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 .
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2025 and 05/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11, 13, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman et al. (US 2008/0154691 A1), in view of Bahnholzer (EP 3988475 A1), hereinafter Bahnholzer (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wellman teaches:
A method of classifying a collision event on a racking system, the method comprising:
detecting the collision event between an industrial truck ([0028] “mobile assets 12, such as materials handling vehicles (shown as forklift trucks”) and the racking system using a sensor ([0122] “impact sensors 60”) ... and determining a strength of the collision event, comparing the determined strength with a reference strength ([0123] “determined that the detected impact exceeds at least one predetermined impact condition.”) and emitting a collision signal associated with the collision event if the determined strength exceeds the reference strength ([0123] “the processor, e.g., provided by the interface controller 50 or otherwise integrated into the materials handling vehicle may be configured to respond to the detected impact by classifying the severity of the detected impact and by wirelessly communicating impact information to the server computer if it is determined that the detected impact exceeds at least one predetermined impact condition.”; [0125] “Upon a detected impact that exceeds predetermined impact conditions, an alarm, such as a buzzer, horn or light may be activated, via the monitoring input/output 48 until a supervisor clears the alarm.”);
... the controller classifying the collision event as a function of status data of the industrial truck and of the collision signal ([0123] “the processor, e.g., provided by the interface controller 50 or otherwise integrated into the materials handling vehicle may be configured to respond to the detected impact by classifying the severity of the detected impact ... The processor may also poll at least one vehicle component across the materials handling vehicle network system 68 to determine the extent of any damage that may have been caused by a detected impact that exceeds predetermined impact conditions.”),
wherein the classifying of the collision event comprises assigning a collision type from a collision type list ([0124] “In an illustrative example, the interface controller 50 may compute or otherwise analyze the "severity" of impacts, such as to distinguish between minor impacts and major impacts.”), wherein the collision type list comprises at least one collision type for which the collision event is not assigned to the industrial truck ([0125] “The mobile asset may also be able to distinguish a low threshold impact as noted above, in which case, the tracking of minor incidences may be simply logged/recorded without initiating an alarm.”) and at least one collision type for which the collision event is assigned to the industrial truck ([0124] “One strategy may be to lock out the mobile asset upon detecting a major impact”).
Wellman does not specifically teach the sensor is arranged on the racking system; and transmitting the collision signal to a receiver of the industrial truck and the receiver forwarding the collision signal to a controller of the industrial truck.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bahnholzer teaches:
detecting the collision event between an industrial truck and a racking system using a sensor arranged on the racking system ([0014] “sensor unit to a rack system to be monitored for a collision.”; [0027] “The collision 16 may have been so strong that a collision signal 20 is transmitted from the shelf 14”);
transmitting the collision signal to a receiver of the industrial truck ([0015] “the industrial truck has a receiving unit which is matched to the transmitting unit and is designed to receive the transmitted collision signal from the transmitting unit “; [0027] “The collision 16 may have been so strong that a collision signal 20 is transmitted from the shelf 14. The industrial truck 10 processes the collision signal 20”) and the receiver forwarding the collision signal to a controller of the industrial truck ([0024] “The receiving unit in the industrial truck is preferably connected to a vehicle controller which has a communication connection to the superordinate controller of the storage system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman to arrange the sensor on the racking system, transmit the collision signal to a receiver of the industrial truck and the receiver forwarding the collision signal to a controller of the industrial truck, as taught by Bahnholzer, in order to trigger a warning directly from the industrial truck, so that the corresponding operator can react to it, as stated by Bahnholzer in [0015].
Regarding claim 4, Wellman further teaches:
wherein the status data of the industrial truck comprise one or more of a driving speed of the industrial truck ([0069] “ If a triggering event is detected, such as the detection of a parameter that exceeds a predetermined tolerance, then the logged contents can be stored, e.g., by communicating the information to the application server 14. Thus for example, if the vehicle speed, load, or other measurable parameter exceeds a threshold or other defined condition, then specific data may be gathered, collected, assembled, etc. into an event report and such data may be communicated to the application server 14.”).
Regarding claim 5, Wellman further teaches:
wherein the status data is recorded in a time window and the time window comprises the time of the collision event and one or more of a time period before and after the time of the collision event ([0070] “As another example, if an impact from one of the impact sensors is detected, e.g., if a detected impact exceeds one or more predetermined impact conditions, an event process may be triggered that creates an event report by saving logged data from a time window that may extend a predetermined time before the impact to a predetermined time after the impact.”).
Regarding claim 6, Wellman further teaches:
wherein, for classifying of the collision event, an industrial truck status at the time of the collision event is determined as a function of the status data ([0123] “ The processor may also poll at least one vehicle component across the materials handling vehicle network system 68 to determine the extent of any damage that may have been caused by a detected impact that exceeds predetermined impact conditions. Moreover, information may be communicated to the server computer regarding impact damage where the information is obtained across the materials handling vehicle network system 68 from vehicle components.”).
Regarding claim 8, Wellman further teaches:
wherein assigning of the collision type comprises successively determining, whether the collision event is assigned to the industrial truck ([0124] “One strategy may be to lock out the mobile asset upon detecting a major impact”; [0125] “The mobile asset may also be able to distinguish a low threshold impact as noted above, in which case, the tracking of minor incidences may be simply logged/recorded without initiating an alarm.” – When the collision event is a major collision, the industrial truck is in lockout, i.e. assigned to the industrial truck), and a collision type is assigned to the collision event ([0124] “the interface controller 50 may compute or otherwise analyze the "severity" of impacts, such as to distinguish between minor impacts and major impacts.”).
Regarding claim 11, Wellman further teaches:
wherein the collision signal comprises one or more of the determined strength of the collision event ([0124] “the interface controller 50 may compute or otherwise analyze the "severity" of impacts”) and a time series of measurement data ([0070] “logged data from a time window that may extend a predetermined time before the impact to a predetermined time after the impact”) recorded by the sensor for determining the strength of the collision event ([0070] “As another example, if an impact from one of the impact sensors is detected, e.g., if a detected impact exceeds one or more predetermined impact conditions, an event process may be triggered that creates an event report by saving logged data from a time window that may extend a predetermined time before the impact to a predetermined time after the impact”).
Regarding claim 13, Wellman does not specifically teach wherein the classification of the collision event comprises a determination of a shock level of the collision event as an indicator of the impact on the integrity of the racking system.
However, Bahnholzer teaches:
wherein the classification of the collision event comprises a determination of a shock level of the collision event as an indicator of the impact on ([0014] “ The shock-sensitive sensor detects a pulse or a pulse transfer. In the case of the collision warning system according to the invention, the mounting unit is designed to fasten at least the sensor unit to a rack system to be monitored for a collision. The sensor unit is in turn designed to measure a pulse transmission from the industrial truck to the racking system and to apply it to the data processing unit.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Bahnholzer to determine a shock level of the collision event as an indicator of the impact, as taught by Bahnholzer, in order to determine a severity of the collision event.
Regarding claim 16, Wellman does not specifically teach wherein the classifying of the collision event comprises that a collision location of the collision event is determined.
However, Bahnholzer teaches:
wherein the classifying of the collision event comprises that a collision location of the collision event is determined ([0017] “location of collision”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Bahnholzer, to determine a collision location of the collision event, as taught by Bahnholzer, in order to obtain additional information to perform the classification.
Regarding claim 17, Wellman further teaches:
informing one or more of a user of the industrial truck and a warehouse management system about the collision event ([0127] “In an illustrative embodiment, an alarm is initiated on the mobile asset 12 upon detecting a sufficient impact condition. To deactivate the alarm, an acknowledgment and clear signal must be presented to the interface controller 50, for example by a manager or supervisor who must input the appropriate clear signal, such as by entering a suitable response using the controls 42 associated with the input/output control module 45.”).
Regarding claim 18, Wellman further teaches:
wherein the informing informs about the classification of the collision event ([0125] “ Still further, as noted above, the system may be configured to allow a predefined number of low threshold impacts within a predefined set of parameters. For example, if an operator within a single shift experiences a number of impacts having thresholds that exceed the low impact threshold, and that number of impacts exceeds a predetermined number of low impacts deemed acceptable, suitable responsive actions may be implemented.”).
Regarding claim 20, Wellman further teaches:
wherein the industrial truck records status data of the industrial truck continuously ([0064] “Information detected by the monitoring input/output module 48 or otherwise obtained by accessing the network system 68 may be temporarily stored, collected, maintained, manipulated and/or otherwise processed, e.g., by a processor and corresponding memory in the interface controller 50 or other suitable processor and memory, which may be provided as part of the mobile asset electronics.”), and makes the recorded status data available for a predetermined period of time, the predetermined period of time being adapted to one or more of the duration of the time window of the recorded status data before and after the collision event ([0070] “As another example, if an impact from one of the impact sensors is detected, e.g., if a detected impact exceeds one or more predetermined impact conditions, an event process may be triggered that creates an event report by saving logged data from a time window that may extend a predetermined time before the impact to a predetermined time after the impact.”).
Regarding claim 21, Wellman teaches:
A collision classification system for classifying a collision event on a racking system, the method comprising:
a collision detection device having a processor and a sensor ([0122] “impact sensors 60”),
at least one industrial truck ([0028] “mobile assets 12, such as materials handling vehicles (shown as forklift trucks”) having a receiver ([0046] “a monitoring input/output module 48”) and a controller ([0049] “interface controller 50”) with a status data memory ([0048] “corresponding memory (not shown in FIG. 6) in the interface controller 50”), the processor of the collision detection device being configured to:
detect the collision event between the industrial truck and the racking system using the sensor ([0122] “impact sensors 60”) and determining a strength of the collision event, comparing the determined strength with a reference strength ([0123] “determined that the detected impact exceeds at least one predetermined impact condition.”) and emitting a collision signal associated with the collision event if the determined strength exceeds the reference strength ([0123] “the processor, e.g., provided by the interface controller 50 or otherwise integrated into the materials handling vehicle may be configured to respond to the detected impact by classifying the severity of the detected impact and by wirelessly communicating impact information to the server computer if it is determined that the detected impact exceeds at least one predetermined impact condition.”; [0125] “Upon a detected impact that exceeds predetermined impact conditions, an alarm, such as a buzzer, horn or light may be activated, via the monitoring input/output 48 until a supervisor clears the alarm.”);
... the controller of the industrial truck being configured to classify the collision event as a function of status data of the industrial truck and of the collision signal ([0123] “the processor, e.g., provided by the interface controller 50 or otherwise integrated into the materials handling vehicle may be configured to respond to the detected impact by classifying the severity of the detected impact ... The processor may also poll at least one vehicle component across the materials handling vehicle network system 68 to determine the extent of any damage that may have been caused by a detected impact that exceeds predetermined impact conditions.”),
wherein the classifying of the collision event comprises assigning a collision type from a collision type list ([0124] “In an illustrative example, the interface controller 50 may compute or otherwise analyze the "severity" of impacts, such as to distinguish between minor impacts and major impacts.”), wherein the collision type list comprises at least one collision type for which the collision event is not assigned to the industrial truck ([0125] “The mobile asset may also be able to distinguish a low threshold impact as noted above, in which case, the tracking of minor incidences may be simply logged/recorded without initiating an alarm.”) and at least one collision type for which the collision event is assigned to the industrial truck ([0124] “One strategy may be to lock out the mobile asset upon detecting a major impact”).
Wellman does not specifically teach the sensor is arranged on the racking system; and transmitting the collision signal to a receiver of the industrial truck and the receiver forwarding the collision signal to a controller of the industrial truck.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bahnholzer teaches:
detecting the collision event between an industrial truck and a racking system using a sensor arranged on the racking system ([0014] “sensor unit to a rack system to be monitored for a collision.”; [0027] “The collision 16 may have been so strong that a collision signal 20 is transmitted from the shelf 14”);
transmitting the collision signal to a receiver of the industrial truck ([0015] “the industrial truck has a receiving unit which is matched to the transmitting unit and is designed to receive the transmitted collision signal from the transmitting unit “; [0027] “The collision 16 may have been so strong that a collision signal 20 is transmitted from the shelf 14. The industrial truck 10 processes the collision signal 20”) and the receiver forwarding the collision signal to a controller of the industrial truck ([0024] “The receiving unit in the industrial truck is preferably connected to a vehicle controller which has a communication connection to the superordinate controller of the storage system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman to arrange the sensor on the racking system, transmit the collision signal to a receiver of the industrial truck and the receiver forwarding the collision signal to a controller of the industrial truck, as taught by Bahnholzer, in order to trigger a warning directly from the industrial truck, so that the corresponding operator can react to it. In addition, when the collision signal is transmitted to the industrial truck, the data can be expanded by one or more additional information items during a transmission to a higher-order or central location. By the industrial truck itself being incorporated into the information chain, an already existing communication channel on the vehicle can be used and the collision signals to be transmitted can be supplemented by vehicle-specific information, such as speed, load and/or steering angle, as stated by Bahnholzer in [0015].
Regarding claim 22, Wellman further teaches:
wherein the collision classification system comprises a warehouse management system ([0032] “Under this configuration, each site may maintain its own mobile asset application server 14, or the enterprise 26 may manage each site 1-n from a centralized location. For purposes of illustration, the mobile asset application server 14 is shown as residing at site 1. Under this arrangement, mobile assets 12 at sites 2-n may communicate with the mobile asset application server 14 across the network 24.”), wherein the warehouse management system is configured to communicate with the at least one industrial truck ([0032] “Under this arrangement, mobile assets 12 at sites 2-n may communicate with the mobile asset application server 14 across the network 24.”).
Claims 2, 9-10, and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman et al. (US 2008/0154691 A1), in view of Bahnholzer (EP 3988475 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20230032558A), hereinafter Kim (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 2, neither Wellman nor Bahnholzer specifically teaches wherein the collision list comprises at least two different collision types for which the collision event is assigned to the industrial truck.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches:
wherein the collision list comprises at least two different collision types for which the collision event is assigned to the industrial truck ([0047]-[0048] disclose two types of collision event including a serious accident and a suspected accident).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Kim, ‘262, to at least two different collision types for which the collision event is assigned to the industrial truck, and compare the determined strength of the collision event with at least two reference strengths, as taught by Kim. Such modification allows the system to formulate an appropriate action in response to the determined collision type.
Regarding claim 9, Wellman does not specifically teach using one or more of a directly measured or derived physical or composite quantity as the determined strength of the collision event and the sensor unit compares the determined strength of the collision event with at least two reference strengths.
However, Bahnholzer teaches:
using one or more of a directly measured quantity as the determined strength of the collision event ([0014] “In the case of the collision warning system according to the invention, the mounting unit is designed to fasten at least the sensor unit to a rack system to be monitored for a collision. The sensor unit is in turn designed to measure a pulse transmission from the industrial truck to the racking system and to apply it to the data processing unit.”; [0022] “In a preferred embodiment, the sensor unit is designed as a three- or six-axis acceleration sensor. This detector detects the pulse transfer, i.e. the acceleration and its direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Bahnholzer, to use a directly measured quantity as the determined strength of the collision event, as taught by Bahnholzer, in order to identify a severity of the collision event.
Bahnholzer does not specifically teach the sensor unit compares the determined strength of the collision event with at least two reference strengths.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches:
using one or more of a directly measured or derived physical or composite quantity as the determined strength of the collision event ([0047] “the determination unit 230 determines that the impact value of the impact data exceeds 5 ... it is determined that the vehicle has had an accident and the accident type is classified as a serious accident”) and the sensor unit compares the determined strength of the collision event with at least two reference strengths ([0047] “the determination unit 230 determines that the impact value of the impact data exceeds 5”; [0048] “ the determination unit 230 determines that the impact value of the impact data exceeds 3.5” – Par. [0047] and [0048] disclose comparing the determined impact value to a threshold of 5 and 3.5 to determine whether the accident is a serious accident or a suspected accident).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Bahnholzer, compare the determined strength of the collision event with at least two reference strengths, as taught by Kim. Such modification allows the system to classify a type of the collision event and formulate an appropriate response.
Regarding claim 10, Wellman does not specifically teach wherein the directly measured or derived physical or composite quantity comprises one or more of a maximum acceleration, an amplitude measured by an acceleration sensor, a momentum transfer and an energy transfer.
However, Bahnholzer teaches:
wherein the directly measured quantity comprises an amplitude measured by an acceleration sensor ([0022] “In a preferred embodiment, the sensor unit is designed as a three- or six-axis acceleration sensor. This detector detects the pulse transfer, i.e. the acceleration and its direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Bahnholzer and Kim, to include an amplitude measured by an acceleration sensor, as taught by Bahnholzer, in order to determine the severity of the collision.
Regarding claim 12, Wellman further teaches:
wherein the time series contains the time of the collision event ([0070] “such as by logging a timestamp”), wherein, one or more of the strength of the collision event and the time series of measurement data are evaluated for classifying the collision event ([0070]-[0071]; [0123] “Thus, if a predetermined event associated with the material handling vehicle comprises detecting an impact on a materials handling vehicle, the processor, e.g., provided by the interface controller 50 or otherwise integrated into the materials handling vehicle may be configured to respond to the detected impact by classifying the severity of the detected impact and by wirelessly communicating impact information to the server computer if it is determined that the detected impact exceeds at least one predetermined impact condition. The processor may also poll at least one vehicle component across the materials handling vehicle network system 68 to determine the extent of any damage that may have been caused by a detected impact that exceeds predetermined impact conditions.”).
Neither Wellman nor Bahnholzer specifically teaches a time series of accelerations of the collision event.
However, Kim teaches:
a time series of accelerations of the collision event ([0037] “On the other hand, the impact value may be vibration sensor data collected from the vehicle terminal 100, but is not limited thereto. For example, the selector 220 may directly calculate an impact value from 3-axis acceleration sensor data ... collected from the vehicle terminal 100.”; [0054] “The accident detection device 110 stores the collected data in at least one time sliding slot (S610). Here, each time sliding slot may be configured to include at least one sub-slot.”; [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Bahnhozer, to include a time series of accelerations of the collision event, as taught by Kim, in order to collect additional sensor data to determine a severity of the collision event.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman et al. (US 2008/0154691 A1), in view of Bahnholzer (EP 3988475 A1), and further in view of Bohman et al. (US 2024/0144751 A1).
Regarding claim 19, neither Wellman nor Bahnholzer specifically teaches wherein the classification of the collision event is carried out by at least one machine learning method by one or more of at least one neural network and by a status machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bohman teaches:
wherein the classification of the collision event is carried out by at least one machine learning method by one or more of at least one neural network ([0055] “the vehicle can be outfitted with a deep learning neural network that can be trained or otherwise configured to detect vehicular collisions based on data captured by the external sensors.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wellman, in view of Bahnholzer, to classify the collision event using a machine learning method by a neural network, as taught by Bohman, in order to determine a type of the collision event.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 14-15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 AM - 6:00PM 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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/NHI Q BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights