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 application number 19/429,586 filed on 6/2/2026, in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claims 1, 9, and 16.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/30/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) and (a)(3) because it does not include a legible copy of each foreign patent or publication other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications and does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Further, the information disclosure statement filed 11/30/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(d)(1) because it does not include a proper identification of an earlier application. Specifically, foreign references 1-14 and non-patent literature document 1 were not considered because they were not filed in English nor was a concise explanation of relevance filed with the reference and a proper identification of an earlier application was not made. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pg. 16, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the double rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 against copending Application No. 19/217,094 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 against copending Application No. 19/217,0944 set forth in the office action of 3/20/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pg., filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive. The of 3/20/2026 have been withdrawn. With regards to the objection for reference characters 104 and 304, Applicant argues that 104 is used to indicate a single vehicle and 304a-d are used to refer to a vehicle of a fleet of vehicles, and therefore, different numbers are used to indicate each vehicle, although the vehicles operate the same. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If the vehicles operate the same, but are identified by whether they are individual vehicles or vehicles as part of a fleet, they are still interpreted as the same component of the system and therefore should be consistently labeled with the same reference character. For example, if there is a singular vehicle 104 of which a fleet of vehicles 304 is made up of, the fleet should be identified uniquely using 304, whereas the individual vehicles would still be the same and, therefore would be called, for example, 104a-d. Alternatively, if there is a singular vehicle 104 and separately a fleet of vehicles 304 is made up of vehicles different from vehicle 104, then they should be named differently. Therefore, the objection to reference characters 10 of 3/20/2026 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pg, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive. The of 3/20/2026 is maintained. The of 3/20/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pgs. 9-15, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 8 set forth in the office action of 3/20/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pgs. 9-16, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the office action of 3/20/2026 has been withdrawn. For clarity of the claims, a new rejection to Claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pgs. 9-19, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that Kumar and Pandya do not disclose, teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the elements as recited in the claims and provides independent Claim 1 as an example. Applicant highlights the Claim 1 language for determining a proximity of the materials handling vehicle to a guidewire, determining a first dimension using the guidewire and second dimension using the received data from the first and second transceivers, and determining the position of the materials handling vehicle using the first and second dimension. Applicant states that Kumar is directed towards a GUI for use with a system including a UWB, wireline, etc. but does not discuss using the features together or for determining a first dimension and second dimension using these features and combining the dimension to determine a location of the materials handling vehicle. Further, Applicant states that Pandya discusses using a multi-modal system to determine three dimensions of a location of a vehicle but does not specifically discuss using a first method to determine a first dimension and a second method to determine a second dimension. Applicant cites [Pandya, col 13, line 21], which states that the system may use any combination of the methods, but does not teach or suggest different methods used for determining first and second dimension and combining the dimensions to determine a location. Applicant also notes that the cited prior art used to reject the dependent claims, Golitschek and Dues, do not discuss the highlighted claim elements. Finally, Applicant notes the other independent Claims 9 and 16 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed for Claim 1 and the dependent Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 would be allowable by dependency on their respective independent claims.
Examiner agrees that although Pandya discusses the different methods for determining a dimension for real-time location that include at least UWB technology and proximity measurements, it does not specify using proximity measurements and UWB technology as a first and a second dimension, respectively. Instead Pandya discusses combining the various locating methods in any combination and provides no motivation or suggestion to use the specific combination recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the office action of 3/20/2026 has been withdrawn and a summary of the allowable subject matter is provided below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following reference characters have been used to designate the same part:
FIGs. 1-3: "104" and "304" have both been used to designate materials handling vehicle (for example, specification pg. 21, para 0104 and pg. 23, paras 0113-0114).
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:
pg. 30, para 0136-0137: .”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-20 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.
Claim 16 (line 12) recites the limitation "a proximate guidewire.” “A proximate guidewire” is already defined in Claim 16 (lines 7-8). For clarity, Claim 16 (line 12) should recite “the proximate guidewire.”
Claims 17-20 are rejected by dependency on Claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The arts of record, especially Kumar, PG Pub US-2021/0375080-A1 and Pandya et al., Patent No. US-11,675,878-B1 , do not singularly or in combination disclose the system that includes a materials handling vehicle, including a transceiver for receiving a communication from a plurality of transceiver anchors placed around an environment and a sensor for detecting at least one of a plurality of guidewires wherein each guidewire is placed between a plurality of dividers, and a computing device, including a processor and a memory with logic that when executed by the processor performs a method, wherein the method comprises determining a location of the materials handling vehicle from data received from a portion of the plurality of transceiver anchors, determining a proximity of the materials handling vehicle to a proximate guidewire, engaging with the proximate guidewire, determining a first dimension of a position of the materials handling vehicle based on a known location of the proximate guidewire, receiving data from a first transceiver anchor and a second transceiver anchor of the plurality of transceiver anchors, determining a second dimension of a position of the materials handling vehicle based on the data received from the first transceiver anchor and the second transceiver anchor, determining the position of the materials handling vehicle from the first dimension and the second dimension, and altering the operation of the materials vehicle based on the position, as recited in independent Claims 1, 9, and 16.
The uniqueness of the claimed invention is, as recited in Claims 1, 9, and 16, determining the position of the materials handling vehicle using a first dimension and a second dimension, where the first dimension and the second dimension are explicitly determined using a known location of a proximate guidewire and data from a first transceiver anchor and a second transceiver anchor, respectively.
Kumar being one of the closest prior art discloses a materials handling vehicle system for managing electronic vehicle records for a fleet of materials handling vehicles, wherein the materials handling vehicle includes a transceiver and the system includes an auto-positioning and guidance system using RFID tags, UWB badges, and rail guidance using a wire embedded in the floor, used for positioning and controlling the materials handling vehicle.
Pandya being one of the closest prior arts discloses a multimodal system, including components for generating vision data, real-time location, and a 3D point cloud, for managing safety in an industrial environment by generating location data and updating a predictive model, wherein the multimodal system combines various sensor methods, including proximity, transmitting, and triangulation capabilities, to generate a position.
However, there are no teachings in Kumar and Pandya pertaining to the claimed determination of the position of the materials handling vehicle using a first dimension and a second dimension, where the first dimension and the second dimension are explicitly determined using a known location of a proximate guidewire and data from a first transceiver anchor and a second transceiver anchor, respectively.
Therefore, the allowable subject matter found in the claims that has not been found to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art found at this time is all the claimed limitations of independent Claim 1, 9, and 16. All the dependent claims, Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on their base claim.
Therefore, Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are allowable by dependency on Claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference B, Dues, PG Pub US-2017/0057798-A1, discusses a materials handing vehicle including an obstacle detector for generating a distance signal to a detected object and a controller for using the distance signal and generating a controls signal based on the detected object and detected object zone, wherein there are multiple zones within a warehouse used to dictate the use of various materials handling vehicle positioning methods, such as a RFID tags.
Reference C, Golitschek Edler von Elbwart et al., PG Pub US-2026/0059488-A1, discusses methods, apparatuses, and systems for determining a priority of position information and using the information for determining location, including priority criteria for path loss, transmission velocity, and RSSI, or selecting a subset of transmitters based on line of sight or another signal metric.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights