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 the application filed on May 23, 2025. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21, 30 and 37 are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2025, 09/05/2025 and 10/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0115], lines 12-13, “USB system” should read “UWB system”,
In paragraph [0154], line 9, “USB system” should read “UWB system”.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 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
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 21 is directed to a method (i.e., a process) for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment. Therefore, claim 21 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 21 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 21 recites:
A method for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment, wherein the covered environment includes a guidewire disposed therein, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for communicating with a plurality of transceiver anchors in the covered environment, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes at least one vehicle sensor [mental process/step], comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a signal from at least one transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors;
utilizing, by the computing device, based on a number of the at least one transceiver anchor, a first weighting of location data to use to determine a vehicle location of the materials handling vehicle [mental process/step];
determining, by the computing device, the vehicle location based on the first weighting [mental process/step];
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is within a predetermined distance to an aisle, utilizing, by the computing device, a second weighting of location data, wherein the second weighting includes primarily utilizing the signal for a first dimension of the vehicle location and includes primarily utilizing data associated with the guidewire for a second dimension of the vehicle location [mental process/step]; and
determining, by the computing device, the vehicle location from the first dimension and the second dimension [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining a position …”, “utilizing … a first weighting …”, “determining … a vehicle location …”, “utilizing … a second weighting …” and “determining … the vehicle location …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment, wherein the covered environment includes a guidewire disposed therein, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for communicating with a plurality of transceiver anchors in the covered environment, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes at least one vehicle sensor [mental process/step], comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a signal from at least one transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic computing module];
utilizing, by the computing device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], based on a number of the at least one transceiver anchor, a first weighting of location data to use to determine a vehicle location of the materials handling vehicle [mental process/step];
determining, by the computing device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the vehicle location based on the first weighting [mental process/step];
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is within a predetermined distance to an aisle, utilizing, by the computing device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], a second weighting of location data, wherein the second weighting includes primarily utilizing the signal for a first dimension of the vehicle location and includes primarily utilizing data associated with the guidewire for a second dimension of the vehicle location [mental process/step]; and
determining, by the computing device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the vehicle location from the first dimension and the second dimension [mental process/step].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving … a signal …” and “by a computing device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (computing device) to perform the process. In particular, receiving a signal from a transceiver anchor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering), and amounts to mere data gathering, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 21 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving … a signal …” and “by a computing device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 23-28 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 23-28 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 21.
Therefore, claims 21 and 23-28 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-25, 27 and 29-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCabe (US-20120239224-A1).
Regarding claim 21, McCabe teaches method for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment (see McCabe, Abstract, figures 1 and 3, paragraphs 17-18 and 30, regarding guidance and navigation system (GANS) 13 (performing method of determining vehicle position) of industrial vehicle 10 (materials handling vehicle) operating in warehouse 100 (covered environment)), wherein the covered environment includes a guidewire disposed therein
(see McCabe, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding “GANS 13 can determine its location and the travel path by sensing a buried wire, tape on the building floor, or magnetic markers adjacent the path, i.e. environmental conditions”, exemplary of a guidewire disposed in a covered environment, such as a building floor), wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for communicating with a plurality of transceiver anchors in the covered environment (see McCabe, figures 2 and 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding guidance and navigation system (GANS) 13 onboard industrial vehicle 10 communicating with fiducials 218 (transceiver anchors) in warehouse 100 (covered environment)), wherein the materials handling vehicle includes at least one vehicle sensor (see McCabe, figure 1, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding “GANS 13 (onboard industrial vehicle 10) can determine its location and the travel path by sensing a buried wire …”, exemplary of a materials handling vehicle includes at least one vehicle sensor, in this case, to sense a buried wire), comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a signal from at least one transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors (see McCabe, figure 1-2 and 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding guidance and navigation system (GANS) 13 (computing device) receiving signals (bar code data) from fiducials 218 (plurality of transceiver anchors);
utilizing, by the computing device, based on a number of the at least one transceiver anchor, a first weighting of location data to use to determine a vehicle location of the materials handling vehicle (see McCabe, figure 1-2 and 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding “each fiducial 218 (transceiver anchor) has unique appearance or optically readable code, e.g. a unique barcode (number), thereby enabling the GANS 13 (computing device) to determine the present position of the vehicle …”, wherein the weighting of location data is based on line-of-sight (LOS) detectability/readability of the transceiver anchors);
determining, by the computing device, the vehicle location based on the first weighting (see McCabe, figure 1-2 and 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding “each fiducial 218 (transceiver anchor) has unique appearance or optically readable code, e.g. a unique barcode (number), thereby enabling the GANS 13 (computing device) to determine the present position of the vehicle …”, exemplary of determining the vehicle location based on a first weighting);
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is within a predetermined distance to an aisle, utilizing, by the computing device, a second weighting of location data, wherein the second weighting includes primarily utilizing the signal for a first dimension of the vehicle location and includes primarily utilizing data associated with the guidewire for a second dimension of the vehicle location (see McCabe, figure 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding industrial vehicle 214 detecting the position of vehicle relative to assigned path 216 (a predetermined distance to an aisle), tracking the path using, for example, a buried wire (a second dimension) by utilizing signals of successive fiducials 218 (a second weighting) for traversing the path in a second dimension (a position of movement along the path); and
determining, by the computing device, the vehicle location from the first dimension and the second dimension (see McCabe, figure 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding GANS 13 (computing device) determining a present position (vehicle location) on assigned path 216, wherein the first dimension is any point along the path and the second dimension is a particular point on the path, such that when combined, determines a unique vehicle location in the covered environment).
Regarding claim 22, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, including further comprising engaging with the guidewire to control the materials handling vehicle along the first dimension (see McCabe, figure 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding industrial vehicle 214 traveling in an autonomous mode by tracking a buried wire, exemplary of engaging with a guidewire to navigate/control a materials handling vehicle along assigned path 216, a first dimension of staying on the path).
Regarding claim 23, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, including wherein primarily utilizing data associated with the guidewire includes utilizing a predetermined location of the guidewire for the second dimension (see McCabe, figure 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding industrial vehicle 214 traveling in an autonomous mode by tracking a buried wire, wherein the endpoint (traveling starting point) of the assigned path 216 is representative of data (position of endpoint on the path) associated with the guidewire that is a predetermined second dimension location).
Regarding claim 24, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, including wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a user option to manually alter at least one of the following: the first weighting or the second weighting (see McCabe, figure 4, paragraphs 37 and 39, regarding a central dispatcher (user option to manually alter) entering new path assignment to the vehicle to navigate, therefore altering at least one of a first weighting (point on the path) or a second weighting (new path)).
Regarding claim 25, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, including wherein in the aisle, only a subset of the plurality of transceiver anchors is positioned with line of sight to the materials handling vehicle along the aisle (see McCabe, figure 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding industrial vehicle 214 traveling in an autonomous mode by tracking a buried wire, wherein at the endpoint (traveling starting point) of the assigned path 216 in an aisle is representative of a subset (a first/closest fiducial 218 (transceiver anchor)) of the plurality of fiducials 218 (transceiver anchors) with line of sight to the material handling vehicle along the aisle, wherein subsequent transceiver anchors comes into the vehicles line of sight as it traverses its assigned path).
Regarding claim 27, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, including wherein at least one of the following is changed in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the guidewire: the first weighting or the second weighting (see McCabe, figure 4, paragraphs 18 and 39, regarding industrial vehicle 214 detecting the position of vehicle relative to assigned path 216 (a predetermined distance to a guidewire endpoint), tracking the path using, for example, a buried wire (a second dimension) by utilizing signals of successive fiducials 218 (a second weighting) for traversing the path in a second dimension (a position of movement along the path, exemplary of a second weighting change as the vehicle traverses the assigned path).
Regarding claim 29, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, including further comprising, altering operation of the materials handling vehicle, wherein the altering operation of the materials handling vehicle includes at least one of the following: changing a speed of the materials handling vehicle, limiting operation of a fork of the materials handling vehicle, generating an alert to an operator of the materials handling vehicle, engaging an autonomous mode, engaging a semi-autonomous mode, or engaging a manual mode (see McCabe, paragraph 57, regarding industrial vehicle 10 ceasing autonomous operation when object is detected in its path and generates (issues) an alert to a supervisory personnel (operator of the materials handling vehicle) in the warehouse).
Regarding claims 30-36, independent claim 30 is a system for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment, wherein the covered environment includes a guidewire disposed therein, comprising: the materials handling vehicle, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for receiving a communication from a plurality of transceiver anchors that are placed on respective stationary objects within the covered environment and one or more vehicle sensors; and a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform the identical method for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment, wherein the covered environment includes a guidewire disposed therein, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for communicating with a plurality of transceiver anchors in the covered environment, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes at least one vehicle sensor of independent claim 21, and similarly, dependent claims 31-36 of independent claim 30 are also performing identical methods corresponding to dependent claims 25, 22-24, 27 and 29 of independent claim 21, respectively, therefore, claims 30-36 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102 for the same respective rationale as claims 21, 22-24, 27 and 29.
Regarding claims 37-40, independent claim 37 is a materials handling vehicle comprising: a vehicle transceiver for receiving a communication from a plurality of transceiver anchors that are placed on respective stationary objects within a covered environment, wherein the covered environment includes a guidewire disposed therein; one or more vehicle sensors; and a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the materials handling vehicle to perform the identical method for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment, wherein the covered environment includes a guidewire disposed therein, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for communicating with a plurality of transceiver anchors in the covered environment, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes at least one vehicle sensor of independent claim 21 and dependent claim 29 of independent claim 21, and similarly, dependent claims 38-40 of independent claim 37 are also performing identical methods corresponding to dependent claims 22, 24 and 27 of independent claim 21, respectively, therefore, claims 37-40 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102 for the same respective rationale as claims 21 & 29 combined, 22, 24 and 27.
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 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US-20120239224-A1) in view of Zeitler (US-20030028323-A1).
Regarding claim 26, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, except wherein the first dimension is determined from a time of flight differential between communication with a first transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors and communication with a second transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors.
However Zeitler remedies this shortfall with a teaching of localization of AGV (autonomous ground vehicles) in a material handling system/environment using placed beacons (transceiver anchors) to determine distance from based on time of flight of the beacon’s emitted pulse to the AGV’s onboard receiver/detector and with a plurality of determined distances from at least a first beacon and a second beacon, determine a current position of the AGV (see Zeitler, Abstract, figure 6, paragraphs 36 and 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment of McCabe to further comprise the beacons-based time of flight position localization of Zeitler because including a time of flight derived distance measurement to a line of sight angular location determination resolves a range to that angular location and therefore improves the positional accuracy of a vehicle in its working environment, therefore, modified McCabe enables wherein the first dimension is determined from a time of flight differential between communication with a first transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors and communication with a second transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors.
Regarding claim 28, McCabe teaches the method of claim 21, except wherein at least one of the following is changed in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a restriction zone: the first weighting or the second weighting.
However Zeitler remedies this shortfall with a teaching of localization of AGV (autonomous ground vehicles) in a material handling system/environment to include a radar module to detect nearby objects, wherein the object detection range can also be controllable during operation to allow a safety zone tailored to the vehicle's current task, effectively demarcating a safety zone from non-safety zone, such as, for example a restricted zone (see Zeitler, Abstract, figure 1, paragraph 59, regarding radar bumper 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method for determining a position of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment of McCabe to further comprise the safety zone geofencing of Zeitler because this improves the operational safety of the vehicle in its working environment, therefore, modified McCabe enables wherein at least one of the following is changed in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a restriction zone: the first weighting or the second weighting.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
July 10, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights