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 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(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift (US 2016/0052762 A1) in view of Ascencio (US 2014/0055252 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16-17, Swift discloses a method for projecting an image from a material handling vehicle and a projection system (e.g. [0042, 0119]) for a material handling vehicle (e.g. Figs. 3 & 6), the projection system comprising:
a location system, the location system configured to detect a location of the material handling vehicle using a location tag (e.g. [0099]: vehicle 602 includes tag to facilitate location tracking);
a projector (e.g. Figs. 3-4: output devices 304 & [0042, 0114-0116]) coupled to a projector mount (e.g. Fig. 3: output device 304 inherently disclosed a mount for mounting on the vehicle), the projector configured to project a projection image on a surface (e.g. [0042]);
a control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 108), the control unit configured to receive system information (e.g. [0050, 0084]: location, speed and direction of travel; rules: mandatory stop at aisle end), wherein the system information comprises: a position of the material handling vehicle, a speed of the material handling vehicle, and a set of rules specific to a facility where the material handling vehicle is operating, and
wherein the control unit is further configured to:
determine if the projection image is required using the received system information (e.g. [0042, 0050, 0118]: convey warning message on the floor when approaching mandatory stop);
select the projection image (e.g. [0050]: select message to warn pedestrians or equipment operator) from a plurality of projection images (e.g. [0069]: images include arrow and/or message), if the projection image is required (e.g. [0050]: mandatory stop), based on the received system information; and
project the projection image on the surface (e.g. [0042, 0050]).
Swift fails to explicitly disclose, but Ascencio teaches the set of rules regarding a right-of-way of vehicles and pedestrians (e.g. Fig. 1& [0017]: message alert pedestrian to step back to indicate a safety zone around the vehicle; thus, regarding right-of-way of vehicles and pedestrians).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Swift with the teachings of Ascencio to project warning to pedestrian to avoid accident
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Swift discloses the surface is a floor in the facility (e.g. [0042]: floor).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Swift discloses the system information further comprises a location of one or more other assets operating in the facility (e.g. [0064]: vehicles communicate with each other).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Swift discloses the control unit is further configured to determine a projection location to project the projection image (e.g. [0042]: floor or other surface).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift (US 2016/0052762 A1) in view of Ascencio (US 2014/0055252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zevenbergen et al. (US 2019/0193629 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Swift fails to disclose, but Zevenbergen teaches the projector mount is a motorized projector mount (e.g. [0066, 0116]: components of the robotic system is operated by hydraulic motors and projectors of the robotic system movable with respect to vehicle implies the projector is motorized by the hydraulic motors).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Swift with the teachings of Zevenbergen to include a motorized projector so as to be able to project warning message and/or alerts to vehicle operator and/or pedestrian at different locations more easily and conveniently.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Zevenbergen teaches the control unit is further configured to move the projector mount to move the projector to a position corresponding to the determined projection image location (e.g. [0116]: project visual indication onto different regions).
Regarding claim 10, Zevenbergen teaches adjusting a distance of the projection image from the material handling vehicle to the projector mount (e.g. [0116]: project visual indication onto different regions), wherein the projector mount is a motorized projector mount (e.g. [0066, 0116]: components of the robotic system is operated by hydraulic motors and projectors of the robotic system movable with respect to vehicle implies the projector is motorized by the hydraulic motors).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift (US 2016/0052762 A1) in view of Ascencio (US 2014/0055252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (US 2019/0310652 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Swift discloses received system information includes aisle end (e.g. [0089]).
Swift fails to disclose, but Cao teaches the control unit is further configured to receive warehouse management system (WMS) information, the WMS information comprises a plurality of bay and aisle locations within the facility (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & [0039, 0040, 0047]: map of environment, including aisle and shelf/bay locations, received from server 101 is stored within a memory of a mobile automation apparatus).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Swift with the teachings of Cao to receive plurality of bays and aisles location of a facility so as to allow vehicle operator of Swift to be aware of all the aisle ends and corner in the facility to avoid collision/accident.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift (US 2016/0052762 A1) in view of Ascencio (US 2014/0055252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorokin (US 2019/0389366 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 20. The projection system of claim 1, wherein the projection image comprises at least one of: a stop sign, a yield sign, a go symbol, a plurality of turn-by-turn instructions (e.g. Figs. 4-6 & [0038-0041]: plurality of arrows NP showing turning instruction at different moments), and a crosswalk symbol.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Swift with the teachings of Sorokin to project different symbols in front of a vehicle as the vehicle progresses towards an intersection and/or target position so as to convey intention of the vehicle at an early stage (e.g. [0041]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift (US 2016/0052762 A1) in view of Ascencio (US 2014/0055252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swart (US 2019/0141473 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Swift disclose the location tag, but fails to disclose the location tag is a real-time location system (RTLS) tag.
Swart teaches a real-time location system tag (e.g. Abstract & [0017] & Fig. 1: RTLS tag).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Swift with the teachings of Swart to include a RTLS tag, since both the location tag disclosed by Swift and Swart are known in the art, it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights