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 .
Specification Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites a “a materials handling vehicle in an covered environment”. The phrase “an covered” should read “a covered”. For examination purposes, that is how it will be interpreted. Appropriate response or correction is respectfully required.
In the present specification, paragraph 00170 teaches that “some embodiments may be configured such that the covered environment 102 has a plurality of wireless transceivers 314, 316 positioned at known fixed locations and broadcast a signal that includes an identifier of that wireless transceiver 214.” This last reference to “214” apparently should read “314.” The paragraph mentions “214” twice more, which the examiner believes should also read 314. Reference to “transceiver 214” in paragraph 00191 may be correct and does not need to change.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites a “a materials handling vehicle in an covered environment”. The phrase “an covered” should read “a covered”. For examination purposes, that is how it will be interpreted. Appropriate response or 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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims appear to have left off a “wherein,” as added by the examiner below in bold bracketed underlining. Without this, the claims do not distinctly claim the invention. For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as shown below.
Claim 11:
The method of claim 10,
[wherein] in response to determining that the second policy applies to the materials handling vehicle, determining whether the first policy and the second policy are compatible.
Claim 12:
The method of claim 11,
[wherein] in response to determining that the first policy and the second policy are compatible, sending the materials handling vehicle the second policy, which causes the materials handling vehicle to adjust current operation to comply with the second policy when the materials handling vehicle enters the first restriction zone.
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 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.
(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 1-6, 9-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van de Velde et al. (US2024/0310860).
Regarding claim 1 Van de Velde discloses:
A system comprising (see Figs. 2A and 2B):
a materials handling vehicle in an covered environment that includes (see Van de Velde Fig. 2A for the automated vehicle 112a. See paragraph 0062 for the vehicle being a forklift in one embodiment. See paragraph 0120 for the forklift operating in a warehouse or somewhere else “indoor”.)
a vehicle transceiver for determining a location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment (in the present disclosure, see paragraph 00170 for the “vehicle transceiver 114”. This can be seen in Fig. 1B and Fig. 2. See paragraph 00185 for the vehicle transceiver 114 being related to the “geolocation engine 254,” which is part of the “vehicle location logic 144b.” According to Fig. 1B, the “vehicle location logic 144b” is related to the “local server”. So the vehicle transceiver 114 sends a signal to a local device that is connected through a network to a remote computer. See also Fig. 3 for the vehicle transceiver not being the same item as the “wireless transceiver 314 and 316”.
With that in mind, see Van de Velde Fig. 2A for the automated vehicle 112a having an RTLS tag 120. See paragraph 0210 for a tag 120, which is mounted on a vehicle, as seen in Fig. 2A. The tag 120 communicates with Anchors 132 to determine the vehicle’s location.),
a vehicle sensor for detecting an orientation of the materials handling vehicle (in the present disclosure, see Fig 1A and paragraph 00165 for a “vehicle sensor 112” that can be a speed sensor, an IMU, a direction sensor, LIDA, RADAR, a camera, or other sensors.
With that in mind, see Van de Velde, paragraph 0213 for the vehicle 112a having a co-located computer 134 on it, and the computer being able to determine the “speed and direction of travel” of a VOP 112 based on data sent to it from the VOP 112. Note that according to paragraphs 0011-0012, a VOP is a “vehicle or person” and includes the vehicle 112a in Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B. See paragraph 0215 for sending this information to the control system 102. See paragraph 0213 for the on-board computer 134 having “a number of other sensors” including an IMU, lidar, wheel encoders, cameras, etc. An IMU is a gyro-based system that detects an orientation.) and
a vehicle computing device (in the present disclosure, see Fig 1A and paragraph 00165 for a “vehicle sensor 112” that can be a speed sensor, an IMU, a direction sensor, LIDAR, RADAR, a camera, or other sensors.
With that in mind, see Van de Velde, paragraph 0213 for the vehicle 112a having a co-located computer 134 on it.);
a remotely located 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 at least the following (see Van de Velde, Figs. 2A and 2B for the control system 102.):
create a first restriction zone for the covered environment, wherein the first restriction zone defines an area within which the materials handling vehicle must comply with a first policy (in the present disclosure, see Fig 3 and paragraph 00189 for a “restriction zone 320.” These can be a high traffic area 320a, an end of aisle area 320b, and a default zone 320c. Some of these can include “edges” such as 322a, 322b, and 322c, which provide triggers for entering and/or leaving the high traffic area 320a, for example. “a restriction of a maximum speed” may be implemented in certain areas. See Fig. 5A for more examples.
With that in mind, see Van de Velde, Fig. 5 and paragraph 0255 for “No-Go Zones 402A”. See paragraph 0061 for “a special type of zone” in which a VOP is only allowed to enter “under certain conditions”. See paragraph 0233 for the VOP 112 being connected to a warehouse management system (WMS) that communicates data to the VOP.);
define the first policy (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0254 for a graphical user interface screen that presents a virtual representation of a VOP in an environment. See paragraph 0255 for generating trajectories based on “zones, properties, and rules associated with the zones and the VOPs”. A VOP, such as a forklift may have to execute a certain task, but it has to do so while obeying all the “associated ‘rules’, such as directionality, speed, and the life)…No-Go Zones…”. See paragraph 0034 for an administrator tasked with “defining the rules” and “pathway sections”. See paragraph 0081 for the robot, reasonably including the forklift 112a, being represented virtually on a Map or floor plan and having rules associated with it.);
define a second policy for the first restriction zone (see paragraph 0148 for “speed restrictions” for a VOP 112a depending on where the VOP is and what it is carrying. See the same paragraph for “height restrictions” so that he VOP can “fit under certain racks”. See also paragraph 0229 first sentence for “Specific areas may be defined (‘geofenced’) centrally, on or via the control system 102, with specific parameters such as maximum allowed speed, minimum distance, and the like.” This “and,” in the context of the disclosure, reasonably means that the speed “and” height, for example, can both be subject to a policy in a single zone.);
determine the location and the orientation of the materials handling vehicle see Van de Velde paragraph 0210 for a tag 120, which is mounted on a vehicle, as seen in Fig. 2A. The tag 120 communicates with Anchors 132 to determine the vehicle’s location.);
determine, from the location and the orientation, that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone (see paragraph 0229 for the centralized control system 102 geofencing certain areas with a maximum allowed speed, minimum distance, and the like. Then as the VOP 112 navigates “towards” the area it may “slow down” or avoid it.); and
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, determine whether the first policy applies to the materials handling vehicle and, in response to determining that the first policy applies to the materials handling vehicle, send data related to the first policy to the materials handling vehicle prior to the materials handling vehicle entering the first restriction zone, which causes the materials handling vehicle to adjust operation to comply with the first policy when the materials handling vehicle enters the first restriction zone (see paragraph 0229 for the VOP 112 being “told remotely” what to do, including “slow down” as it approaches a zone. See paragraph 0233 for the WMS providing “real-time job instructions” to the VOP 112. See paragraph 0292 for the VOP being commanded to move from one point to another.).
Regarding claim 2, Van de Velde discloses the system of claim 1.
Van de Velde further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, the logic causes the system to determine whether the second policy applies to the materials handling vehicle (in the present disclosure, paragraph 00219 teaches that “in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the second edge, communicate second policy data related to the second policy to the materials handling vehicle, wherein, if the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge, the materials handling vehicle adjusts current operation pursuant to the first policy data to adhere to the first policy prior to reaching the first edge and if the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the second edge, the materials handling vehicle adjusts current operation pursuant to the second policy data to adhere to the second policy prior to reaching the second edge.” In one broad reasonable interpretation, if a vehicle is crossing into an intersection zone from one direction it may be told to stop, while when crossing into the same intersection from another direction it may be told to go. This first and second policy apply based on the direction of travel of the vehicle. See paragraph 0033 for “wherein the first policy provides a default characteristic that the materials handling vehicle will comply, even after the materials handling vehicle exits the restriction zone and wherein the second policy removes the default characteristic when the materials handling vehicle crosses the second edge.” In another broad reasonable interpretation, the first policy may be “slow down”. The first policy may not add to that command “until exiting a zone.” But a second policy may say “speed up” when the vehicle exits the zone, which is a second policy.
With that in mind, see Van de Velde, paragraph 0133 for a plurality of rules and “the plurality of priority levels”. These priority levels can reasonably be interpreted as including a first and second policy and determining which apply and when. See paragraph 0134 for “restrictive rules for specific classes of VOPs, traffic rules, event-based rules, environment condition-based rules, activity-based rules, zone-based rules…time-based rules,” etc. The system determines the VOP’s behavior “based on the rules which are applicable”. See paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0141, first sentence, for the control system 102 defining the priorities. See paragraph 0144 for rules applying in environments “at certain times, in certain ways, and/or depending on certain circumstances.” See paragraph 0148 for determining how VOPs are “allowed to travel” based on “certain restrictions” including “allowing directionality (possibly further restricted based on certain circumstances, e.g., whether a VOP 112 is carrying a load…or not), and height restrictions (e.g., certain VOPs 112 fit under certain racks or conveyors, while others may not….while carrying a load.” See also paragraph 0148 for “right of way or other priority rules,” and “drive on the right” rules. Right of way rules, especially in the context of “directionality,” include a first and second policy. See paragraph 0157 for “certain zones may have rules that take priority over (‘overrule’) certain rules associated with certain pathways, pathway sections, or stations that fall within those zones….In a preferred example, the intersection zone may be a zone where the VOPs112 have to slow down, temporarily pause before entering, and then use certain light and sound signals while traversing that zone…Other examples may include…free roam zone, no go zone, slow down zone, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 3, Van de Velde discloses the system of claim 2.
Van de Velde further discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein
in response to determining that the second policy applies to the materials handling vehicle, the logic causes the system to perform the following:
determine whether the first policy and the second policy are compatible (see Van de Velde paragraph 0134 for “zone-based rules,” etc. The system determines the VOP’s behavior “based on the rules which are applicable”. See paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0144 for rules applying in environments “at certain times, in certain ways, and/or depending on certain circumstances.” See paragraph 0148 for determining how VOPs are “allowed to travel” based on “certain restrictions” including “allowing directionality (possibly further restricted based on certain circumstances, e.g., whether a VOP 112 is carrying a load…or not), and height restrictions (e.g., certain VOPs 112 fit under certain racks or conveyors, while others may not….while carrying a load.” See also paragraph 0148 for “right of way or other priority rules,” and “drive on the right” rules. Right of way rules, especially in the context of “directionality,” include a first and second policy. A VOP may be told to complete a task “‘as quickly as possible,’” but this is limited by zone-based rules such as yielding depending on directionality, no-go zones, and path restrictions in zones with height restrictions. See paragraph 0157 for “certain zones may have rules that take priority over (‘overrule’) certain rules associated with certain pathways, pathway sections, or stations that fall within those zones….In a preferred example, the intersection zone may be a zone where the VOPs112 have to slow down, temporarily pause before entering, and then use certain light and sound signals while traversing that zone…Other examples may include…free roam zone, no go zone, slow down zone, and the like.” Reasonably, a VOP (vehicle or person) may be in a go zone, but still have restrictions, such as right of way rules. The rules for that zone are determined to be compatible. Yielding may take priority over going, but the vehicle can still travel through the zone.);
in response to determining that the first policy and the second policy are compatible, send the materials handling vehicle the second policy, which causes the materials handling vehicle to adjust operation to also comply with the second policy when the materials handling vehicle enters the first restriction zone (see paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0141, first sentence, for the control system 102 defining the priorities.);
in response to determining that the first policy and the second policy are not compatible, determine which of the first policy and the second policy has priority and apply only a higher priority policy (see paragraph 0133 for a plurality of rules and “the plurality of priority levels”. See paragraph 0157 for “certain zones may have rules that take priority over (‘overrule’) certain rules associated with certain pathways, pathway sections, or stations that fall within those zones….In a preferred example, the intersection zone may be a zone where the VOPs112 have to slow down, temporarily pause before entering, and then use certain light and sound signals while traversing that zone…Other examples may include…free roam zone, no go zone, slow down zone, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 4, Van de Velde discloses the system of claim 1.
Van de Velde further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the vehicle sensor includes at least one of the following: a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor, a wheel speed sensor, a weight sensor, a steer angle sensor, an odometer, a wireline sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU), a radio frequency identifier (RFID), a magnet, and/or other technology, 2-dimensional LiDAR system, a 3-dimensional LiDAR system, a 4-dimensional LiDAR system, a RADAR system, a SONAR system, or a camera system (see paragraph 0160 for the VOP 112 having lidar, cameras “or other sensors.”).
Regarding claim 5, Van de Velde discloses the system of claim 1.
Van de Velde further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the vehicle transceiver includes an ultra wide band (UWB) transceiver that communicates with a plurality of UWB transceiver anchors that are fixed to stationary objects in the covered environment for detecting the location of at least one of the following in the covered environment (see paragraph 0220 for datalink 136 being UWB. See Fig. 2B for the datalink 136 being the one between the vehicle 112’s onboard computer 134 and the control system 102. See Fig. 2B for the thick dashed lines representing the datalink 136 also going into the “Anchor”. See paragraph 0223 for the anchors being in a fixed location on walls or ceilings.):
the materials handling vehicle (See paragraph 0210 for a tag 120, which is mounted on a vehicle, as seen in Fig. 2A. The tag 120 communicates with Anchors 132 to determine the vehicle’s location.),
a person (see Fig. 2B and paragraph 0011 for a VOP being a vehicle or person. What is discussed regarding item 112 applies to people walking in the warehouse as well as to vehicle’s driving.), or
an object (see Fig. 2B for a drone having a tag reader 120 and communicating with anchors and the central control system 102.).
Regarding claim 6, Van de Velde discloses the system of claim 1.
Van de Velde further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the first policy includes at least one of the following: a speed policy, a carriage height policy, a hoist speed policy, an acceleration policy, a deceleration policy, or a fork height policy (see paragraph 0148 for “speed restrictions” for a VOP 112a depending on where the VOP is and what it is carrying. See the same paragraph for “height restrictions” so that he VOP can “fit under certain racks”.).
Regarding claim 9, Van de Velde discloses:
A method (see title) comprising:
creating, by a computing device, a first restriction zone for a covered environment, wherein the first restriction zone defines an area within which a materials handling vehicle must comply with a first policy (see Van de Velde Fig. 2A for the automated vehicle 112a. See paragraph 0062 for the vehicle being a forklift in one embodiment. See paragraph 0120 for the forklift operating in a warehouse or somewhere else “indoor”. See Fig. 1 for a user device 108. see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0254 for a graphical user interface screen that presents a virtual representation of a VOP in an environment. See paragraph 0255 for generating trajectories based on “zones, properties, and rules associated with the zones and the VOPs”.);
defining, by the computing device, the first policy (for the rest of the rejection see the analogous bullets in claim 1, which is substantially similar to the present claim.);
defining, by the computing device, a second policy for the first restriction zone;
determining, by the computing device, a location and an orientation of the materials handling vehicle;
determining, by the computing device, from the location and the orientation, that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone; and
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, determining, by the computing device, whether the first policy applies to the materials handling vehicle and,
in response to determining that the first policy applies to the materials handling vehicle, sending, by the computing device, [to] the materials handling vehicle the first policy, which causes the materials handling vehicle to adjust current operation to comply with the first policy when the materials handling vehicle enters the first restriction zone.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 2, which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 11, Van de Velde teaches the method of claim 10.
Van de Velde further teaches:
The method of claim 10,
[wherein] in response to determining that the second policy applies to the materials handling vehicle, determining whether the first policy and the second policy are compatible (see Van de Velde paragraph 0134 for “zone-based rules,” etc. The system determines the VOP’s behavior “based on the rules which are applicable”. See paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0144 for rules applying in environments “at certain times, in certain ways, and/or depending on certain circumstances.” See paragraph 0148 for determining how VOPs are “allowed to travel” based on “certain restrictions” including “allowing directionality (possibly further restricted based on certain circumstances, e.g., whether a VOP 112 is carrying a load…or not), and height restrictions (e.g., certain VOPs 112 fit under certain racks or conveyors, while others may not….while carrying a load.” See also paragraph 0148 for “right of way or other priority rules,” and “drive on the right” rules. Right of way rules, especially in the context of “directionality,” include a first and second policy. A VOP may be told to complete a task “‘as quickly as possible,’” but this is limited by zone-based rules such as yielding depending on directionality, no-go zones, and path restrictions in zones with height restrictions. See paragraph 0157 for “certain zones may have rules that take priority over (‘overrule’) certain rules associated with certain pathways, pathway sections, or stations that fall within those zones….In a preferred example, the intersection zone may be a zone where the VOPs112 have to slow down, temporarily pause before entering, and then use certain light and sound signals while traversing that zone…Other examples may include…free roam zone, no go zone, slow down zone, and the like.” Reasonably, a VOP (vehicle or person) may be in a go zone, but still have restrictions, such as right of way rules. The rules for that zone are determined to be compatible. Yielding may take priority over going, but the vehicle can still travel through the zone.).
Regarding claim 12, Van de Velde teaches the method of claim 11.
Van de Velde further teaches:
The method of claim 11,
[wherein] in response to determining that the first policy and the second policy are compatible, sending the materials handling vehicle the second policy, which causes the materials handling vehicle to adjust current operation to comply with the second policy when the materials handling vehicle enters the first restriction zone (see paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0141, first sentence, for the control system 102 defining the priorities.).
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 4, which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 5, which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 6, which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 17, Van de Velde discloses:
A system comprising (see Figs. 1-2B.):
a remotely located 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 at least the following (see paragraph 0124):
create a first restriction zone for a covered environment, wherein the first restriction zone defines an area within which a materials handling vehicle must comply with a first policy (for the rest of the rejection see the analogous bullets in claim 1, which is substantially similar to the present claim.);
define the first policy;
define a second policy for the first restriction zone;
determine a location and an orientation of the materials handling vehicle;
determine, from the location and the orientation, that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone; and
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, determine whether the first policy applies to the materials handling vehicle and, in response to determining that the first policy applies to the materials handling vehicle, send the materials handling vehicle the first policy, which causes the materials handling vehicle to adjust current operation to comply with the first policy when the materials handling vehicle enters the first restriction zone.
Regarding claim 18, Van de Velde discloses the system of claim 17.
Van de Velde further discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the first restriction zone, the logic causes the system to determine whether the second policy applies to the materials handling vehicle (in the present disclosure, paragraph 00219 teaches that “in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the second edge, communicate second policy data related to the second policy to the materials handling vehicle, wherein, if the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge, the materials handling vehicle adjusts current operation pursuant to the first policy data to adhere to the first policy prior to reaching the first edge and if the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the second edge, the materials handling vehicle adjusts current operation pursuant to the second policy data to adhere to the second policy prior to reaching the second edge.” In one broad reasonable interpretation, if a vehicle is crossing into an intersection zone from one direction it may be told to stop, while when crossing into the same intersection from another direction it may be told to go. This first and second policy apply based on the direction of travel of the vehicle. See paragraph 0033 for “wherein the first policy provides a default characteristic that the materials handling vehicle will comply, even after the materials handling vehicle exits the restriction zone and wherein the second policy removes the default characteristic when the materials handling vehicle crosses the second edge.” In another broad reasonable interpretation, the first policy may be “slow down”. The first policy may not add to that command “until exiting a zone.” But a second policy may say “speed up” when the vehicle exits the zone, which is a second policy.
With that in mind, see Van de Velde, paragraph 0133 for a plurality of rules and “the plurality of priority levels”. These priority levels can reasonably be interpreted as including a first and second policy and determining which apply and when. See paragraph 0134 for “restrictive rules for specific classes of VOPs, traffic rules, event-based rules, environment condition-based rules, activity-based rules, zone-based rules…time-based rules,” etc. The system determines the VOP’s behavior “based on the rules which are applicable”. See paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0141, first sentence, for the control system 102 defining the priorities. See paragraph 0144 for rules applying in environments “at certain times, in certain ways, and/or depending on certain circumstances.” See paragraph 0148 for determining how VOPs are “allowed to travel” based on “certain restrictions” including “allowing directionality (possibly further restricted based on certain circumstances, e.g., whether a VOP 112 is carrying a load…or not), and height restrictions (e.g., certain VOPs 112 fit under certain racks or conveyors, while others may not….while carrying a load.” See also paragraph 0148 for “right of way or other priority rules,” and “drive on the right” rules. Right of way rules, especially in the context of “directionality,” include a first and second policy. See paragraph 0157 for “certain zones may have rules that take priority over (‘overrule’) certain rules associated with certain pathways, pathway sections, or stations that fall within those zones….In a preferred example, the intersection zone may be a zone where the VOPs112 have to slow down, temporarily pause before entering, and then use certain light and sound signals while traversing that zone…Other examples may include…free roam zone, no go zone, slow down zone, and the like.”),
wherein in response to determining that the second policy applies to the materials handling vehicle, the logic causes the system to determine whether the first policy and the second policy are compatible (see Van de Velde paragraph 0134 for “zone-based rules,” etc. The system determines the VOP’s behavior “based on the rules which are applicable”. See paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0144 for rules applying in environments “at certain times, in certain ways, and/or depending on certain circumstances.” See paragraph 0148 for determining how VOPs are “allowed to travel” based on “certain restrictions” including “allowing directionality (possibly further restricted based on certain circumstances, e.g., whether a VOP 112 is carrying a load…or not), and height restrictions (e.g., certain VOPs 112 fit under certain racks or conveyors, while others may not….while carrying a load.” See also paragraph 0148 for “right of way or other priority rules,” and “drive on the right” rules. Right of way rules, especially in the context of “directionality,” include a first and second policy. A VOP may be told to complete a task “‘as quickly as possible,’” but this is limited by zone-based rules such as yielding depending on directionality, no-go zones, and path restrictions in zones with height restrictions. See paragraph 0157 for “certain zones may have rules that take priority over (‘overrule’) certain rules associated with certain pathways, pathway sections, or stations that fall within those zones….In a preferred example, the intersection zone may be a zone where the VOPs112 have to slow down, temporarily pause before entering, and then use certain light and sound signals while traversing that zone…Other examples may include…free roam zone, no go zone, slow down zone, and the like.” Reasonably, a VOP (vehicle or person) may be in a go zone, but still have restrictions, such as right of way rules. The rules for that zone are determined to be compatible. Yielding may take priority over going, but the vehicle can still travel through the zone.), and
in response to determining that the first policy and the second policy are compatible, the logic causes the system to send the materials handling vehicle the second policy, which causes the materials handling vehicle to adjust current operation to comply with the second policy when the materials handling vehicle enters the first restriction zone (see paragraph 0137 for a VOP having a user-defined objective to complete a task “ ‘as soon as possible, and/or ‘as quickly as possible,’ and/or ‘as safely as possible’, and the like.” See paragraph 0141, first sentence, for the control system 102 defining the priorities.).
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van de Velde et al. (US2024/0310860) in view of Chaugule et al. (US2024/0406671).
Regarding claim 7, Van de Velde discloses the system of claim 1.
Van de Velde further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the logic further causes the system to perform least the following:
create a second restriction zone (see paragraph 0072 for “sections of separate pathways may be combined to create one or more larger pathways.”).
Yet Van de Velde does not further teach:
determine whether the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined, wherein determining whether the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined includes determining proximity of the first restriction zone relative to the second restriction zone; and
in response to determining that the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined, combine the first restriction zone with the second restriction zone.
However, Chaugule teaches:
determine whether the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined, wherein determining whether the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined includes determining proximity of the first restriction zone relative to the second restriction zone (see paragraph 0028 for combining geofenced areas together that have a certain percentage of overlap. See paragraph 0022 for geofences triggering something when a user “enters or exits the area”.); and
in response to determining that the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined, combine the first restriction zone with the second restriction zone (see paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Van de Velde, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Chaugule. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce computational effort to track when a user crosses a geofence by combining the geofence areas together, as recognized by Chaugule (see paragraph 060). Note that according to paragraph 0002, a “user” is a “mobile device”. Such a mobile device is reasonably similar to the one on the vehicle 112 in Van de Velde.
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 7, which is substantially similar.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 16, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The system of claim 7, wherein
creating the second restriction zone includes determining a third policy to apply to the second restriction zone and wherein determining whether the first restriction zone should be combined with the second restriction zone further includes comparing whether the third policy is compatible with at least one of the following: the first policy or the second policy.
One close prior art is Chaugule et al. (US2024/0406671). See paragraph 0028 for combining geofenced areas together that have a certain percentage of overlap.
Motivation: reduce computational effort to track when a user crosses a geofence by combining the geofence areas together, as recognized by Chaugule (see paragraph 060). Note that according to paragraph 0002, a “user” is a “mobile device”.
Yet Chaugule does not teach the limitations of present claim 8. Chaugule does not teach determining if the policies are compatible.
Another close prior art is Jonsson et al. (US2023/0009964). Jonsson teaches combining no-go areas that are close to each other to prevent a robot from entering certain spaces. See paragraph 0083 and Fig. 5A and 5B for two no-go zones being combined because they are in “close proximity” meaning “within a specific distance”.
Yet Jonsson does not consider whether the policies in two areas are compatible. In Jonsson, the policies are always no-go. Therefore, their respective areas can be combined.
Van de Velde (US2026/0133584), hereinafter Van de Velde ‘584, may relate to this claim. Yet Van de Velde ‘584 is not prior art. The examiner notes that paragraph 0050 of the provisional application of the present application supports the present claim. Therefore, the priority date for the present claim is the filing date of the provisional application, which is May 31, 2024.
Claim 16 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The method of claim 9, further comprising:
creating a second restriction zone;
determining whether the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined, wherein determining whether the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined includes determining proximity of the first restriction zone relative to the second restriction zone; and
in response to determining that the first restriction zone and the second restriction zone should be combined, combining the first restriction zone with the second restriction zone,
wherein creating the second restriction zone includes determining a third policy to apply to the second restriction zone and wherein determining whether the first restriction zone should be combined with the second restriction zone further includes comparing whether the third policy is compatible with at least one of the following: the first policy or the second policy.
The last bullet of claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is allowable for at least the reasons of claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and allowable for at least the same reasons.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Walton et al. (US2016/0327952)
PNG
media_image1.png
830
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teaches receiving restrictions from floor tags. So vehicle has restrictions based on location, but as told by tags not by server. One question that relates to this is: What is the difference between the present disclosure and Walton et al. (US2024/0353845), hereinafter Walton, which shares the same assignee as the present disclosure, and has a priority date well before the present disclosure and is therefore valid prior art.
Walton teaches a warehouse vehicle that is restricted based on the zone that it is in. The vehicle knows its location based on tags on the floor of the warehouse and it knows its orientation by reading at least two tags in succession. The tags on the floor also tell the vehicle what restrictions it is under. If a vehicle is exiting an aisle (i.e. it is at a particular location and heading toward the exit rather than entering the aisle) the tag can inform the vehicle to slow down.
Walton et al. (US2024/0353845). Teaches a vehicle that knows its location at least from floor tags.
Bann (US2005/0052281). See Fig. 3 for a forklift carrying “item 310”. See paragraph 0039 and 0043 for picking up and dropping off item 310 and the system tracking the forklift location and the item location continuously.
Douglas et al. (U.S. 6,049,745). See Douglas Fig. 2 for an AGV computer. See col. 1. Line 1-2 for AGV standing for “automatic guided vehicle”. See col. 2 lines 47-53 for the AGV automatically “picking up or dropping off a load of materials” based partially on the travel direction and location of RFID tags.).
Lee (US2021/0284448 A1). Teaches a computer 130 that sets policy for the forklift 110. Does not teach that the forklift has a senor. Lee teaches that the system will restrict what the forklift does based on the fork lift’s location. But the location is known through the RFID tags reporting it to the server, not the vehicle reporting it directly. Paragraph 0058 teaches that the tags send the vehicle’s location to the server, unlike the present disclosure. Yet like the present disclosure, paragraph 0067 teaches that the server instructions the vehicle about restrictions.
PNG
media_image2.png
642
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
318
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Govers et al. (US2017/0358201). Teaches in paragraph 0098 “The robot may know its own location (using GPS or other techniques) at all times. The robot may use a map of the room and location of robot with respect to the item scanned to determine location of items and store them for inventory. Robot 1100 may also record other data associated with item 1186 and location, such as the time that the reading/detection was taken when it passed item 1186, the location of robot 1100 when it took the reading, and other data.”
Manci et al. (US2016/0347248). A Crown disclosure. Teaches forklift management software.
PNG
media_image4.png
586
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
632
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
594
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
1. In an industrial vehicle environment, a machine-executable process, comprising:
receiving geo-feature information about a predefined geo-feature that is located in an area upon which the industrial vehicle may travel;
monitoring location information identifying a current location of the industrial vehicle; and
collecting operation information about a current operating state of the industrial vehicle;
wherein, upon detecting that the industrial vehicle encounters the geo-feature, the process further comprising:
generating an output message based on the geo-feature information, the location information, and the operating information by:
determining an expected operating state of the industrial vehicle from the geo-feature information, wherein the expected operating state includes an acceptable range;
comparing the current operating state of the industrial vehicle to the expected operating state; and
generating at least one of:
a first message as the output message where the comparison indicates that the current operating state is within the acceptable range of the expected operating state, and
a second message as the output message, different than the first message, where the current operating state is outside the acceptable range of the expected operating state; and
conveying, by a processor on the industrial vehicle, the output message on the industrial vehicle.
See paragraph 0067 for “However, as a few illustrative examples, a parameter may comprise coordinates of the geo-feature 402 or other data indicating the spatial location of the geo-feature 402 (in two-dimensions or three-dimensions). A parameter may also be used to specify the type of geo-feature 402. By way of example, a geo-feature 402 may be a geo-zone. Moreover, the geo-zone may be designated as a restriction zone, speed zone, control zone, height restrict zone, stop zone, horn zone, prompt zone, combination thereof, etc.”
See paragraph 0098 for “Referring to FIG. 4E, the graphical user interface 304 can also include a menu 450 that allows prioritization and conflict resolution where multiple geo-features 402 and/or events overlap or otherwise cause conflict. This optional feature allows the customization and prioritization of event responses. For instance, a geo-feature 402 that is higher in a hierarchy can trump, over-ride, negate, void, reinforce or otherwise modify a behavior relative to a geo-feature lower in the hierarchy.”
Swift (US2019/0033882)
PNG
media_image7.png
800
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See paragraph 0079 for “Some embodiments may leverage zones to define intersection and approach zones. Further, some embodiments may support local road rules comprising left and right hand give way rules, and may include a hierarchy of stop and give way rules. Further, in some embodiments, a materials handling vehicle may stop for another materials handling vehicle that cannot stop in time.”
Cotterman (US 12,366,844)
PNG
media_image8.png
750
546
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Data sources 116 can also include a management system data source 120, e.g., a warehouse management system (WMS).
Referring to FIG. 3B, a display 300 on a materials handling vehicle outputs an indication of the performance tuning settings. The display 300 can also include an attribution that shows the vehicle operator at least one factor that drove the performance tuning change. For instance, as illustrated herein, a widget on a display 300 on a materials handling vehicle can include attributions that show the basis for the current state of the performance tuning. For instance, in the non-limiting example, the widget shows that the vehicle is speed restricted because the operator entered a speed restricted zone within a facility. Also, the operator entered a low bay area, and as such, the lift height is restricted.
(108) In yet further embodiments, the performance tuning information provided on the display of the materials handling vehicle presents attributions designating a reason for the performance tuning change, e.g., “maximum speed” reduced to 3 miles per hour (approximately 4.8 kilometers per hour) because the vehicle is approaching an end of an aisle with a warehouse stop restriction. In some embodiments, the display provides motivating messages to the operator regarding their performance. For instance, the display outputs a message such as “maximum speed” set to 3 miles per hour (approximately 4.8 kilometers per hour) because you are in a pick aisle and have a beginner status in this environment—demonstrate correct behavior three more times and performance tuning will increase maximum speed to 5 miles per hour (approximately 8 kilometers per hour).
(114) Referring to FIG. 4, an example computing device, e.g., a tablet, illustrates a supervisor logged into the platform 114 (FIG. 1) to program performance tuning profiles for operators, vehicles, tasks, activities, geo-locations, etc. In this regard, the supervisor can set up rules that affect when the various performance tuning profiles are read out and processed, e.g., based upon geo-location/location tracking, task assignment (e.g., as determined from logged materials handling vehicle data logging, as read from a warehouse management system, etc.). The user can interact with a graphical user interface to fill in values, define simple to complex rules for when to apply or change a performance profile, etc.
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