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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 108. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶ 00153 lines 6-7 reads to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 lines 10-12 read "receive data from the materials handling vehicle related to the direction of motion and the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle as detected by at least one of the following: the first sensor or the second sensor" which appears to be a continuity error since the first sensor only explicitly collects direction data and the second sensor only explicitly collects steer angle data. Thus, this should read "receive data from the materials handling vehicle related to the direction of motion or the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle as detected by at least one of the following: the first sensor or the second sensor" or "receive data from the materials handling vehicle related to the direction of motion and the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle as detected by the following: the first sensor and the second sensor" to maintain continuity and improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim(s) 9, the “computing device” in at least the limitation “receiving, by a computing device” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the performance of the method.
In claim(s) 1 and 15, the “memory component” in the limitation “memory component storing logic” invokes 112(f) as “component” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the storage of logic.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the computing device, a review of the specification (¶ 0018) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component".
The memory component requires further investigation for the structure. This memory component appears to be identical to the one claimed in claims 1 and 15, and thus they will be discussed together below.
Regarding the memory component, a review of the specification (00112) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"The memory component 140 may be configured as read access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), registers, etc."
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-4, 10-12, and 16-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16; the phrase “vehicle type” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E). It is unclear whether “type” is meant to indicate a make, model, year, capability, size, functionality, licensing/certification requirements, color, propulsion type (i.e. combustion engine, hybrid, battery electric, or fuel cell), number of doors, vehicle attachment, or other specification of a vehicle. A review of the specification does not provide adequate examples or a lexicographical definition such that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand the metes and bounds of this limitation. Therefore, it is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, a vehicle type will be understood as the physical classification of the vehicle as, for example, a forklift, a dump truck, a back hoe, an order picker, a side loader, or another specific materials handling vehicle.
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 2, 10, and 16 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear how a speed sensor, odometer, accelerometer, or magnet are meant to determine an amount of turn of a vehicle as required by the claim language as written. A review of the specification does not provide any further details on how this is achieved and only repeats the claim language (see ¶ 0015 for example). Examiner presumes that this may be a typographical error as similarly worded claim 18 has the speed sensor, odometer, accelerometer, or magnet determine whether the vehicle is moving forward or backwards, but since this cannot be positively confirmed with a review of the specification, the claim as written is unclear.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 18; a magnet is listed as a potential sensor. A magnet is not a sensor as known in the art. There is a plurality of known sensors that do include magnets such as Hall Effect sensors, but as written, it is unclear what the intended metes and bounds of the claimed magnet is or how it is meant to function. Is the magnet merely a comprising component of a larger sensor that is capable of determining whether the vehicle is moving forwards or backwards, or is the magnet meant to be sensed by an off-board vehicle such that the function is achieved? A review of the specification does not provide further examples of what the magnet could be or a lexicographical definition of a magnet such that it may act as, or in, a sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
receiving, by a computing device, data from a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment, wherein the data includes a direction of motion of the materials handling vehicle and a steer angle of the materials handling vehicle as detected by at least one on-board vehicle sensor;
determining, by the computing device, from the data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle;
determining, by the computing device, based on the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, a shaped detection field, wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring a space that is defined based on a probability of the materials handling vehicle moving into the space, wherein determining the shaped detection field includes determining, based on the direction of motion and the steer angle, probabilities for a plurality of spaces that the materials handling vehicle will move and forming the shaped detection field on only a subset of the plurality of spaces with probabilities that meet or exceed a predetermined probability threshold;
implementing, by the computing device, the shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle;
detecting, by the computing device, an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field; and
sending, by the computing device, information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field.
The limitations (a-e) recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device comprising a processor and memory component, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can observe sensor readings from two sensors indicative of steering angle and movement direction respectively (a). The person can then mentally predict the trajectory of the vehicle based on the observed sensor data (b). The person can mentally determine the likelihood that the vehicle will exist in a plurality of spaces based on the sensor data and determined trajectory and decide to closely monitor locations with the highest probability of the vehicle moving in them (c-d). The person can then observe objects entering the zone of interest that they are monitoring (e). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sensors, processor, and memory component is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer and vehicle component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). If the data reception step is not understood as an observation step, it may instead by understood as an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The limitation of sending information to the materials handling vehicle (f) is an insignificant extra post-solution activity of mere data transmission. Mere data transmission cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Examiner notes that “alter[ing] operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field” does not integrate the invention into a practical application as the limitation merely states the intended result of the vehicle receiving information. The sending of information does not guarantee in-and-of-itself the reception of said data nor the acting on said data even if it is received. To overcome the 101 rejection, examiner recommends amending the claims to positively recite controlling of the vehicle according to the sent information provided no new matter is entered.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor, memory component, and sensors are generically claimed as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of receiving data (b) is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a WURC function. If instead the data is obtained from storage, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the retrieval of data from storage is a WURC. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The limitation of sending information (f) is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-13, and 15-19 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 8, 10-11, and 16-17 detail further aspects of the abstract idea.
Claims 4-5, 12, and 18 provide further details of the sensors. The listed sensor options are still generically claimed and therefore are not able to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 provide further details on the data transmission step. Since data is still transmitted in the form of an alert or a control signal, the claim claims an insignificant extra post solution of the WURC of data transmission. Further, if the alert is interpreted to be displayed to the user, this is a WURC activity because Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that the mere display of data without significant limitations on how to achieve the desired result is a WURC function. Examiner notes that the transmission of a control signal does not guarantee actual reception and acting on said control signal. To overcome the 101 rejection, examiner recommends positively reciting controlling the vehicle (beyond functions that are WURC such as mere display or data transmission) according to the sent control signal provided no new matter is 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beggs et al. US 20150145661 A1 (hereinafter Beggs) in view of Kurozumi US 12441350 B2 (hereinafter Kurozumi).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15;
Beggs teaches
A system comprising:
a materials handling vehicle (Figure 1) for traversing a covered environment (¶ 0003 discloses multiple operating environments for the invention including warehouses; see also ¶ 0042 for an example of an aspect of the invention being used for forklifts in a warehouse) that includes a first sensor for detecting a direction of motion of the materials handling vehicle (¶ 0033 discloses a sensor for detecting if a vehicle is moving forward or backward) , and a second sensor for detecting a steer angle of the materials handling vehicle (¶ 0035 discloses a sensor for monitoring the absolute position of the steering wheel);
a computing device that includes a processor (¶ 0114 discloses a processor) and a memory component (¶ 0114 discloses a memory including RAM and flash memory), the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform at least the following (¶ 0119-0120 discloses instructions for performing the method are stored on the memory; see also ¶ 0112 where the system executes the instructions to perform the method):
receive data from the materials handling vehicle related to the direction of motion and the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle, as determined via the first sensor and the second sensor (¶ 0033 and 0035 as detailed above);
determine, from the data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle (¶ 0076 discloses generating a trajectory using sampled movement characteristics and expansion factors; see also sample motion vector 30 in Figure 4B incorporating direction of motion and steering position);
determine, based on the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, a shaped detection field (¶ 0076 discloses checking overlap between expanded trajectory vectors which are also referred to as safety zones; examiner understands that in this situation, the determined expanded trajectory vector or safety zones would function equivalent to the claimed detection field), wherein the shaped detection field is determined by predicting a path of travel of the materials handling vehicle (see, for example, ¶ 0079 where it details movement paths for determining safe zones are predictive), wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring a space along the vector of movement (¶ 0076 as detailed above);
implement the shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle (¶ 0076 as detailed above);
detect an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field (¶ 0076 as detailed above); and
send information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field (¶ 0076 discloses providing warning to entities that have overlapping trajectories; examiner understands that this would achieve the intended result).
Beggs does not teach that
the determining the shaped detection field includes determining, based on the direction of motion and the steer angle, probabilities for a plurality of spaces that the materials handling vehicle will move and forming the shaped detection field on only a subset of the plurality of spaces with probabilities that meet or exceed a predetermined probability threshold.
Kurozumi teaches
receive data from the materials handling vehicle (Claim 1 discloses obtaining motion state information) related to the direction of motion (column 2 lines 62-67 disclose that a sensor sensing motion state information may be a wheel speed sensor) and the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle (column 2 lines 62-67 discloses that a sensor sensing motion state information may be a steering angle sensor), as determined via the first sensor (column 2 lines 62-67) and the second sensor (column 2 lines 62-67);
determine, from the data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle (Claim 1 discloses generating a vehicle’s predicted trajectory based on motion state information);
determine, based on the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, a shaped detection field (Claim 1 discloses determining if there is a potential of contact based on the predicted trajectory; examiner understands that the predicted trajectory functions equivalently to a detection field in this case), wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring a space along the vector of movement (Claim 1), wherein determining the shaped detection field includes determining, based on the direction of motion and the steer angle (column 7 lines 35-67 at least suggest that calculated future time point probabilities are based on motion state of a vehicle; see also Figure 2 for a diagram of information in to information out; see also column 2 lines 62-67 regarding motion state information available for input), probabilities for a plurality of spaces that the materials handling vehicle will move (Claim 1 discloses determining probabilities that a vehicle will be present at a plurality of future positions) and forming the shaped detection field on only a subset of the plurality of spaces with probabilities that meet or exceed a predetermined probability threshold (Claim 1 discloses that the vehicle’s predicted future position is assume to be at a future point where the probability is equal to or greater than a threshold);
implement the shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle (Claim 1);
detect an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field (Claim 1 discloses determining a possibility of contact between a vehicle and an object; see also Figures 5A-5B); and
send information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field (column 10 line 56 to column 11 line 19 disclose notifying a user of a potential for contact to allow the user time to put the vehicle in a safe situation; examiner understands this achieves the intended result).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Beggs to incorporate the teachings of Kurozumi such that the expanded trajectory of Beggs can be determined further by selecting a plurality of points with the highest probability as the future points in the trajectory based on received motion state information as taught by Kurozumi. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of trajectory prediction by using a probability based prediction system.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Beggs reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Beggs further teaches that
the first sensor includes at least one of the following: a wheel speed sensor, an odometer, an accelerometer (¶ 0053 discloses that vehicles can include an AL capability wherein an AL unit can be a simple accelerometer for heading determination), a magnet, or an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU) to determine whether the materials handling vehicle is moving forward or backward.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Beggs reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Beggs further teaches that
the second sensor includes at least one of the following: a steering wheel sensor (¶ 0035 discloses a sensor that monitors the absolute position of the steering wheel) or a gyroscope to determine an amount of turn of the materials handling vehicle (¶ 0035 “absolute position of the steering wheel”; see Figures 4A and 4B for example which show an example sensed turn amount).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the modified Beggs reference teaches all of claims 9 and 15 as detailed above.
Examiner understands that claims 12 and 18 contain the combined subject matter of claims 4 and 5 and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19; the modified Beggs reference teaches all of claims 1, 9, and 15 as detailed above.
Beggs further teaches that
sending information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field includes at least one of the following:
sending an alert to a user of the materials handling vehicle (¶ 0076 discloses providing warning to entities that have overlapping trajectories) or sending a control signal to the materials handling vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Beggs reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Beggs further teaches that
determining the shaped detection field includes determining, based on the direction of motion and the steer angle, a predicted vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle (¶ 0076 discloses generating a trajectory using sampled movement characteristics and expansion factors; see also sample motion vector 30 in Figure 4B incorporating direction of motion and steering position; see also, for example, ¶ 0079 where it details movement paths for determining safe zones are predictive).
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beggs as modified by Kurozumi as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Aoyagi et al. US 20180259636 A1 (hereinafter Aoyagi).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16; the modified Beggs reference teaches all of claims 1, 9, and 15 as detailed above.
Beggs further teaches that
the shaped detection field is selected based on at least one of the following: vehicle type (¶ 0074 discloses expanding a trajectory vector based on a predetermined speed range which depends on the type of vehicle, for example a forklift), vehicle speed (¶ 0083 discloses that a safety zone can be modified based on vehicle speed), the steer angle (¶ 0083 discloses that a safety zone can be modified based on steering position), or location in the covered environment (¶ 0052 discloses that a safety zone can be created based on the vehicle’s location).
Beggs does not teach that
the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields.
Aoyagi teaches that
the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields (Abstract discloses that a detection area can be switched from a first area pair to a second area pair based on vehicle heading and a vehicle condition) based on vehicle speed (¶ 0016 discloses selecting the second area pair when the vehicle’s speed is less than a threshold speed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Beggs to incorporate the teachings of Aoyagi such that the safety zones of Beggs can further be selected according to the detection area switching method of Aoyagi which can then be further expanded according to the teachings of Beggs. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for objects to be appropriately detected in low speed environments, not only high speed environments, by choosing between two detection area pairs based on vehicle speed as taught by Aoyagi (¶ 0010).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17; the modified Beggs reference teaches all of claims 2, 10, and 16 as detailed above.
Beggs further teaches that
the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:
receive new sensor data of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment (¶ 0077 discloses persisting with the method if an object still exists in an environment such that collision is still possible; Figure 9C 902, for example, discloses resampling movement of each entity after persistence of the method 918);
select a different predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle (Figure 9C 904-906, for example, discloses generating and expanding trajectories according to the received data; examiner understands that this may be a different field based on differences of movement sampled during different rounds of persistence; see example generated warning fields 10’ in Figures 2A-2B where zones are different based on the direction of motion); and
implement the different predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle (Figure 9C 910, for example, discloses analyzing expanded trajectories for overlap).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, and 15 of copending Application No. 19/221,986 (hereinafter Morelli) (reference application) in view of Beggs and Kurozumi. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Below is a comparison of the claims of Morelli with the instant application:
Application 19/222,008
US Patent Application 19/221,986 (Morelli)
Claim 1
Claims 1 and 3
A system comprising:
A system for location-based field shaping comprising:
a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment that includes a first sensor for detecting a direction of motion of the materials handling vehicle, and a second sensor for detecting a steer angle of the materials handling vehicle;
a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment that includes a vehicle transceiver for receiving a communication from a plurality of transceiver anchors that are affixed to stationary objects within the covered environment, wherein the materials handling vehicle further includes at least one sensor for detecting a characteristic of operation of the materials handling vehicle; and
a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform at least the following:
a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform the following:
receive data from the materials handling vehicle related to the direction of motion and the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle, as determined via the first sensor and the second sensor;
receive location data via at least one of the plurality of transceiver anchors, the data related to a location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;receive sensor data from the at least one sensor related to the characteristic of operation of the materials handling vehicle;
determine, from the data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle;
determine, from the location data, a first location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;determine, from the sensor data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, wherein the vector of movement includes an orientation of the materials handling vehicle;
determine, based on the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, a shaped detection field, wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring a space along the vector of movement, wherein determining the shaped detection field includes determining, based on the direction of motion and the steer angle, probabilities for a plurality of spaces that the materials handling vehicle will move and forming the shaped detection field on only a subset of the plurality of spaces with probabilities that meet or exceed a predetermined probability threshold;
determine a shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle from the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle and the first location of the materials handling vehicle, wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring an area that is defined based on a probability of the materials handling vehicle moving into the area...
implement the shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle;
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:determine that the location is identified as providing a zone that provides zone-based shaped detection field; andimplement the zone-based shaped detection field while the materials handling vehicle is located in the zone.
detect an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field; and
...detect an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field; and
send information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field.
send information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to reduce a likelihood of collision with the object.
Claim 2
Claim 4
The system of claim 1, wherein the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields based on at least one of the following: vehicle type, vehicle speed, the steer angle, or location in the covered environment.
The system of claim 1, wherein the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields based on at least one of the following: space, traffic, vehicle type, or operator.
Claim 3
Claims 2 and 3
The system of claim 2, wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic is further configured to perform at least the following:
receive new sensor data of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;
determine a second location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;
select a predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle; and
determine that the second location is in a different location of the covered environment than the first location; andadjust the shaped detection field based on the different sector of the covered environment.
implement the predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle.
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:determine that the location is identified as providing a zone that provides zone-based shaped detection field; andimplement the zone-based shaped detection field while the materials handling vehicle is located in the zone.
Claim 4
Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor includes at least one of the following: a wheel speed sensor, an odometer, an accelerometer, a magnet, or an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU) to determine whether the materials handling vehicle is moving forward or backward.
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of the following: a light radar (LiDAR), a steering wheel sensor, an odometer, a wireline sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a magnet, a single UWB transceiver, or an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU).
Claim 5
Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein the second sensor includes at least one of the following: a steering wheel sensor or a gyroscope to determine an amount of turn of the materials handling vehicle.
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of the following: a light radar (LiDAR), a steering wheel sensor, an odometer, a wireline sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a magnet, a single UWB transceiver, or an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU).
Claim 9
Claims 9 and 11
A method comprising:
A method for location-based field shaping comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data from a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment, wherein the data includes a direction of motion of the materials handling vehicle and a steer angle of the materials handling vehicle as detected by at least one on-board vehicle sensor;
receiving, by a computing device, location data related to a location of the materials handling vehicle in a covered environment;receiving, by the computing device, sensor data from a sensor on the materials handling vehicle related to a characteristic of operation of the materials handling vehicle;
determining, by the computing device, from the data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle;
determining, by the computing device, from the location data, a first location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;determining, by the computing device, from the sensor data, a vector of movement, wherein the vector of movement includes an orientation of the materials handling vehicle;
determining, by the computing device, based on the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, a shaped detection field, wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring a space that is defined based on a probability of the materials handling vehicle moving into the space, wherein determining the shaped detection field includes determining, based on the direction of motion and the steer angle, probabilities for a plurality of spaces that the materials handling vehicle will move and forming the shaped detection field on only a subset of the plurality of spaces with probabilities that meet or exceed a predetermined probability threshold;
creating, by the computing device, a shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle from the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle and the first location of the materials handling vehicle, wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring an area that is defined based on a probability of the materials handling vehicle moving into the area...
implementing, by the computing device, the shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle;
The method of claim 9, further comprising:determine that the location is identified as a zone that provides a zone-based shaped detection field; andimplement the zone-based shaped detection field while the materials handling vehicle is located in the location.
detecting, by the computing device, an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field; and
...detecting, by the computing device, an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field;
sending, by the computing device, information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field.
and sending, by the computing device, information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to reduce a likelihood of collision with the object.
Claim 10
Claim 12
The method of claim 9, wherein the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields based on at least one of the following: vehicle type, vehicle speed, the steer angle, or location in the covered environment.
The method of claim 9, wherein the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields based on at least one of the following: space, traffic, vehicle type, or operator.
Claim 11
Claims 2 and 11
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic is further configured to perform at least the following:
receiving new sensor data of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;
determine a second location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;
selecting a predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle; and
determine that the second location is in a different location of the covered environment than the first location; andadjust the shaped detection field based on the different sector of the covered environment.
implementing the predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle.
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:determine that the location is identified as providing a zone that provides zone-based shaped detection field; andimplement the zone-based shaped detection field while the materials handling vehicle is located in the zone.
Claim 12
Claim 15
The method of claim 9, wherein the data is received from at least one of the following: a wheel speed sensor, an odometer, an accelerometer, a magnet, an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU), a steering wheel sensor or a gyroscope to determine an amount of turn of the materials handling vehicle.
The method of claim 9, wherein the sensor includes at least one of the following: a light radar (LiDAR), a steering wheel sensor, an odometer, a wireline sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a magnet, a single UWB transceiver, or an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU).
Claim 15
Claims 1 and 3
A system comprising:
A system for location-based field shaping comprising:
a materials handling vehicle for traversing a covered environment;
a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment that includes a vehicle transceiver for receiving a communication from a plurality of transceiver anchors that are affixed to stationary objects within the covered environment,
a first sensor coupled to the materials handling vehicle, the first sensor for detecting a direction of motion of the materials handling vehicle,a second sensor coupled to the materials handling vehicle, the second sensor for detecting a steer angle of the materials handling vehicle; and
wherein the materials handling vehicle further includes at least one sensor for detecting a characteristic of operation of the materials handling vehicle; and
a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform the following:
a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform the following:
receive data from the materials handling vehicle related to the direction of motion and the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle as detected by at least one of the following: the first sensor or the second sensor;
receive location data via at least one of the plurality of transceiver anchors, the data related to a location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;receive sensor data from the at least one sensor related to the characteristic of operation of the materials handling vehicle;
determine, from the data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle;
determine, from the location data, a first location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;determine, from the sensor data, a vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, wherein the vector of movement includes an orientation of the materials handling vehicle;
determine, based on the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle, a shaped detection field, wherein the shaped detection field is determined by predicting a path of travel of the materials handling vehicle, wherein determining the shaped detection field includes determining, based on the direction of motion and the steer angle, probabilities for a plurality of spaces that the materials handling vehicle will move and forming the shaped detection field on only a subset of the plurality of spaces with probabilities that meet or exceed a predetermined probability threshold;
determine a shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle from the vector of movement of the materials handling vehicle and the first location of the materials handling vehicle, wherein the shaped detection field is configured for monitoring an area that is defined based on a probability of the materials handling vehicle moving into the area...
implement the shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle;
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:determine that the location is identified as providing a zone that provides zone-based shaped detection field; andimplement the zone-based shaped detection field while the materials handling vehicle is located in the zone.
detect an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field; and
...detect an object that encroaches on the shaped detection field; and
send information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to move the materials handling vehicle such that the object is out of the shaped detection field.
send information to the materials handling vehicle to alter operation of the materials handling vehicle to reduce a likelihood of collision with the object.
Claim 16
Claim 4
The system of claim 15, wherein the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields based on at least one of the following: vehicle type, vehicle speed, the steer angle, or location in the covered environment.
The system of claim 1, wherein the shaped detection field is selected from a plurality of preconfigured shaped detection fields based on at least one of the following: space, traffic, vehicle type, or operator.
Claim 17
Claims 2 and 3
The system of claim 16, wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic is further configured to perform at least the following:
receive new sensor data of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;
determine a second location of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment;
select a different predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle;
determine that the second location is in a different location of the covered environment than the first location; andadjust the shaped detection field based on the different sector of the covered environment.
and implement the different predetermined shaped detection field for the materials handling vehicle.
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:determine that the location is identified as providing a zone that provides zone-based shaped detection field; andimplement the zone-based shaped detection field while the materials handling vehicle is located in the zone.
Claim 18
Claim 8
The system of claim 15, wherein the first sensor includes at least one of the following: a wheel speed sensor, an odometer, an accelerometer, a magnet, or an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU) to determine whether the materials handling vehicle is moving forward or backward and wherein the second sensor includes at least one of the following: a steering wheel sensor or a gyroscope to determine an amount of turn of the materials handling vehicle.
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of the following: a light radar (LiDAR), a steering wheel sensor, an odometer, a wireline sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a magnet, a single UWB transceiver, or an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15; Morelli does not teach a first sensor for detecting a direction of motion of the materials handling vehicle, and a second sensor for detecting a steer angle of the materials handling vehicle, receiving data from the materials handling vehicle related to the direction of motion and the steer angle of the materials handling vehicle, as determined via the first sensor and the second sensor, and that the shaped detection field is determined by predicting a path of travel of the materials handling vehicle. Beggs teaches these limitations as detailed in the 103 rejection above. For conciseness of record, these rejections will not be repeated. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Morelli to incorporate the teachings of Beggs. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the two sensors providing direction and steering position data of Beggs for the generic sensors providing generic characteristic data of Morelli. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of providing data of a characteristic of movement of a vehicle renders the claim obvious. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Morelli to incorporate the teachings of Beggs such that the trajectory of Beggs can be predictive as taught by Morelli. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to expand the use case of the method for real time scenarios by allowing using predictive rather than historical results.
Morelli also does not teach forming the shaped detection field on only a subset of the plurality of spaces with probabilities that meet or exceed a predetermined probability threshold. Kurozumi teaches this limitation as detailed in the 103 rejection detailed above. For conciseness of record, these rejections will not be repeated. The same motivation applied in the 103 rejection above can further be applied regarding the double patenting rejection.
Morelli does not teach the limitations of claims 6, 13, and 19. Beggs teaches this limitation as detailed in the 103 rejection detailed above. For conciseness of record, these rejections will not be repeated. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Morelli to incorporate the teachings of Beggs such that an alert can be provided to an operator as taught by Beggs. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness of the surrounding environment.
Morelli does not teach the limitations of claim 8. Beggs teaches this limitation as detailed in the 103 rejection detailed above. The same motivation used regarding the predictive element of claim 15 as detailed above can be applied regarding the subject matter of claim 8 as well.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oppolzer et al. US 20170315549 A1 (hereinafter Oppolzer) discloses selecting a zone of interest for object detection from a library of predetermined zones.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights