DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 4/1/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 103 filed on 4/1/26, regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
Applicants remarks, pages 8-9, asserts:
Claim 1 is allowable for at least the reason that neither Manci nor Kakkar, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests at least "wherein the vehicle computing device utilizes the policy and the first adjustment to determine a distance from the entrance edge to begin the first adjustment to comply with the policy at the entrance edge of the restriction zone..." as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Office Action argues that Manci teaches "adjusting the operation of a materials handling vehicle utilizing a policy and an entrance edge of a restriction zone, but does not explicitly disclose determining a distance from the edge to begin the first adjustment" (OA page 5, line 13). In fact, Manci is directed to altering operation of a vehicle in response to encountering a "geo-feature" (see paragraph [0064]). As articulated by the Office Action, the "geo-feature" in Manci is a static boundary, such that when the vehicle reaches the geo-feature, the vehicle will change operation. Consequently, Manci is deficient in teaching at least this claim element.
However, unlike the assertion in the Office Action, Kakkar fails to overcome the deficiencies of Manci. Kakkar teaches "The predicted path 312 may extend for a predefined [] distance. As another example, the predicted path 312 may extend until the path intersects with a boundary line, such as a circular buffer region around vehicle 304 with a predefined radius. In some embodiments, the distance is based on a current stopping distance or threshold for vehicle 304 from a current speed. For example, based on a current speed and maximum or safe braking force of vehicle 304, a calculated distance within which vehicle 304 is able to come to a complete stop from the current speed may be used as the predetermined distance" (paragraph [0040]). Kakkar also teaches "Maximum speed 428 of vehicle 404 may continuously, or intermittently, be reduced as vehicle 404 approaches future position and orientation 420-3 until maximum speed 428-3 (e.g., 0 miles per hour) is achieved prior to implement 408 intersecting with boundary 410- 1" ([0058]). As illustrated in these passages, Kakkar appears to teach determining a predicted path that may be determined based on a stopping distance or threshold for the vehicle. However, Kakkar is still deficient in teaching anything related to determining a distance to begin an adjustment, as recited in claim 1. Specifically, determining a predicted path would likely necessarily include a determination of stopping distance because, the path must at least proceed until the vehicle can come to a stop. However, Kakkar does not contemplate determining a distance from an entrance edge to alter operation of the vehicle. Further, the combination of references does not suggest this concept, because neither reference teaches nor suggests determining a distance to begin an adjustment so that the vehicle complies with the policy at the entrance edge. As indicated above, Manci teaches reacting to reaching a geo-zone and Kakkar teaches using a stopping distance to project out a predicted path. However, the cited claim element is missing.
While Manci does not explicitly disclose determining a distance from an edge to begin a first adjustment, as stated in the NF Rejection of 2/25/26, Kakkar does disclose determining a stopping distance corresponding to the recited distance to begin adjustment which is based on the stopping distance at the current speed with a maximum or safe braking force based on a maximum deceleration rate, which as stated in the Remarks noted above, reduces the maximum speed corresponding to the recited the first adjustment intermittently until the “maximum speed 428-3 (e.g., 0 miles per hour) is achieved prior to implement 408 intersecting with boundary 410- 1" (Kakkar [0058]) which is determined based on one or more criteria such as operator safety, vehicle and/or implement structural integrity, and the like corresponding to the recited compliance with the policy at the boundary line corresponding to the recited entrance edge of the restriction zone. It is unclear as to how the applicant’s remarks distinguishes the calculation of the stopping distance based on the compliance policy of stopping the vehicle at the boundary line (entrance edge of the restriction zone) with the claimed invention as the aspects of Kakkar individually discloses all of the elements of the claim relied upon in the 35 USC § 103 rejection including those additionally recited in Manci, further supporting the combination as disclosing the invention as claimed.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manci et al. (US 2016/0347248), in view of Kakkar et al. (US 2024/0147888)
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Manci discloses an industrial vehicle geo-feature system including a system/method comprising (Abstract):
a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment that includes a vehicle transceiver for detecting 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 (¶52-54 and ¶140 – industrial vehicle corresponding to the recited materials handling vehicle for operating in a warehouse corresponding to the recited covered environment including a wireless transceiver for receiving location information of the industrial vehicle, vehicle sensors including accelerometer which can detect orientation of the vehicle, and vehicle controller corresponding to the recited vehicle computing device);
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 (¶47-49 – remote server corresponding to the recited remotely located computing device which includes a processor and a memory component storing logic):
determine, from the location and the orientation, that the materials handling vehicle is approaching a restriction zone (¶85-88, ¶108 and Figs 6A-G – detecting that the vehicle is about to encounter a geo-feature corresponding to the recited approaching a restriction zone based on location information and operating state information including position, orientation, travel direction, etc.),
wherein the restriction zone includes an entrance edge and an exit edge (¶85-88, ¶108 and Figs 6A-G – each geo-feature is bound by fixed edges which, depending on the vehicle moving direction includes an entrance edge and an exit edge); and
provide to the materials handling vehicle a distance to the restriction zone and a policy of the restriction zone (¶61-67 – industrial vehicle corresponding to the recited materials handling vehicle receives information about a geo-feature corresponding to the recited restriction zone including spatial location information relative to its positioning corresponding to the recited distance to the restriction information as well as properties can include a parameter (or parameters) that defines (define) at least a function, characteristic, or action of the defined geo-feature corresponding to the recited policy of the restriction zone);
wherein the vehicle computing device determines a characteristic of the materials handling vehicle that affects compliance with the policy (¶78 – geo-feature properties corresponding to the recited characteristics of the materials handling vehicle that affects compliance with the policy),
wherein the vehicle computing device determines a first adjustment to current operation of the materials handling vehicle to comply with the policy (¶64 – in response to encountering a geo-feature controlling a modification to a vehicle operational parameter corresponding to the recited determine a first adjustment to current operation to comply with the policy);
wherein the vehicle computing device determines, based on the policy and the first adjustment, a distance to begin the first adjustment to comply with the policy at the entrance edge of the restriction zone; and wherein the vehicle computing device causes the materials handling vehicle to make the first adjustment to comply with the policy at the entrance edge of the restriction zone (¶64 and ¶76 – determining a prompt zone corresponding to the recited distance to begin adjustment to adjust vehicle controls so that way the vehicle enters the geo-feature following the designated policy while performing automatic control operations).
While Manci does disclose adjusting the operation of a materials handling vehicle utilizing a policy and an entrance edge of a restriction zone, but does not explicitly disclose determining a distance from the edge to begin the first adjustment.
However, Kakkar disclose an autonomous vehicle boundary intersection detection system including wherein the vehicle computing device utilizes the characteristic of the materials handling vehicle to determine a first adjustment to current operation of the materials handling vehicle to comply with the policy; wherein the vehicle computing device utilizes the policy and the first adjustment to determine a distance from the entrance edge to begin the first adjustment to comply with the policy at the entrance edge of the restriction zone (¶40, ¶57-58, ¶80-88, and Fig. 7 - a travel distance from the current position and orientation to the future position and orientation may be determined where the maximum speed may be the speed from which the autonomously driven vehicle can come to a complete stop with the travel distance determined corresponding to the recited utilizing the first policy to determine a first adjustment to the current operations to ensure the vehicle comes to a complete stop before the geofenced boundary which is further utilized to determine the traveling distance corresponding to the recited distance from the entrance edge to begin the first adjustment to comply with the policy at the entrance edge of the restriction zone);
The combination of the system for adjusting the operation of a materials handling vehicle utilizing a policy and an entrance edge of a restriction zone of Manci with the dynamic stopping distance/speed reduction relative to a geofenced boundary of Kakkar fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the system for adjusting the operation of a materials handling vehicle utilizing a policy and an entrance edge of a restriction zone of Manci with the dynamic stopping distance/speed reduction relative to a geofenced boundary of Kakkar in order to permit continued safe operation while coming to a complete stop before intersecting a boundary or other possible hazard (Kakkar - ¶19).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Manci further discloses wherein the vehicle sensor includes at least one of the following (The “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the element as written):
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 (¶50-54 - vehicle sensors, encoders, accelerometers, etc.).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Manci further discloses wherein the vehicle transceiver includes [a transceiver] that communicates with a plurality of [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 (¶44-54 – local awareness system utilizing markers within the warehouse environment for triangulating the industrial vehicle’s location corresponding to the recited plurality of 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).
While Manci does disclose utilizing communication with local awareness system markers to localize within its environment, it does not explicitly disclose these markers are UWB transceivers.
However, Kakkar further discloses an autonomous navigation system including utilizing an ultra wide band (UWB) for communication/sensing (¶66).
The combination of the local awareness system utilizing markers within the warehouse environment of Manci with the UWB communication system of Kakkar fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the local awareness system utilizing markers within the warehouse environment of Manci with the UWB communication system of Kakkar in order to reduce challenges present with autonomous vehicles in constrained environments (Kakkar - ¶1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Manci further discloses wherein the policy includes at least one of the following (The “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the element as written):
a speed policy, a platform height policy, a hoist speed policy, an acceleration policy, a deceleration policy, or a fork height policy (¶78 – geo-feature properties corresponding to the recited policy include for example, speed, travel direction, fork height).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Manci further discloses wherein the vehicle computing device further determines a second adjustment to return vehicle operation to the current operation of the materials handling vehicle, and wherein the vehicle computing device returns vehicle operation to the current operation at the exit edge of the restriction zone (¶98 – geo-features operate on a hierarchy of features where 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, therefore as the vehicle exits the geo-feature corresponding to the recited restriction zone, any limitations are lifted and a second adjustment returns controls to the current operation at the exit edge of the restriction zone).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Manci further discloses wherein the characteristic includes at least one of the following (The “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the element as written):
a current speed, a vehicle weight, a payload weight, a deceleration rate, a vehicle type, a vehicle model, a fork maximum height, a platform height, or a hoist speed (¶78 – geo-feature properties corresponding to the recited characteristics include for example, speed, travel direction, fork height, weight on forks).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Manci further discloses wherein the remotely located computing device includes at least one of the following (The “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the element as written):
a local computing device that resides in the covered environment and a remote computing device that resides remote from the covered environment (¶47 – processing device may be a remote server).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones et al. (US 2021/0229706) discloses a vehicle operation mode including calculating a reduction in speed based on positioning/current speed/environmental assessments before reaching a transition boundary location (¶50).
McLachlan et al. (US 2022/0390955) discloses a system for a material handling vehicle traveling controls including utilizing speed/boundary/positioning information to calculate a controlled deceleration relative to an object or boundary (¶56-58).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights