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 .
This is a non-final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if “determining the location of the second pallet to be moved” is a location of the pallet before it is picked up, or the destination location of the pallet.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson, Jr.; Robert J. et al. et al. (US 20200317483 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Paterson teaches, a method of controlling a robotic material handling device comprising: controlling the robotic material handling device to perform a first pallet pickup operation to pick up a pallet (Fig. 8 depicts a process chart for a method of picking up a load, see at least, ¶18, Paterson); and determining from the output of a pallet position sensor on the robotic material handling device if the pallet is nested on forks of the robotic material handling device (Fig. 8 depicts step 260 load seated sensors 142 ensure that the load remains fully seated on the forks 74, see at least, ¶44, Paterson).
Paterson does not explicitly teach a pallet position sensor; however, examiner interprets Paterson’s load seated sensor under broadest reasonable interpretation as a pallet position sensor.
Regarding Claim 11, Paterson teaches, a robotic material handling device comprising: a fork assembly including a backrest, a first fork and a second fork (Fig. 1 load backrest 78 and forks 74, see at least, ¶33, Paterson); a pallet position sensor (Fig. 1 load seated sensor 42, see at least, ¶33, Paterson); and a processor coupled to the pallet position sensor configured to control the robotic material handling device to (steps executed by a processor, see at least, ¶62, Paterson): perform a first pallet pickup operation to pick up a pallet (Fig. 8 depicts a process chart for a method of picking up a load, see at least, ¶18, Paterson); and determine from the output of a pallet position sensor on the robotic material handling device if the pallet is nested on forks of the robotic material handling device (Fig. 8 depicts step 260 load seated sensors 142 ensure that the load remains fully seated on the forks 74, see at least, ¶44, Paterson).
Paterson does not explicitly teach a pallet position sensor; however, examiner interprets Paterson’s load seated sensor under broadest reasonable interpretation as a pallet position sensor.
Regarding Claim 20, Paterson teaches, a non-transitory computer readable medium which, when executed by a processor in a robotic material handling device controls the robotic material handling device to (instructions stored in a computer readable medium executed by a processor, see at least, ¶62, Paterson): perform a first pallet pickup operation to pick up a pallet (Fig. 8 depicts a process chart for a method of picking up a load, see at least, ¶18, Paterson); and determine from the output of a pallet position sensor on the robotic material handling device if the pallet is nested on forks of the robotic material handling device (Fig. 8 depicts step 260 load seated sensors 142 ensure that the load remains fully seated on the forks 74, see at least, ¶44, Paterson)
Paterson does not explicitly teach a pallet position sensor; however, examiner interprets Paterson’s load seated sensor under broadest reasonable interpretation as a pallet position sensor.
Regarding Claim 5 and 15, Paterson teaches, the method of claim 1 (re-claim 5) and the robotic material handling device of claim 11 (re-claim 15), wherein said pallet position sensor is mounted at a fixed position on a fork backrest (Fig. 1 and 4 depict a load seated sensor 142 attached to the load backrest 78, see at least, ¶33, Paterson) that will move with the forks as the forks are extended or retracted (Fig. 10 depict block 472 determining if a pallet is dragging using the load seated sensor, which must move with the forks as they are extended or retracted in order to make the determination, see at least, ¶56, Paterson).
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, Paterson teaches, the method of claim 5 (re-claim 6) and the robotic material handling device of claim 15 (re-claim 16), wherein said pallet position sensor is a non-contact distance measuring device (load seated sensors 142 can be a time-of-flight-sensor which uses non-contact distance measuring, see at least, ¶33, Paterson).
Regarding Claim 7 and 17, Paterson teaches, the method of claim 6 (re-claim 7) and the robotic material handling device of claim 16 (re-claim 17), wherein said pallet position sensor is mounted on a member of the fork backrest positioned at a location which is between the forks (Fig.1 depicts the load seated sensor 142 located on the fork backrest 78 and positioned between the forks 74, see at least, ¶33, Paterson).
Regarding Claim 8 and 18, Paterson teaches, the method of claim 7 (re-claim 8) The robotic material handling device of claim 17 (re-claim 18) wherein the pallet position sensor is mounted above a forward looking camera array which has a field of view including the pallet forks (Fig.1 depicts the load seated sensor 142 located above a forward looking camera 104 so that the field of view 116 of Fig. 2 extends in front of the fork assembly which includes the pallet forks 74, see at least, ¶28, Paterson).
Claims 2-4, 9, 12-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson, Jr.; Robert J. et al. et al. (US 20200317483 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, 15-18 and 20 and further in view of SUGIURA NAOHIRO (JPH1121098A )(English Translation Attached).
Regarding Claim 2, Paterson teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising: controlling the robotic material handling device, in response to determining from the output of the pallet position sensor that the pallet is not nested on the forks. (Fig. 8 block 260 depicts in response to determining from the load seated sensors 142 that the load is not fully seated on the forks, an error code or message is sent by the controller, see at least, ¶44, Paterson).
Peterson does not explicitly teach, to move the pallet closer to the robotic material handling device while the pallet is in the air on the forks due to the first pallet pickup; controlling the robotic material handling device to deposit the pallet; and controlling the robotic material handling device to perform a second pallet pickup operation to pick up the pallet for a second time.
Sugiura, directed to an unmanned forklift truck teaches, to move the pallet closer to the robotic material handling device while the pallet is in the air on the forks due to the first pallet pickup; controlling the robotic material handling device to deposit the pallet; and controlling the robotic material handling device to perform a second pallet pickup operation to pick up the pallet for a second time (Fig. 2a depicts a load operation for picking up a pallet W that is too far for the fork lift, Fig. 2b depicts moving the pallet closer to the fork lift by picking up the pallet and moving the pallet closer while the pallet is in the air on the forks, Fig. 2c depicts depositing the pallet and Fig. 2d depicts a second pallet pickup operation, see at least, ¶54-58, Sugiura).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Peterson method of detected the load is not seated on the forks to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura which teaches, to move the pallet closer to the robotic material handling device while the pallet is in the air on the forks due to the first pallet pickup; controlling the robotic material handling device to deposit the pallet; and controlling the robotic material handling device to perform a second pallet pickup operation to pick up the pallet for a second time since they are both related to loading an automatic forklift and incorporation of the teachings of Sugiura would increase flexibility to utilize a shelf by increasing the depth which the fork lift can lift and place cargo (see at least ¶ 7, Sugiura).
Regarding Claim 12, Paterson teaches, the robotic material handling device of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to control the robotic material handling device to: send an error in response to determining from the output of the pallet position sensor that the pallet is not nested on the forks (Fig. 8 block 260 depicts in response to determining from the load seated sensors 142 that the load is not fully seated on the forks, an error code or message is sent by the controller, see at least, ¶44, Paterson).
Paterson does not explicitly teach move the pallet closer to the robotic material handling device while the pallet is in the air on the forks due to the first pallet pickup; deposit the pallet; and perform a second pallet pickup operation to pick up the pallet for a second time.
Sugiura, directed to an unmanned forklift truck teaches, move the pallet closer to the robotic material handling device while the pallet is in the air on the forks due to the first pallet pickup; deposit the pallet; and perform a second pallet pickup operation to pick up the pallet for a second time (Fig. 2a depicts a load operation for picking up a pallet W that is too far for the fork lift, Fig. 2b depicts moving the pallet closer to the fork lift by picking up the pallet and moving the pallet closer while the pallet is in the air on the forks, Fig. 2c depicts depositing the pallet and Fig. 2d depicts a second pallet pickup operation, see at least, ¶54-58, Sugiura).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Peterson method of detected the load is not seated on the forks to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura which teaches, move the pallet closer to the robotic material handling device while the pallet is in the air on the forks due to the first pallet pickup; deposit the pallet; and perform a second pallet pickup operation to pick up the pallet for a second time since they are both related to loading an automatic forklift and incorporation of the teachings of Sugiura would increase flexibility to utilize a shelf by increasing the depth which the fork lift can lift and place cargo (see at least ¶ 7, Sugiura).
Regarding Claim 3 and 13, Paterson in view of Sugiura teaches, the method of claim 2 (re-claim 3) and the robotic material handling device of claim 12 (re-claim 13), further comprising:
Sugiura, directed to an unmanned forklift truck further teaches determining, after the second pallet pickup operation, from the output of the pallet position sensor on the robotic material handling device if the pallet is nested on forks of the robotic material handling device (Fig. 2d depicts, a second pickup operation where the load W that is placed in the correct position on the self or in a position shifted to the front of the shelf, the pallet pickup operation will turn on the load detection sensor 24, see at least, ¶58, Sugiura).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Peterson method of detected the load is not seated on the forks to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura which teaches, determining, after the second pallet pickup operation, from the output of the pallet position sensor on the robotic material handling device if the pallet is nested on forks of the robotic material handling device since they are both related to loading an automatic forklift and incorporation of the teachings of Sugiura would increase flexibility to utilize a shelf by increasing the depth which the fork lift can lift and place cargo (see at least ¶ 7, Sugiura).
Regarding Claim 4 and 14, Paterson in view of Sugiura teaches, the method of claim 3 (re-claim 4) and the robotic material handling device of claim 13 (re-claim 14), further comprising: in response to determining, after the second pallet pickup operation, that the pallet is nested on forks, transporting the pallet to a pallet destination (Fig. 8. Depicts block 260 after the pallet is nested on sensors, the load operation is done and once the load picking operation is completed, the material handling vehicle 60 may travel to a desired location to drop-off the load, see at least, 44, Peterson).
Paterson does not explicitly teach a second pallet pickup operation.
Sugiura, directed to an unmanned forklift truck further teaches, after a second pallet pickup operation (Fig. 2c depicts a second pallet pickup operation where the pallet is nested on the forks, see at least, ¶54-58, Sugiura).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Peterson method of detected the load is not seated on the forks to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura which teaches, after a second pallet pickup operation since they are both related to loading an automatic forklift and incorporation of the teachings of Sugiura would increase flexibility to utilize a shelf by increasing the depth which the fork lift can lift and place cargo (see at least ¶ 7, Sugiura).
Regarding Claim 9 and 19, Paterson in view of Sugiura teaches, the method of claim 4 (re-claim 9) and the robotic material handling device of claim 14 (re-claim 19), further comprising: receiving an instruction to move the pallet to the pallet destination (Fig. 9 block 304 load drop-off coordinates are provided to the controller, see at least, ¶45, Paterson); determining the location of the pallet to be moved (Fig. 8 block 204, 208, 212, depicts receiving load coordinates and identifying a pallet that the target load is on, see at least, ¶38-40, Paterson); determining a safe forklift placement location from which to pick the pallet to be moved (Fig. 8 block 212 depicts using the first camera determine if the pallet is positioned within a predefined tolerance for the forks 74 to engage the load , see at least, ¶38, Paterson); controlling the robotic material handling device to move to the determined forklift placement location prior to proceeding with lifting of the pallet (Fig. 8 block 240 where the controller instructs the forks 74 to traverse into the pallet pockets formed between the pallet stringers, see at least, ¶42, Paterson).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights