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 .
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: receiving by a computing device…; determining, by the computing device…; user interface provides… in claims 8-14.
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. [0110]: vehicle 104 may include a display (not explicitly shown) to provide one or more user interfaces; [0154]: remote computing device 110 includes a processor 930, input/output hardware 932, a network interface hardware 934, a data storage component 936 (which stores vehicle data 938a, premises data 938b, and/or other data), and a memory component 140.
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 6, 13, 20 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.
Claims 6, 13, 20 recite the limitation wherein the user interface provides at least near real-time depiction of location and orientation of the materials handling vehicle. The term “near real-time” in claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near real-time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 8, 15 are directed to a system, method, and device. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 8 recites:
receiving by a computing device, location data identifying a first plurality of locations of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment, the first plurality of locations being determined via a UWB antenna on the materials handling vehicle, wherein the materials handling vehicle only includes one UWB antenna;
determining, by the computing device from the location data, a first initial orientation of the materials handling vehicle;
receiving, by the computing device, vehicle sensor data from a sensor on the materials handling vehicle;
determining, by the computing device, an updated vehicle orientation and an updated vehicle location, based on the location data and the vehicle sensor data; and
providing, by the computing device, a user interface that includes a depiction of the materials handling vehicle in the updated vehicle orientation and the updated vehicle location.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person estimating a pose of a vehicle based on collected data and updating the pose for the vehicle based on additional collected data.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 8 recites:
receiving by a computing device, location data identifying a first plurality of locations of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment, the first plurality of locations being determined via a UWB antenna on the materials handling vehicle, wherein the materials handling vehicle only includes one UWB antenna;
determining, by the computing device from the location data, a first initial orientation of the materials handling vehicle;
receiving, by the computing device, vehicle sensor data from a sensor on the materials handling vehicle;
determining, by the computing device, an updated vehicle orientation and an updated vehicle location, based on the location data and the vehicle sensor data; and
providing, by the computing device, a user interface that includes a depiction of the materials handling vehicle in the updated vehicle orientation and the updated vehicle location.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process and perform data gathering and displaying. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, transmitting signals, outputting/displaying a result), and amounts to mere data gathering and storing and transmitting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP 2106, representative independent claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, 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, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and 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 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220108613 (Estep) in view of US 20160100522 (Yamauchi) and US 20230314548 (Xie).
As per claim 1, 8, 15, Estep discloses a system for determining orientation of a materials handling vehicle in a covered environment comprising:
a materials handling vehicle that includes a ultra wide band (UWB) antenna and at least one vehicle sensor (abstract: determining relative pose of materials handling vehicles in an industrial environment may include utilizing UWB antenna array systems respective mounted on the materials handling vehicles to send mutually received information to determine the relative pose between the vehicles, [0033]: UWB systems described herein may be employed semi-autonomous or fully autonomous automation as a primary or secondary safety system working alongside the lidar and/or image sensors); and
a computing device that includes a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing logic that, when executed by the processor (see at least [0037]: processor, an integrated circuit, a microchip, a computer, or any other computing device), causes the system to perform at least the following:
receive location data identifying a first plurality of locations of the materials handling vehicle in the covered environment (see at least abstract: determining relative pose of materials handling vehicles in an industrial environment may include utilizing UWB antenna array systems respective mounted on the materials handling vehicles to send mutually received information to determine the relative pose between the vehicles, [0033]: a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization, [0043]: By receiving UWB signal information from a node of the array (e.g., UWB antenna) including an angle of arrival and distance as described in greater detail below, and with a distance between the node and a center of the array being known, a position and orientation of the node is determined. Thus, a position and orientation of the vehicle onto which the node is mounted in a known configuration with respect to the center of the vehicle is determined to assist with determination of vehicle pose, [0067]: Multiple systems may re-use some of these UWB signals for their own measurement of relative poses. A single UWB message may be used by multiple remote vehicle systems to calculate relative poses simultaneously),
the first plurality of locations being determined via the UWB antenna (see at least [0033]: a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization, [0040]: location of the vehicle can be monitored by the localization system as the vehicle 100 is navigated, [0043]: By receiving UWB signal information from a node of the array (e.g., UWB antenna) including an angle of arrival and distance as described in greater detail below, and with a distance between the node and a center of the array being known, a position and orientation of the node is determined. Thus, a position and orientation of the vehicle onto which the node is mounted in a known configuration with respect to the center of the vehicle is determined to assist with determination of vehicle pose, [0067]: Multiple systems may re-use some of these UWB signals for their own measurement of relative poses. A single UWB message may be used by multiple remote vehicle systems to calculate relative poses simultaneously);
determine, from the location data, a first initial orientation of the materials handling vehicle (see at least [0033]: a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization, [0043]: By receiving UWB signal information from a node of the array (e.g., UWB antenna) including an angle of arrival and distance as described in greater detail below, and with a distance between the node and a center of the array being known, a position and orientation of the node is determined. Thus, a position and orientation of the vehicle onto which the node is mounted in a known configuration with respect to the center of the vehicle is determined to assist with determination of vehicle pose, [0054]: UWB technology may include a transmitter on the materials handling vehicle 100 configured to transmit UWB transmissions for receipt by a receiver-anchor disposed in the warehouse 110. Such UWB transmissions generate radio energy at specific time intervals while occupying a large bandwidth at low energy levels and enable pulse-position or time modulation, and may modulate transmitted information on UWB pulse signals. As described below, an ability for the UWB technology to determine a time of flight (ToF) of the transmission at different frequencies may assist with measuring distances at a high resolution and accuracy for localization, [0067]: Multiple systems may re-use some of these UWB signals for their own measurement of relative poses. A single UWB message may be used by multiple remote vehicle systems to calculate relative poses simultaneously);
receive vehicle sensor data from the at least one vehicle sensor on the materials handling vehicle (see at least [0033]: a camera, laser based system, and/or UWB based system 150 can be mounted to an industrial vehicle (e.g., automated guided vehicle or a manually guided vehicle) that navigates through a warehouse and can assist with vehicle localization…UWB systems described herein may be employed semi-autonomous or fully autonomous automation as a primary or secondary safety system working alongside the lidar and/or image sensors, [0053]: localization system, or both may utilize a stored warehouse map 30 and captured images of ceiling lights 114 or skylights 116 to enable navigation, localization, or both);
provide a user interface that includes a depiction of the materials handling vehicle in the vehicle orientation and the vehicle location (see at least Fig. 8 (500), [0089]: display 500 includes a display on a graphical user interface (GUI) 502 of the one or more fields 400 of the materials handling vehicle 100 such as the awareness zone 402, the slow field 404, and the stop field 402. The display 500 may display a current field infringement as quadrants on the GUI 502 to give an operator a clear and quick reference to a direction of the infringing vehicle 100. The display 500 further includes operational information 504 of the materials handling vehicle shown on the GUI 502, which operational information may be used to dynamic adjust field shape as described herein. The operational information 504 displayed may include current speed and steer wheel angle, and a vehicle assigned slow field identification and stop field identification).
Should it be found that Estep does not explicitly disclose a single UWB antenna, Yamauchi teaches a single UWB antenna (see at least [0043]: robot lawnmower 860 includes a UWB transceiver which allows the robot lawnmower 860 to communicate with the UWB transceivers in the UWB beacons 862a-e, [0045]: After receiving the information about the relative distances between the UWB transmitters in each of the UWB beacons, a processor in the robot lawnmower 10 (or a remotely located processor) uses a multi-dimensional scaling algorithm to determine the relative position (e.g., the x-y position relative to a global origin such as the dock position) of the UWB beacons (852, FIG. 4D), [0047]: After the UWB beacon locations are determined and stored, the system localizes the autonomous lawn mowing robot 860 by trilaterating based on received time-of-flight information (range) from each of the UWB transceivers (FIG. 4F)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Yamauchi with a reasonable expectation of success in order for autonomous navigation and determining a perimeter of a workspace (Yamauchi [0057]).
Should it be found that Estep does not explicitly disclose receive location data identifying a first plurality of locations of the vehicle in the covered environment, the first plurality of locations being determined via the UWB antenna, Yamauchi teaches receive location data identifying a first plurality of locations of the vehicle in the covered environment, the first plurality of locations being determined via the UWB antenna (see at least [0043]: robot lawnmower 860 includes a UWB transceiver which allows the robot lawnmower 860 to communicate with the UWB transceivers in the UWB beacons 862a-e, [0045]: After receiving the information about the relative distances between the UWB transmitters in each of the UWB beacons, a processor in the robot lawnmower 10 (or a remotely located processor) uses a multi-dimensional scaling algorithm to determine the relative position (e.g., the x-y position relative to a global origin such as the dock position) of the UWB beacons (852, FIG. 4D), [0047]: After the UWB beacon locations are determined and stored, the system localizes the autonomous lawn mowing robot 860 by trilaterating based on received time-of-flight information (range) from each of the UWB transceivers (FIG. 4F)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Yamauchi with a reasonable expectation of success in order for autonomous navigation and determining a perimeter of a workspace (Yamauchi [0057]).
Should it be found that Estep does not explicitly disclose determine, from the location data, a first initial orientation of the vehicle, Yamauchi teaches determine, from the location data, a first initial orientation of the vehicle (see at least [0043]: robot lawnmower 860 includes a UWB transceiver which allows the robot lawnmower 860 to communicate with the UWB transceivers in the UWB beacons 862a-e, [0045]: After receiving the information about the relative distances between the UWB transmitters in each of the UWB beacons, a processor in the robot lawnmower 10 (or a remotely located processor) uses a multi-dimensional scaling algorithm to determine the relative position (e.g., the x-y position relative to a global origin such as the dock position) of the UWB beacons (852, FIG. 4D), [0047]: After the UWB beacon locations are determined and stored, the system localizes the autonomous lawn mowing robot 860 by trilaterating based on received time-of-flight information (range) from each of the UWB transceivers (FIG. 4F)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Yamauchi with a reasonable expectation of success in order for autonomous navigation and determining a perimeter of a workspace (Yamauchi [0057]).
Estep discloses that the UWB systems may be employed semi-autonomous or fully autonomous automation as a primary or secondary safety system working alongside the lidar and/or image sensors (see at least [0033], [0066]) but Estep does not explicitly state determine an updated vehicle orientation and an updated vehicle location, based on the location data and the vehicle sensor data.
However, Xie teaches determine an updated vehicle orientation and an updated vehicle location, based on the location data and the vehicle sensor data (see at least [0048]: ultra-wide band antenna nodes are configured to send and receive signals from anchor nodes located at fixed locations in the environment in which the unmanned aerial vehicle operates. By sending and receiving signals from these anchor nodes, the location and orientation of the unmanned aerial vehicle can be estimated, [0049]: UAV 230 having four UWB ranging nodes 232 flies in the environment 200, [0058]: inputs to the method are ultra-wide band (UWB) data 610, inertial measurement unit (IMU) data 620, pointclouds 630 which are generated by the lidar module 422 of the unmanned aerial vehicle 400, and images 650 which are generated by the camera 424 of the unmanned aerial vehicle 400. The method 600 also uses UWB measurements {custom-character} and pose predictions {circumflex over (χ)}.sub.m, from previous stages in key frame management 640, [0063]: local optimization algorithm 626 generates a pose prediction 628, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Xie with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase efficiency and robustness of the estimated pose (Xie [0008], [0011]).
As per claims 2, 9, 16, Estep discloses wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following: determine that at least one of the following is against a predetermined policy: the vehicle orientation or the vehicle location (see at least [0066], [0076], [0079]: A field enforcement system 200 as described herein may use the velocity, steer wheel angle, wire guidance status, fork height, or combinations thereof as an input to generate or look-up a set of predefined field shapes for the field 400 required to safely avoid hazards); and
provide an alert to a user of the materials handling vehicle to correct at least one of the following: the vehicle orientation or the vehicle location (see at least [0066][-[0067]: angular offset may thus be used to correct the angle component of the relative pose for potential higher accuracy, [0076]: slow field 404 and the stop field 406 may be configured to cooperate to reduce a likelihood of a hazardous situation by alerting an operator of the materials handling vehicle 100, automatically slowing or stopping the vehicle 100).
Estep discloses that the UWB systems may be employed semi-autonomous or fully autonomous automation as a primary or secondary safety system working alongside the lidar and/or image sensors ([0033]) but Estep does not explicitly state determine an updated vehicle orientation and an updated vehicle location, based on the location data and the vehicle sensor data.
However, Xie teaches determine an updated vehicle orientation and an updated vehicle location, based on the location data and the vehicle sensor data (see at least [0048]: ultra-wide band antenna nodes are configured to send and receive signals from anchor nodes located at fixed locations in the environment in which the unmanned aerial vehicle operates. By sending and receiving signals from these anchor nodes, the location and orientation of the unmanned aerial vehicle can be estimated, [0049]: UAV 230 having four UWB ranging nodes 232 flies in the environment 200, [0058]: inputs to the method are ultra-wide band (UWB) data 610, inertial measurement unit (IMU) data 620, pointclouds 630 which are generated by the lidar module 422 of the unmanned aerial vehicle 400, and images 650 which are generated by the camera 424 of the unmanned aerial vehicle 400. The method 600 also uses UWB measurements {custom-character} and pose predictions {circumflex over (χ)}.sub.m, from previous stages in key frame management 640, [0063]: local optimization algorithm 626 generates a pose prediction 628, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Xie with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase efficiency and robustness of the estimated pose (Xie [0008], [0011]).
As per claims 5, 12, 19, Estep discloses wherein the at least one vehicle sensor includes at least one of the following: a wheel speed sensor, an odometer, a steering wheel sensor, a wireline sensor, a gyroscope, and accelerometer, or a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (see at least [0033]: lidar, [0067]: wire guided).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estep in view of Yamauchi and Xie, and further in view of US 20200201350 (Newman).
As per claims 3, 10, 17, Estep does not explicitly disclose but Newman teaches wherein the logic further causes the system to remotely adjust at least one of the following: the updated vehicle orientation or the updated vehicle location (see at least [0045]: sensor fusion 124 implements sensor weighting function 126 so that GPS data 106 is utilized when precision is determined to be sufficiently high, but utilizes one or more other sensor data 108-118 (e.g., precision odometry data 112, LIDAR data 108, camera data 110 and/or other sensors, such as inertial sensors data, gyroscope data and ground penetrating radar data), which are determined to be sufficiently high accuracy, to compute changes in vehicle pose (e.g., motion) with respect to the high precision GPS updates when available along the path of travel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Newman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine facilitate accurate localization of a vehicle (Newman [0045]: precision of the GPS data 106 may become less precise. Sensor fusion function 124 thus utilizes sensor weighting function 126 to selectively weight sensor data according to the determined uncertainty associated with each unit of sensor data 104 to facilitate accurate localization of the vehicle).
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estep in view of Yamauchi and Xie, and further in view of US 20110010022 (Beavin).
As per claims 4, 11, 18, Estep discloses a materials handling vehicle but does not explicitly disclose wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following: receive data related to a second plurality of locations of the vehicle, determined via the UWB antenna; determine a second initial orientation of the vehicle; compare the second initial orientation of the vehicle with the updated vehicle orientation; and in response to determining that the second initial orientation of the vehicle varies from the updated vehicle orientation by a predetermined threshold, replace the updated vehicle orientation with the second initial orientation.
Xie teaches wherein the logic further causes the system to perform at least the following:
receive data related to a second plurality of locations of the vehicle, determined via the UWB antenna (see at least [0017]: ensuring the that the localization is continuous, [0060]: After the self-localization stage, UWB, IMU and OSL data will go through multiple stages before they are fused together in the Optimization-based Sensor Fusion (OSF) algorithm, Fig. 6, [0061]: UWB data 610 is subjected to some preliminary checks 612 to eliminate bad measurements. These checks include comparing the measurement's signal over noise ratio (SNR), leading-edge-detection quality, and rate-of-change with some user-defined thresholds, etc. Only those that meet these thresholds will be passed to the buffer in a bundling 614 stage for subsequent stages. UWB measurements that arrive in the interval (t.sub.m−1, t.sub.m], w+1≤m≤k are grouped into a set {custom-character});
determine a second initial orientation of the vehicle (see at least [0017]: ensuring the that the localization is continuous, [0060]: After the self-localization stage, UWB, IMU and OSL data will go through multiple stages before they are fused together in the Optimization-based Sensor Fusion (OSF) algorithm, Fig. 6);
compare the second initial orientation of the vehicle with the updated vehicle orientation (see at least [0063]: local optimization algorithm 626 generates a pose prediction 628).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Xie with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase efficiency and robustness of the estimated pose (Xie [0008], [0011]).
However, Beavin teaches in response to determining that the second initial orientation of the vehicle varies from an updated vehicle orientation by a predetermined threshold, replace an updated vehicle orientation with the second initial orientation (see at least [0053]: At 408, a determination is made as to whether a difference between the estimated position of vehicle (i.e. 404) and the acquired position of the vehicle (i.e. 406) is greater than a predetermined threshold. If the difference between the estimated position of the vehicle and the acquired position of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined threshold (i.e., the "Yes" branch from 408), then updated location, orientation, and kinematic data of the vehicle is obtained at 410. The same technique utilized at 402 and 406 may obtain the updated orientation and kinematic data at 410. For example, at 410, the vehicle's current location and orientation measurements, linear and angular velocities and accelerations, and a time stamp indicating a time of the position readings may be obtained. In another example, the updated data obtained in 406 may be used directly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Beavin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle position accuracy.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estep in view of Yamauchi and Xie, and further in view of US 8565913 (Emanuel).
As per claims 6, 13, 20, Estep discloses wherein the user interface provides at least near real-time depiction of location and orientation of the materials handling vehicle (see at least Fig. 8 display (500), [0089]: display 500 includes a display on a graphical user interface (GUI) 502 of the one or more fields 400 of the materials handling vehicle 100 such as the awareness zone 402, the slow field 404, and the stop field 402. The display 500 may display a current field infringement as quadrants on the GUI 502 to give an operator a clear and quick reference to a direction of the infringing vehicle 100. The display 500 further includes operational information 504 of the materials handling vehicle shown on the GUI 502, which operational information may be used to dynamic adjust field shape as described herein. The operational information 504 displayed may include current speed and steer wheel angle, and a vehicle assigned slow field identification and stop field identification) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface provides at least near real-time depiction of location and orientation of the materials handling vehicle.
Should it be found that Estep does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface provides at least near real-time depiction of location and orientation of the materials handling vehicle, Emanuel teaches wherein the user interface provides at least near real-time depiction of location and orientation of the materials handling vehicle (see at least claim 8: communicating the location and orientation of each conveying vehicle to the fixed-base subsystem and displaying the location and orientation on the operator interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Emanuel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to track a location of one or more assets and provide a system with high accuracy that includes orientation determination (Emanuel column 2 lines 36-44).
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estep in view of Yamauchi and Xie, and further in view of US 10852165 (Davis).
As per claims 7, 14, Estep does not explicitly disclose wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a user option to recalibrate the updated vehicle orientation.
However, Davis teaches wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a user option to recalibrate the updated vehicle orientation (see at least column 12 lines 65-67: A Gyroscope Position Resetter 242 can reset the angular position of the gyroscope 212 to a default value (e.g., 0, 0, 0), column 14 lines 37-40: orientation of the vehicle can be reset in response to device 100 receiving a signal that resulted from user input specifying that the angular position should be set to a default value, column 14 lines 41-45: vehicle position (e.g., the integration of the linear velocity) is also set to a default value in response to device 100 having determined that the vehicle has launched or is about to launch (or having received user input that the vehicle position/orientation should be reset)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Estep by incorporating the teachings of Davis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase orientation determination accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights