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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/11/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains the minor typo, "the first USB". Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18 of U.S. Patent No. 17/493,231, and 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18 of U.S. Patent No. 18/882,028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the vehicle control steps present in claim 1 of 17/493,231 and 19/882,028, are present in claim 2 of 19/226,307.
19/266,307
17/493,231
19/882,028
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 18
Claim 18
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, and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a relative pose determination system).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A relative pose determination system comprising a first materials handling vehicle, and a second materials handling vehicle, each materials handling vehicle comprising a vehicle body and a vehicle position processor, wherein:
the first and second materials handling vehicles are configured to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment;
the first materials handling vehicle comprises a first ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the first UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a first UWB antenna array center;
the second materials handling vehicle comprises a second UWB antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the second UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a second UWB antenna array center; and
each vehicle position processor is configured to:
transmit respective UWB signals comprising vehicle information between respective UWB antenna arrays of the first and second materials handling vehicles;
determine center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center; and
determine a relative pose comprising position and orientation of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other based on the respective transmitted UWB signals comprising the vehicle information and measurements and based on the center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center.
The recited limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as this step fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The nominal recitation of the processor does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. While, the claims refer to the vehicles being capable of navigation, this is not sufficient to overcome the 101 rejections. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A relative pose determination system comprising a first materials handling vehicle, and a second materials handling vehicle, each materials handling vehicle comprising a vehicle body and a vehicle position processor, wherein:
the first and second materials handling vehicles are configured to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment;
the first materials handling vehicle comprises a first ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the first UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a first UWB antenna array center;
the second materials handling vehicle comprises a second UWB antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the second UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a second UWB antenna array center; and
each vehicle position processor is configured to:
transmit respective UWB signals comprising vehicle information between respective UWB antenna arrays of the first and second materials handling vehicles;
determine center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center; and
determine a relative pose comprising position and orientation of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other based on the respective transmitted UWB signals comprising the vehicle information and measurements and based on the center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center.
The instruction to transmit respective UWB signals to indicate are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means to transmit respective UWB signals), and is similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the recited processors are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a vehicle environment using gathered visual observation data and displaying the results using generic processors which do not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As per claims 3-17
These apparatus claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the display of and results of analyzed vehicular position data and structure necessary to gather such data, and these elements are not sufficient to overcome the mental process rejection.
As per claim 18
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method for relative pose).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method for relative pose determination between a first materials handling vehicle and a second materials handling vehicle, each materials handling vehicle comprising a vehicle body, the first materials handling vehicle comprising a first ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the first UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a first UWB antenna array center, the second materials handling vehicle comprising a second UWB antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the second UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a second UWB antenna array center, the method comprising:
transmitting respective UWB signals comprising vehicle information between respective UWB antenna arrays of the first and second materials handling vehicles;
determining center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center; and
determining a relative pose comprising position and orientation of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other based on the respective transmitted UWB signals comprising the vehicle information and measurements and based on the center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center.
The recited limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as this step fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method for relative pose determination between a first materials handling vehicle and a second materials handling vehicle, each materials handling vehicle comprising a vehicle body, the first materials handling vehicle comprising a first ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the first UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a first UWB antenna array center, the second materials handling vehicle comprising a second UWB antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the second UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a second UWB antenna array center, the method comprising:
transmitting respective UWB signals comprising vehicle information between respective UWB antenna arrays of the first and second materials handling vehicles;
determining center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center; and
determining a relative pose comprising position and orientation of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other based on the respective transmitted UWB signals comprising the vehicle information and measurements and based on the center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center.
The instruction for transmitting respective UWB signals to indicate are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means for transmitting respective UWB signals), and is similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a vehicle environment using gathered visual observation data and displaying the results which do not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For these reasons, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 20 is allowable over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of High et al., US-20180143312-A1, in view of Thode, US-20180059682-A1, Hasegawa et al., US-20210179022-A1, Kwak, US-20190339690-A1, Castaneda et al., US-20140195121-A1, Fuerstenberg et al., US-20200050719-A1, Fuke, US-20190053021-A1, Hollar et al., US-20180294565-A1, Ohno et al., US-20170214112-A1, Zhou et al., CN-210404031-U, and Ishikawa et al., US-6209913-B1, hereinafter referred to as High, Thode, Hasegawa, Kwak, Castaneda, Fuerstenberg, Fuke, Hollar, Ohno, Zhou, and Ishikawa (Translation by Espacenet).
The following is the examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance:
High discloses a control and coordination system for unmanned vehicles inside a building.
Thode teaches a materials handling vehicle with an updating dynamic vehicle boundary that determines the degree of potential impingement at the candidate positions by referring to the dynamic vehicle boundary and obstacle data, and modify the proposed travel path to mitigate the degree of potential impingement.
Hasegawa teaches a vehicle control apparatus including a vehicle communication control unit that performs communication with a mobile terminal used by a user of a vehicle.
Kwak teaches control of two mobile robots.
Castaneda teaches a materials handling vehicle that attempts to maintain a desired distance from obstacles.
Fuerstenberg teaches an autonomous vehicle with multiple detection zones and a method for simulating traffic.
Fuke teaches an inter-vehicle communication device system that determines the distance between the device and a terminal to control vehicle functions.
Hollar teaches a UWB antenna with different housing and antenna shapes.
Ohno teaches a vehicle antenna design.
Zhou teaches a teardrop shaped antenna with a tapered PCB.
Ishikawa teaches a forklift with warning lamps.
As per Claim 20, the closest prior art or record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest:
A relative pose determination system comprising a first materials handling vehicle, and a second materials handling vehicle, each materials handling vehicle comprising a vehicle body and a vehicle position processor, wherein:
the first and second materials handling vehicles are configured to navigate a vehicle transit surface in a warehouse environment;
the first materials handling vehicle comprises a first ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the first UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a first UWB antenna array center;
the second materials handling vehicle comprises a second UWB antenna array mounted to the vehicle body, the second UWB antenna array comprising at least two antennas and a second UWB antenna array center; and
each vehicle position processor is configured to:
transmit a first UWB signal from the first UWB antenna array of the first materials handling vehicle to the second UWB antenna array of the second materials handling vehicle;
receive the first UWB signal at the second UWB antenna array of the second materials handling vehicle;
determine a second materials handling vehicle set of information based on the first UWB signal and center information of the second USB antenna array center;
transmit a second UWB signal comprising the second materials handling vehicle set of information from the second UWB antenna array of the second materials handling vehicle to the first UWB antenna array of the first materials handling vehicle;
determine a first materials handling vehicle set of information based on the second UWB signal and center information of the first USB antenna array center;
transmit a third UWB signal comprising the first materials handling vehicle set of information from the first UWB antenna array of the first materials handling vehicle to the second UWB antenna array of the second materials handling vehicle;
determine a relative pose, comprising position and orientation, of each of the first and second materials handling vehicles with respect to each other based on the second UWB signal, the third UWB signal, and measurements based on the center information of the first UWB antenna array center and the second UWB antenna array center; and
operate at least one of the first and second materials handling vehicles based on the relative pose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey S. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights