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
This office action is in response to application number 19/142,877 filed on 06/24/2025, in which claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is lacking paragraph numbering.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
Claim 1: A method of operating a robotic vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: lifting a load via a lifting mechanism of a robotic vehicle;
applying a first pulse of force to the load;
obtaining, from one or more sensors, first sensor data related to movement of the load responsive to the first pulse of force applied to the load;
determining one or more parameters related to the load based on the first sensor data; and
performing one or more actions based on the one or more parameters related to the load.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method comprising a robotic vehicle (an apparatus) comprising a lift mechanism and one or more sensor. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining one or more parameters related to the load based on the first sensor data. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of lifting a load via a lifting mechanism of a robotic vehicle; applying a first pulse of force to the load; obtaining, from one or more sensors, first sensor data related to movement of the load responsive to the first pulse of force applied to the load; and performing one or more actions based on the one or more parameters related to the load. The obtaining first sensor data related to movement of the load is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering load data for use in the predicting step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The one or more actions based on the one or more parameters is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the predicting steps, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. The lifting a load via a lifting mechanism and applying a first pulse of force to the load is also recited at a high level of generality, performing an automated sequence prior to collecting sensor data, which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, a lifting mechanism, applying a pulse force to the load, collecting sensor data, and applying an action elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The background recites that “a lifting mechanism” as “The robotic vehicle 160 includes a vehicle body 164 including various electrical and mechanical components (e.g., a motor(s), a drivetrain, axles, suspension, etc.), wheels 166, a lifting mechanism 168 which in this particular example is a forklift mechanism including a fork 170 including tines 172A and 172B, and a control system 174 that controls the overall operation of the robotic vehicle 160” (See Pg. 6, Ln. 13-18), and the specification also recites “a pulse of force” as “The robotic vehicle 160 or 200 applies a first pulse of force to the load 176 or 212 (step 302). Preferably, the first pulse of force is such that it approximates (e.g., can be treated as) an impulse (e.g., as might be characterized using a Dirac delta function). The first pulse of force may be a lateral pulse of force, a rotational pulse of force, or a combination thereof” (See Pg. 10, Ln. 12-16). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The specification further recites “sensors” as “The sensors 162B may be, for example, pressure sensors that output data indicative of the pressure sensed by the sensors 162B, strain gauges on the tines 172A and 172B of the fork 170 of the lifting mechanism 168, or the like. The sensors 162B may also include one or more sensors for sensing whether the load 176 is wrapped (e.g., in a plastic wrap or film) or not” (See Pg. 7, Ln. 21-26). Lastly, the background recites “an action” as “As a result of the automated analysis, one or more actions are performed by the robotic vehicle or the automated load analysis system such as, e.g., deciding to place one or more restrictions on the movement (e.g., one or more restrictions on linear and/or angular velocity and/or acceleration) of the robotic vehicle while moving the load, adapting one or more characteristics of the robotic vehicle (e.g., adapting suspension), or the like” (See Pg. 6, Ln. 2-7).
Hence, the specification indicates that load lifting, force, sensor measurements, and automated actions are a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 9: Independent apparatus claim 9 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claims 2-8 & 10-12: Dependents do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tügel et al. DE 102020129274 A1 (hereinafter Tügel).
Claim 1: Tügel discloses A method of operating a robotic vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: lifting a load via a lifting mechanism of a robotic vehicle [[0003]; For this purpose, various forms of compact and flat self-driving, platform-type, electrically powered, automatically or autonomously navigating transport vehicles are increasingly being used, which drive under a load carrier, such as a pallet or a trolley, and lift it slightly in order to move it horizontally and set it down again]; applying a first pulse of force to the load; obtaining, from one or more sensors, first sensor data related to movement of the load responsive to the first pulse of force applied to the load; determining one or more parameters related to the load based on the first sensor data [[0022] & [0023]; "To measure the forces at the three connection points, force-measuring bolts are advantageously used as sensors, which can transmit and simultaneously measure the forces at the connection points. The force measuring bolts can be designed in such a way that the forces in the x-direction and in the z-direction can be measured with the same force measuring bolt (...) In this case, the procedure for determining the mass and center of gravity of the load expediently includes the following steps: After the load is picked up, the forces perpendicular to the road surface (in the z-direction) are first measured at the three connection points while the transport vehicle is stationary, and thus the mass of the load as well as the x and y coordinates of the load's center of gravity are determined"]; and performing one or more actions based on the one or more parameters related to the load [[0041]; Preferably, the driving profile parameters of the transport vehicle are adapted to the calculated mass and center of gravity of the load in the electronic data processing device. By adjusting the parameters of the driving profile to the specific load being carried, the goal of optimized, i.e. increased, handling performance can be achieved without compromising safety].
Claim 2: Tügel teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Tügel discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the first pulse of force applied to the load is either a pulse of lateral force, a pulse of rotational force, or a pulse of combined lateral and rotational forces [[0010] & [0020]; This problem is solved according to the invention by means of force measurements carried out at the connection points by means of sensors, wherein at least the forces perpendicular to the road surface (in the z-direction) are measured at all three connection points and the forces along the direction of travel (in the x-direction) are determined during an acceleration of the transport vehicle in the direction of travel and the mass and center of gravity of the load are calculated from this in an electronic data processing device. (...) Furthermore, the determination of the mass and center of gravity of the load can be further improved by directly measuring the forces perpendicular to the direction of travel (in the y-direction) at at least two connection points using sensors].
Claim 3: Tügel teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Tügel discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the first pulse of force is applied to the load by the robotic vehicle [[0079]; The transport vehicle 1 is thus designed as a flat and compact self-propelled transport vehicle that allows the load carrier C to be driven under and the load carrier C to be lifted with the load handling platform 5 in order to transport the load carrier horizontally and set it down again. Navigation and control of transport vehicle 1 is automatic or autonomous; alternatively, remote operation of transport vehicle 1 is also possible].
Claim 4: Tügel teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Tügel discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the first pulse of force applied to the load is one of a pulse of lateral force and a pulse of rotational force, and the method further comprises: applying a second pulse of force to the load, the second pulse of force being the other of a pulse of lateral force and a pulse of rotational force; and obtaining second sensor data from the one or more sensors responsive to the second pulse of force applied to the load; wherein determining the one or more parameters related to the load includes determining the one or more parameters related to the load based on both the first sensor data and the second sensor data [[0020] & [0054]; Furthermore, the determination of the mass and center of gravity of the load can be further improved by directly measuring the forces perpendicular to the direction of travel (in the y-direction) at at least two connection points using sensors. (...) In the transport vehicle, the task is solved by arranging force measuring sensors at the connection points, which are designed to measure at least forces perpendicular to the road surface (in the z-direction), and by providing at least one force detection device designed to detect forces along the direction of travel (in the x-direction) during acceleration of the transport vehicle in the direction of travel, and by providing an electronic data processing device designed to calculate the mass and center of gravity of the load from the measured and detected forces].
Claim 5: Tügel teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Tügel discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises: determining one or more restrictions or limitations on movement of the robotic vehicle based on the one or more parameters related to the load; and operating in accordance with the one or more restrictions or limitations on movement of the robotic vehicle [[0041]; Accordingly, for example, the maximum driving speed, the minimum and maximum accelerations and decelerations, as well as the maximum cornering speed in relation to the curve radius, can be adjusted to the load condition. (...) The route may also be adjusted if necessary, for example to achieve greater safety distances, to avoid roads with restrictions, to avoid inclines and/or declines and/or uneven surfaces].
Claim 6: Tügel teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Tügel discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises: determining whether it is safe for the robotic vehicle to move the load based on the one or more parameters related to the load; and operating in accordance with a result of determining whether it is safe for the robotic vehicle to move the load [[0041] & [0043]; By adjusting the parameters of the driving profile to the specific load being carried, the goal of optimized, i.e. increased, handling performance can be achieved without compromising safety. Depending on the mass and properties of the load and the center of gravity, the driving dynamics of the transport vehicle are changed, such as the minimum braking distance, stability, and standstill. Tipping stability of the vehicle or load, mechanical stresses on vehicle parts and the road surface. The basis for assigning or calculating the optimal driving profiles is, for example, data stored in the system, which was determined through sufficiently detailed calculations and test series. (...) According to a particularly preferred embodiment of the invention, the mass and center of gravity of the load are continuously or periodically determined during the journey, and if a slippage of the load is detected by changes in the determined values by the electronic data processing device, a safety reaction is initiated, which in particular includes an emergency stop or a reduction in driving speed and/or signaling by means of warning signals and/or a warning message to a higher-level traffic control system].
Claim(s) 9: The claim(s) is directed towards an apparatus of the recited limitations performed by the method of claim(s) 1, respectively. The cited portions of Tügel used in the rejection of claim(s) 1 teach the same steps to perform the apparatus of claim(s) 9, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 1 as outlined 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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tügel in view of Watts US 20180329425 A1 (hereinafter Watts).
Claim 10: Tügel teaches the apparatus of claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated.
Watts teaches a robotic vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the one or more sensors are located on the lifting mechanism [[0082]; Method 300 may further involve determining that one or more of the vehicle's lift elements are placed under the object for pickup, as shown by block 310. More specifically, the local control system of the vehicle may use force feedback from one or more force sensors on the vehicle to determine when the vehicle's lift elements are properly positioned under the object. As is discussed in more detail below, a force sensor may be any type of sensor placed on the vehicle's lift elements, wheels, and/or body that are configured to detect force, contact, and/or pressure from the object].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tügel in view of Watts with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Warehouse vehicle controls. The combination would introduce cargo and vehicle safety via stopping transportation when the force of the load is determined to exceed a threshold [Watts; [0082]; Based on sensor data from these sensors, the local control system may determine when to stop the vehicle's motion along the determined approach path. In one example, the local control system may determine when a detected force exceeds a threshold amount, and responsively cause the vehicle to stop motion along the path].
Claim 11: The combination of Tügel and Watts teach the apparatus of claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 above is incorporated. Tügel does not explicitly disclose the limitations of 11.
Watts teaches a robotic vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more pressure sensors implemented within or affixed to the lifting mechanism [[0096]; FIG. 7A illustrates an autonomous vehicle with horizontal force sensors and vertical force sensors, according an example embodiment. More specifically, fork truck 700 includes two horizontal force sensors 704, 706 mounted to the body 702 of the fork truck 700. The horizontal force sensors 704, 706 may generate sensor data indicating a force on the fork truck 700 in a direction towards the front of the body 702 of the fork truck 700. The sensor data may include force values, pressure values, and/or a boolean value indicating whether or not contact with an object is detected].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tügel in view of Watts with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Warehouse vehicle controls. The combination would introduce cargo and vehicle safety via stopping transportation when the force of the load is determined to exceed a threshold [Watts; [0082]; Based on sensor data from these sensors, the local control system may determine when to stop the vehicle's motion along the determined approach path. In one example, the local control system may determine when a detected force exceeds a threshold amount, and responsively cause the vehicle to stop motion along the path].
Claim 12: The combination of Tügel and Watts teach the apparatus of claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated. Tügel does not explicitly disclose the limitations of 12.
Watts teaches a robotic vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the one or more pressure sensors are between a body of the lifting mechanism and a platform on which the load is positioned [[0096]; Multiple horizontal force sensors may be arranged on a vehicle in order to verify that the vehicle's lift elements are fully positioned under an object to be picked up. In some examples, horizontal force sensors may be positioned elsewhere on the body 702, on the forks 712, 714, on the wheels, and/or on other parts of fork truck 700 as well or instead].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tügel in view of Watts with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Warehouse vehicle controls. The combination would introduce cargo and vehicle safety via stopping transportation when the force of the load is determined to exceed a threshold [Watts; [0082]; Based on sensor data from these sensors, the local control system may determine when to stop the vehicle's motion along the determined approach path. In one example, the local control system may determine when a detected force exceeds a threshold amount, and responsively cause the vehicle to stop motion along the path].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-8 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Wilson et al. (US 20230139590 A1) discloses features and improvements for a powered industrial vehicle, such as a forklift. In some embodiments, the forklift may have improved geometry and sensors. In some embodiments, the forklift may include an operator interface system for controlling powered industrial vehicles based on the field of view of an operator. In some embodiments, the forklift may include an integrated control system such that the operator cannot perform a certain operation without first performing a different, prior operation and/or such that the operator cannot perform two or more operations simultaneously which would result in unsafe operation. In some embodiments, a virtual reality simulator for the forklift may be provided.
Sukalski et al. (US 20220340404 A1) discloses a lift truck weighing system that includes a plurality of sensors configured to measure forces acting on a lift truck. In particular, the sensors are secured at one or more interfaces between a plurality of axles and a chassis of the lift truck. In some examples, the sensors are secured to and/or incorporated with a plurality of axles configured to support the lift truck wheels, such as to or within the axles.
Notohardjono et al. (US 20220041158 A1) discloses a method, computer system, and computer program product for preventing tipping of a load during transport by a vehicle is provided. The present invention may include retrieving a tipping point of the load, based on a center of gravity of the load, a speed of the vehicle, and a turning radius of the vehicle, wherein the tipping point is based on a simulation utilizing finite element analysis; and responsive to determining that the center of gravity of the load is within a threshold distance of the tipping point, taking a corrective action which may include controlling the speed or turning radius of the vehicle.
Wehner et al. (US 20230191978 A1) discloses a cargo transport system is provided that has an ability to move cargo in an autonomous or semi-autonomous manner, using a compact lift vehicle capable of lifting relatively heavy objects. The system includes a cargo loading system, a sensor suite coupled with a controller, dunnage detection, cross-decking capability, cargo stacking capability, autonomous navigation, tip detection and prevention, or any combinations thereof. The system may include a fork assembly coupled with a mast and movable in a vertical direction relative to the mast. Further, the mast may be coupled with a platform or deck and movable in a horizontal direction relative to the platform, to allow the fork assembly to be lowered below a top plane of the platform when the mast is at a forward location relative to the platform. The controller and sensor suite and may provide for autonomous or semi-autonomous control and movement of the cargo transport system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights