may overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections by amending claim 9, to specifically recite:
“… the rectilinear movement being determined as that relates an angle multiplied by a distance to a value represented by K
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
50
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the angle in the equation represents a the distance in the equation represents the distance covered by the autonomous forklift truck measured by the displacement measuring device between two successive acquisitions, in millimeters, and K represents a predetermined limit value corresponding to a maximum admissible transverse displacement of the autonomous forklift truck; and
a step of depositing the load on the structure at the deposition position, the step of depositing being carried out if the rectilinear movement of the autonomous forklift truck is determined to be
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
