DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment to the drawings, specification, and claimed was filed on April 29, 2026. The amendments are accepted and entered. No new matter was added.
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 1-7, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al. (US2020/0264633) in view of Van de Velde et al. (US2024/0310860).
Regarding claim 1, Collett teaches:
A system comprising (see Figs. 6 and 7. See Fig. 7 and paragraph 0087 for the “materials handling vehicle 400” navigating the warehouse with the help of the “remote terminal 28” that maintains a database of the warehouse objects. This remote terminal is further discussed in paragraph 0004 which teaches “a system comprising a remote terminal and a materials handling vehicle…the materials handling vehicle comprises an obstacle detecting subsystem and a navigation subsystem that is configured to communicate with the remote terminal. The remote terminal is configured to maintain the database of pre-positioned warehouse objects.”):
a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment that includes a vehicle transceiver for determining a location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment, a vehicle sensor for detecting an orientation of the materials handling vehicle and a vehicle computing device (in the present filed disclosure, see paragraph 00169 for the “orientation of the vehicle 104” at least partly including whether it is driving forward or backward. See paragraph 00195 for a remotely located computing device being used “to determine the location and orientation of the vehicle 104 to determine that the vehicle 104 is actually expected to enter the restriction zone 320.” Here, it appears that the “orientation” means something like direction of travel. A vehicle’s location is not enough to know what direction the vehicle is traveling in. Even a vehicle’s orientation in the sense of what direction it is facing is not enough to know because a vehicle can travel in reverse. To determine whether the vehicle is expected to enter a particular zone, the remote system must know the vehicle’s location and its trajectory, its direction of travel. This direction of travel appears to be what the disclosure means, at least in part, when referring to the vehicle’s “orientation;” what direction is the forklift’s travel direction orientated.
With that in mind, see Collett Fig. 7 for a materials handling vehicle 400 in a covered environment. See paragraph 0082, especially the last sentence, for the vehicle 400 having sensors. See paragraph 0083 for the navigation subsystem 42 being configured to “determine a position and heading of the materials handling vehicle 400 relative to the potentially contested intersection 271A, 271B.” The system can also “interact with one or more warehouse maps 730, described in greater detail below, to determine the position and heading of the potentially contested intersection 271A, 271B relative to the materials handling vehicle 400.” This “heading” is an orientation. See Fig. 7 for the navigation subsystem 42 being located on the vehicle 400. See paragraph 0124 for the system having “accelerometer, GPS, magnetometer, gyroscope, etc.”. These can be orientation sensors.);
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 Fig. 7 and paragraph 0087 for the “remote terminal 28” that maintains a database of the warehouse objects. This remote terminal is further discussed in paragraph 0004 which teaches “a system comprising a remote terminal and a materials handling vehicle…the materials handling vehicle comprises an obstacle detecting subsystem and a navigation subsystem that is configured to communicate with the remote terminal. The remote terminal is configured to maintain the database of pre-positioned warehouse objects.” The discussion of a database and communication in the context of the remote terminal 28 strongly implies above a preponderance of the evidence standard that the remote terminal has a processor and memory.):
determine a location of a restriction zone in the covered environment, wherein the restriction zone includes a first edge and a second edge (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See Fig. 3C and paragraph 0077 for “the mediated materials handling vehicle 400 approaches a trigger point 272 of an initial boundary of an entry zone 274, with an exit boundary of the entry zone 274 defined by an entry zone exit point 276”. These entry and exit boundaries are what the present disclosure calls edges. See also Collett paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. This teaching about boundaries reasonably applies to Figs. 4B, 4D, 4L, and 4M, for example, as discussed in paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0029, and 0030. See also paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”. See paragraph 0083 for the rules at the intersection depending on “a position and heading of the materials handling vehicle 400 relative to the potentially contested intersection”.);
determine the location and the orientation from the materials handling vehicle (see paragraph 0083. See also paragraph 0082 for using tags near intersections to mark “the end of an aisle.” In other embodiments, the system can employ a “virtual boundary”.);
determine, from the location and the orientation, that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge or the second edge (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See Figs. 4B, 4D, 4L, and 4M, as discussed in paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0029, and 0030. The system knows there are vehicles at multiple edges and sets rules regarding those situations. See also paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.);
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge, communicate first policy data related to the first policy to the materials handling vehicle (see paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. See paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.); and
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 (see paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. See paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.),
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 (see paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.).
Yet Collett does not explicitly further teach:
provide a user option to independently define a first policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the first edge and a second policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the second edge;
receive user input defining the first policy and the second policy.
However, Van de Velde teaches:
provide a user option to independently define a first policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the first edge and a second policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the second edge (see paragraph 0034 for an administrator tasked with “defining the rules” and “pathway sections”. 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 like)…No-Go Zones…”. 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. See paragraph 0137 for “the control system 102” charting the trajectories of the forklift based on what is “feasible, safe, effective, and/or efficient” while “respecting any combination of rules and/or objectives as set by an administrator.” See paragraph 0085 for “a parameter” that is “defined by an Administrator”. See paragraph 0034 for defining the administrator as “Administrator: a person or entity defining the rules to be respected and/or setting the objectives to be achieved, this includes drawing, recording, or otherwise defining (Virtual)(Approved) Pathways or (Virtual)(Approved) Pathway Sections.” This means that the administrator defines the pathways and pathway sections, as well as the rules for those sections.);
receive user input defining the first policy and the second policy (see paragraph 0137 for the rules being “set by an administrator.” The next sentence mentions the control system 102. This implies that the settings are entered into the control system 102. See paragraph 0162 for a “user” being able to interact with the system, including by “accessing and modifying the properties and rules associated with the virtual elements and interacting with, including possibly modifying, the virtual elements on the AR-based representation.” Paragraph 0163 teaches a “a graphical user interface screen” on a user device, through which the user can see and configure “all of the possible properties and rules associated” with the warehouse and the vehicles or persons (“VAPs,” according to paragraph 0007) involved. Paragraph 0164 makes this user synonymous with the “administrator”. See paragraph 0172 for the administrator using a mouse or a touchpad through a GUI to draw a “pathway.” “Once the pathway has been drawn, either the administrator or the control system 102 may continue to manually or automatically adjust the pathways’ shape based upon required needs, by selecting certain individual path points along the pathway…and deleting them or dragging them into a different location.”).
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 Collett, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Van de Velde. The motivation for doing so would be to have a warehouse in which the forklifts are traveling in a safe, effective, and efficient manner while respecting the rules set by the administrator, as recognized by Van de Velde (see paragraph 0137).
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.
The examiner considers Collett and Van de Velde highly combinable. Collett does not get into as much detail about how exactly the zone boundaries and rules are created, but at least teaches toward what Van de Velde more explicitly teaches. For example, Collett teaches in paragraph 0045 a traffic management server and paragraph 0086 teaches that the database can be updated. Paragraph 0074 teaches “commissioning tools for a zone map or rule set”. See paragraph 0051 for a supervisor with a GUI. Both disclosures also teach zone rules and even priority ordering of those rules. In Collett, see paragraph 0069. In Van de Velde, see paragraph 0148 for “right of way or other priority rules.”
Regarding claim 2, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Collet further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge, the logic causes the system to send first distance data related to a distance from the first edge to the materials handling vehicle (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 “approaches a trigger point 252” and contacts the server when that occurs.”), and
wherein in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the second edge, the logic causes the system to send second distance data related to a distance from the second edge to the materials handling vehicle (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 “approaches a trigger point 252” and contacts the server when that occurs.” See Figs. 4B, 4D, 4L, and 4M, as discussed in paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0029, and 0030. The system knows there are vehicles at multiple edges and sets rules regarding those situations. The teaching in paragraph 0053 and regarding the various Fig. 4s are combinable. The system receives a notification that the vehicle 400 is approaching an edge. The server knows what edge that is, and assigns rules governing their behavior.).
3.
Regarding claim 3, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Collet further teaches:
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 RADAR system, a SONAR system, or a camera system (see paragraph 0084, especially the last sentence.).
Regarding claim 4, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Collet further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the vehicle transceiver includes an ultra wide band (UWB) antenna that communicates with a plurality of UWB transceiver anchors that are fixed to stationary objects in the covered environment for detecting the location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment (see paragraph 0098. See paragraph 0084 for tags.).
Regarding claim 5, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Collet further teaches:
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 0076 for a “yield” or “stop” policy being given a vehicle 400 when it approaches a zone boundary. See paragraph 0074 for a vehicle that will “plan a stop point and begin slowing when approach[ing] the stop point.” See the same paragraph for, in the case in which the vehicle has the right of way, the vehicle will proceed “up to the intersection speed limit.”).
Regarding claim 6, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Collet further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle will enter the restriction zone via the first edge, the materials handling vehicle determines a first policy associated with a deceleration rate and utilizes first policy data that includes the deceleration rate to determine when to start decelerating to comply with the first policy by the first edge (see paragraph 0074 for a vehicle that will “plan a stop point and begin slowing when approach[ing] the stop point.”).
Regarding claim 8, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Collet further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the remotely located computing device includes at least one of the following: a local computing device that resides in the covered environment and a remote computing device that resides remote from the covered environment (see Figs. 6 and 7. See Fig. 7 and paragraph 0087 for the “materials handling vehicle 400” navigating the warehouse with the help of the “remote terminal 28” that maintains a database of the warehouse objects. See Fig. 7 for the remote terminal 28 being shown inside what paragraph 0080 calls “the warehouse environment 10.”).
Regarding claim 9, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Yet Collet does not further teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the user option is provided as part of a user interface that includes an add option to perform at least one of the following: add additional restriction zones in the covered environment or add new policies for other edges.
However, Van de Velde teaches:
the user option is provided as part of a user interface that includes an add option to perform at least one of the following: add additional restriction zones in the covered environment or add new policies for other edges (see paragraph 0034 for the administrator “defining the rules to be respected and/or setting the objectives to be achieved, this includes drawing, recording, or otherwise defining (Virtual)(Approved) Pathways or (Virtual)(Approved) Pathway Sections.” See paragraph 0172 for the administrator drawing a pathway.).
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 Collett and Van de Velde, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Van de Velde. The motivation for doing so would be to have a warehouse in which the forklifts are traveling in a safe, effective, and efficient manner while respecting the rules set by the administrator, as recognized by Van de Velde (see paragraph 0137).
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 10, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 1.
Yet Collet does not further teach:
The system of claim 1, 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 the present disclosure, 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. ).
However, Van de Velde teaches:
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 the present disclosure, 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 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 1, Collett teaches:
A method comprising (see paragraph 0001):
determining, by a computing device, a location of a restriction zone in a covered environment, wherein the restriction zone includes a first edge and a second edge (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See Fig. 3C and paragraph 0077 for “the mediated materials handling vehicle 400 approaches a trigger point 272 of an initial boundary of an entry zone 274, with an exit boundary of the entry zone 274 defined by an entry zone exit point 276”. These entry and exit boundaries are what the present disclosure calls edges. See also Collett paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. This teaching about boundaries reasonably applies to Figs. 4B, 4D, 4L, and 4M, for example, as discussed in paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0029, and 0030. See also paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”. See paragraph 0083 for the rules at the intersection depending on “a position and heading of the materials handling vehicle 400 relative to the potentially contested intersection”.
For the computing device involved, see Fig. 7 for a materials handling vehicle 400 in a covered environment. See paragraph 0082, especially the last sentence, for the vehicle 400 having sensors. See paragraph 0083 for the navigation subsystem 42 being configured to “determine a position and heading of the materials handling vehicle 400 relative to the potentially contested intersection 271A, 271B.” The system can also “interact with one or more warehouse maps 730, described in greater detail below, to determine the position and heading of the potentially contested intersection 271A, 271B relative to the materials handling vehicle 400.” This “heading” is an orientation. See Fig. 7 for the navigation subsystem 42 being located on the vehicle 400. See paragraph 0124 for the system having “accelerometer, GPS, magnetometer, gyroscope, etc.”. These can be orientation sensors. );
determining, by the computing device, a location and an orientation from the materials handling vehicle (see paragraph 0083. See also paragraph 0082 for using tags near intersections to mark “the end of an aisle.” In other embodiments, the system can employ a “virtual boundary”.);
determining, by the computing device, from the location and the orientation, that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge or the second edge (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See Figs. 4B, 4D, 4L, and 4M, as discussed in paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0029, and 0030. The system knows there are vehicles at multiple edges and sets rules regarding those situations. See also paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.);
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge, communicating, by the computing device, first policy data related to the first policy to the materials handling vehicle (see paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. See paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.); and
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the second edge, communicating, by the computing device, second policy data related to the second policy to the materials handling vehicle (see paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. See paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.),
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 (see paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.).
Yet Collett does not explicitly further teach:
providing, by the computing device, a user option to independently define a first policy for a materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the first edge and a second policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the second edge;
receiving, by the computing device, user input defining the first policy and the second policy.
However, Van de Velde teaches:
providing, by the computing device, a user option to independently define a first policy for a materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the first edge and a second policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the second edge (see paragraph 0034 for an administrator tasked with “defining the rules” and “pathway sections”. 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 like)…No-Go Zones…”. 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. See paragraph 0137 for “the control system 102” charting the trajectories of the forklift based on what is “feasible, safe, effective, and/or efficient” while “respecting any combination of rules and/or objectives as set by an administrator.” See paragraph 0085 for “a parameter” that is “defined by an Administrator”. See paragraph 0034 for defining the administrator as “Administrator: a person or entity defining the rules to be respected and/or setting the objectives to be achieved, this includes drawing, recording, or otherwise defining (Virtual)(Approved) Pathways or (Virtual)(Approved) Pathway Sections.” This means that the administrator defines the pathways and pathway sections, as well as the rules for those sections.);
receiving, by the computing device, user input defining the first policy and the second policy (see paragraph 0137 for the rules being “set by an administrator.” The next sentence mentions the control system 102. This implies that the settings are entered into the control system 102. See paragraph 0162 for a “user” being able to interact with the system, including by “accessing and modifying the properties and rules associated with the virtual elements and interacting with, including possibly modifying, the virtual elements on the AR-based representation.” Paragraph 0163 teaches a “a graphical user interface screen” on a user device, through which the user can see and configure “all of the possible properties and rules associated” with the warehouse and the vehicles or persons (“VAPs,” according to paragraph 0007) involved. Paragraph 0164 makes this user synonymous with the “administrator”. See paragraph 0172 for the administrator using a mouse or a touchpad through a GUI to draw a “pathway.” “Once the pathway has been drawn, either the administrator or the control system 102 may continue to manually or automatically adjust the pathways’ shape based upon required needs, by selecting certain individual path points along the pathway…and deleting them or dragging them into a different location.”).
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 method, as taught by Collett, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Van de Velde. The motivation for doing so would be to have a warehouse in which the forklifts are traveling in a safe, effective, and efficient manner while respecting the rules set by the administrator, as recognized by Van de Velde (see paragraph 0137).
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 claims 12-16, the claims are substantially similar to claims 2-6, respectively. Please see the rejection of those claims.
Regarding claim 18, Collett teaches:
A system comprising (see Figs. 6 and 7. See Fig. 7 and paragraph 0087 for the “materials handling vehicle 400” navigating the warehouse with the help of the “remote terminal 28” that maintains a database of the warehouse objects. This remote terminal is further discussed in paragraph 0004 which teaches “a system comprising a remote terminal and a materials handling vehicle…the materials handling vehicle comprises an obstacle detecting subsystem and a navigation subsystem that is configured to communicate with the remote terminal. The remote terminal is configured to maintain the database of pre-positioned warehouse objects.”):
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 0087 for the “remote terminal 28” that maintains a database of the warehouse objects. See also paragraph 0004. The discussion of a database and communication in the context of the remote terminal 28 strongly implies above a preponderance of the evidence standard that the remote terminal has a processor and memory.):
determine a location of a restriction zone in the covered environment, wherein the restriction zone includes a first edge and a second edge (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See Fig. 3C and paragraph 0077 for “the mediated materials handling vehicle 400 approaches a trigger point 272 of an initial boundary of an entry zone 274, with an exit boundary of the entry zone 274 defined by an entry zone exit point 276”. These entry and exit boundaries are what the present disclosure calls edges. See also Collett paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. This teaching about boundaries reasonably applies to Figs. 4B, 4D, 4L, and 4M, for example, as discussed in paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0029, and 0030. See also paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”. See paragraph 0083 for the rules at the intersection depending on “a position and heading of the materials handling vehicle 400 relative to the potentially contested intersection”.);
determine the location and the orientation from the materials handling vehicle (see paragraph 0083. See also paragraph 0082 for using tags near intersections to mark “the end of an aisle.” In other embodiments, the system can employ a “virtual boundary”.);
determine, from the location and the orientation, that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge or the second edge (see Fig. 3C and paragraph 0075 for a system that “determines an approach to and approaches a controlled area such as an entry/prompt zone”. The system not only knows the location of the vehicle, but also that it is “approach an intersection zone along the path of an arrow 282B,” for example, along “projected headings 280B, 282C, and 282D.” See Figs. 4B, 4D, 4L, and 4M, as discussed in paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0029, and 0030. The system knows there are vehicles at multiple edges and sets rules regarding those situations. See also paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.);
in response to determining that the materials handling vehicle is approaching the restriction zone via the first edge, communicate first policy data related to the first policy to the materials handling vehicle (see paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. See paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.); and
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 (see paragraph 0053 for the vehicle 400 sending a request to the server regarding how to behave when at the edges. See paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.),
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 (see paragraph 0074 for the system including a “zone map or rule set” that “may have local road rules (e.g., giving way to the right/left)…if the materials handling vehicle has a right of way, the materials handling vehicle may proceed into the intersection up to the intersection speed limit.” See paragraph 0069 for “traffic rules” and “priority ordering” of the “road rules” such as “yield” or “stop”.).
Yet Collett does not explicitly further teach:
provide a user option to independently define a first policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the first edge and a second policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the second edge;
receive user input defining the first policy and the second policy.
However, Van de Velde teaches:
provide a user option to independently define a first policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the first edge and a second policy for the materials handling vehicle when crossing into the restriction zone via the second edge (see paragraph 0034 for an administrator tasked with “defining the rules” and “pathway sections”. 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 like)…No-Go Zones…”. 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. See paragraph 0137 for “the control system 102” charting the trajectories of the forklift based on what is “feasible, safe, effective, and/or efficient” while “respecting any combination of rules and/or objectives as set by an administrator.” See paragraph 0085 for “a parameter” that is “defined by an Administrator”. See paragraph 0034 for defining the administrator as “Administrator: a person or entity defining the rules to be respected and/or setting the objectives to be achieved, this includes drawing, recording, or otherwise defining (Virtual)(Approved) Pathways or (Virtual)(Approved) Pathway Sections.” This means that the administrator defines the pathways and pathway sections, as well as the rules for those sections.);
receive user input defining the first policy and the second policy (see paragraph 0137 for the rules being “set by an administrator.” The next sentence mentions the control system 102. This implies that the settings are entered into the control system 102. See paragraph 0162 for a “user” being able to interact with the system, including by “accessing and modifying the properties and rules associated with the virtual elements and interacting with, including possibly modifying, the virtual elements on the AR-based representation.” Paragraph 0163 teaches a “a graphical user interface screen” on a user device, through which the user can see and configure “all of the possible properties and rules associated” with the warehouse and the vehicles or persons (“VAPs,” according to paragraph 0007) involved. Paragraph 0164 makes this user synonymous with the “administrator”. See paragraph 0172 for the administrator using a mouse or a touchpad through a GUI to draw a “pathway.” “Once the pathway has been drawn, either the administrator or the control system 102 may continue to manually or automatically adjust the pathways’ shape based upon required needs, by selecting certain individual path points along the pathway…and deleting them or dragging them into a different location.”).
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 Collett, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Van de Velde. The motivation for doing so would be to have a warehouse in which the forklifts are traveling in a safe, effective, and efficient manner while respecting the rules set by the administrator, as recognized by Van de Velde (see paragraph 0137).
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, Collett and Van de Velde teach the system of claim 18.
Collett further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein:
the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle transceiver for determining the location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment, the vehicle transceiver includes an ultra wide band (UWB) antenna that communicates with a plurality of UWB transceiver anchors that are fixed to stationary objects in the covered environment for detecting the location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment (see paragraph 0098. See paragraph 0084 for tags.),
the materials handling vehicle includes a vehicle sensor for detecting the orientation of the materials handling vehicle and a vehicle computing device (see Collett Fig. 7 for a materials handling vehicle 400 in a covered environment. See paragraph 0082, especially the last sentence, for the vehicle 400 having sensors. See paragraph 0083 for the navigation subsystem 42 being configured to “determine a position and heading of the materials handling vehicle 400 relative to the potentially contested intersection 271A, 271B.” The system can also “interact with one or more warehouse maps 730, described in greater detail below, to determine the position and heading of the potentially contested intersection 271A, 271B relative to the materials handling vehicle 400.” This “heading” is an orientation. See Fig. 7 for the navigation subsystem 42 being located on the vehicle 400. See paragraph 0124 for the system having “accelerometer, GPS, magnetometer, gyroscope, etc.”. These can be orientation sensors.), and
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 RADAR system, a SONAR system, or a camera system (see paragraph 0084, especially the last sentence.).
Regarding claim 20, Collett and Van de Velde teach the system of claim 18.
Yet Collett does not further teach:
The system of claim 18, wherein
the user option is provided as part of a user interface that includes an add option to perform at least one of the following: add additional restriction zones in the covered environment or add new policies for other edges.
However, Van de Velde teaches:
the user option is provided as part of a user interface that includes an add option to perform at least one of the following: add additional restriction zones in the covered environment or add new policies for other edges (see paragraph 0034 for the administrator “defining the rules to be respected and/or setting the objectives to be achieved, this includes drawing, recording, or otherwise defining (Virtual)(Approved) Pathways or (Virtual)(Approved) Pathway Sections.” See paragraph 0172 for the administrator drawing a pathway.).
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 Collett and Van de Velde, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Van de Velde. The motivation for doing so would be to have a warehouse in which the forklifts are traveling in a safe, effective, and efficient manner while respecting the rules set by the administrator, as recognized by Van de Velde (see paragraph 0137).
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett et al. (US2020/0264633) in view of Van de Velde et al. (US2024/0310860) in further view of Draayer et al. (US2020/0399105).
Regarding claim 7, Collett and Van de Velde teaches the system of claim 6.
Yet Collet and Van de Velde do not further teach:
The system of claim 6, wherein
the materials handling vehicle further determines at least one of the following in determining the deceleration rate: a payload weight of a payload carried by the materials handling vehicle, a vehicle type of the materials handling vehicle, or a weight of the materials handling vehicle.
However, Draayer teaches:
the materials handling vehicle further determines at least one of the following in determining the deceleration rate: a payload weight of a payload carried by the materials handling vehicle, a vehicle type of the materials handling vehicle, or a weight of the materials handling vehicle (see claims 11-13 for a system that determines a deceleration rate within a geofenced area based in part of the load the forklift is carrying. See paragraph 0106 for determining deceleration limits and stopping distances based on the load.).
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 Collett and Van de Velde, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Draayer. The motivation for doing so would be to decelerate the vehicle while avoiding a tip-over or lifting of a wheel, as recognized by Draayer (see paragraph 0096).
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 17, the claim is substantially similar to claim 7. Please see the rejection of that claim.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (US2021/0284198). Teaches at least a forklift navigating through a safety zone.
Manci et al. (US2016/0347248). Teaches at least a warehouse management software system that allows user input about zones. See paragraph 0067 for zones including “a restriction zone, speed zone, control zone, height restrict zone, stop zone, horn zone, prompt zone, combination thereof, etc.”
PNG
media_image1.png
586
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
632
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
594
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cotterman (US 12,366,844). Teaches at least speed and lift height restrictions.
PNG
media_image4.png
750
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights