DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on June 10, 2025 canceling claims 1-14 and adding new claims 15-28. Accordingly, the pending claims and those subject to examination are claims 15-28. The amendment to the specification filed June 10, 2025 is entered. No new matter was added.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to. The abstract should be narrative in form, according the MPEP 608.01(b). Therefore, the word title should be removed, a period added at the end of the title, and the text should be set in regular font, not bold. Step 25 should not be indented, but instead justified the same way steps 21 and 23 are. The phrase “Figure for the abstract: Figure 5” should be removed. Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites:
The method according to claim 16, further comprising a prior step of the forklift receiving an assigned mission comprising the predefined values of the depth and the outer diameter of the annular load to be transported.
What the “prior step” recited in this claim is prior to is not distinctly claimed. There are two steps listed in claim 15 both of which could be candidates for the step claims in claim 17 to be prior to. It appears that the “prior step” recited in claim 17 is prior to both of the steps recited in claim 15. The first step in claim 15 is referred to in claim 20 as “the acquisition step”. It seems to the examiner that the “prior step” recited in claim 17 is a step prior to the acquisition step. For examination purposes, that is how it will be interpreted.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied on in the rejections, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
One close prior art is Yasuhara et al. (U.S. 5,655,870). Yasuhara teaches in claim 3 a system “for controlling the movement of the fork in accordance with the location of the center aperture of the load so that the fork is correctly inserted into the center aperture of the load”. The problem is the same as the present disclosure. Yet in Yasuhara the solution uses “a couple of distance sensors” whereas the present disclosure only uses one. For at least that reason, the claims are different.
Another close prior art is Kim et al. (US2022/0153562), cited on the applicant’s IDS. Kim teaches a system as shown in Figs. 7 and 9 in which the position of a shaft of a forklift is not aligned with the hole of the object 200. Paragraph 0071 teaches a camera 115 at the end of the shaft 110 of the forklift. But according to paragraph 0077 the alignment is achieved using an identifier such as a QR code or data matrix, which tells the forklift where to go.
Another close prior art is Blevins et al. (US2018/0319594), cited on the applicant’s IDS. Blevins teaches a forklift that can pick up rolls of carpet from warehouse racks. Paragraph 0046 teaches a “3D camera 160” that generates a point cloud. According to paragraph 0047 the system can use the camera to “generate a point cloud and calculate the diameter (e.g.; the widest horizontal distance) of an object (e.g., a roll of carpet) based on the known optical characteristics of second line scanner 164.”
Paragraph 0064 states that “FIG. 4D illustrates an example where pole 110 is misaligned, with lift truck 110 incapable of lateral adjustment movements. In such instances, the horizontal actuators on mast 150 will be used to adjust the lateral position of mast 150 to align pole 110 to the core of the carpet roll. Once aligned properly, pole 110 is inserted within the core of the carpet roll by lift truck 100 moving forward.”
Paragraph 0085 and Figs. 10A and 10B teaches that the “lift truck 100/200 locates the center, generally designated 322, of carpet roll 310 using various vision algorithms 112F/212F. The reliability of the resulting analysis is determined and, if deemed satisfactory, lift truck 100/200 moves forward to engage pole 110/210 within core 320 of carpet roll 310 to pick up carpet roll 310.”
Blevins does not teach, as present claim 1 does, determining a plane on the face of the load and a plane of the forklift and an angle between them. Nor does Blevins teach, as present claim 1 does, “a step of stopping the forklift if at least one of the calculated angle error or centering error values is greater, as an absolute value, than a predefined limit value.” Blevins teaches in paragraph 0041 a system to stop the forklift in case a collision is about to occur with an object in the warehouse. But this is related to the transit path of the forklift, not the forklift being an error value or greater from a predefined limit value with the load, as disclosed in present claim 1. Blevins also teaches “stops 122” on the forklift, but these are buttons mounted on the side of the forklift that can be pressed by workers, as seen in Fig. 1A. These are not activated automatically, much less triggered when an “angle error or centering error values is greater, as an absolute value, than a predefined limit value,” as in present claim 1.
Another close prior art is Kato et al. (US2023/0242386). Kato teaches a system that stops a forklift when a height is reached or when an angle of the forks is reached. That that is not a comparative angle, as in present claim 1. Rather, it is just the angle of the forks, as seen in Kato, Fig. 2.
Another close prior art is Wuhan (CN112149687A). Wuhan teaches use a camera to detect the load that forklift is seeking to pick up. Wuhan teaches that “When…The forklift arm cannot be aimed at the target object; and/or when the plane where the target object is located is not parallel to the plane of the target forklift, the parameters that control the target forklift to perform a rotating operation are added to the preset and/or when the included angle formed between the target object and the plane where the forklift arm is located is greater than a fifth threshold, adding parameters for controlling the target forklift to perform the second warning operation to the preset motion trajectory, Wherein, the second alarm operation is used to indicate that the target object is inclined.”
Wuhan further teaches:
S4. When the vertical distance between d1' and d2' or the vertical distance between d3' and d4' is greater than a certain threshold, it indicates that the target is inclined, and the forklift stops moving and gives an alarm;
S5. When the horizontal distance between d1' and d2' or the horizontal distance between d3' and d4' is less than the horizontal distance between the two forklift arms, the forklift stops moving and gives an alarm.
The terms shown in Fig. 3 are defined on pages 11 and 12 of the attached English translation. D1’ and d2’ are both related to V1, which is the “field of view of the depth camera”. What the above steps basically teach is that when the forks are wider than the space on the load in which to fit the forks, the forklift will automatically stop. The automatic stop in Wuhan is therefore not related to a center error or an angle error as in present claim 1, but in an error between the width of the forks and the width of the space in which they are to fit. The forks may be properly centered and angled yet not fit in Wuhan. In Wuhan, when the planes to do align, the forklift will not stop but rather move to a new alignment.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights