US 11060872

I'll search for this specific patent number as requested.

Search Results for US Patent No. 11060872

Searches performed (USPTO / CAFC 2026 dockets): I ran two targeted queries — one for the patent number itself, and one pairing the number with "CAFC 2026 docket."

• CAFC / litigation: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket, opinion, or order referencing this patent. The docket results returned were unrelated (Intuit v. SameSurf, Apple v. SpaceTime3D, Ridge Corp. v. Kirk Nationalease, Otsuka v. Hetero — none involving 11060872).
• Unrelated hits: Some results contained the digit string "11060872" but were not this patent (e.g., an ICAR list of unrelated numeric IDs, a Brazilian JUCISRS contract PDF). Per your instruction, I did not treat those as results for this patent.
• Uncertainty noted: I do not have a live USPTO PatentCenter/Public PAIR confirmation returned by search. However, the full authoritative patent text and front-matter were supplied in the source material, and the summary below is drawn from that.

---

Bibliographic Summary

Continuity chain: This patent sits at the end of a three-application chain all claiming the 2015-05-26 priority: US 15/158,896 (now US 9,921,067) → US 15/889,481 (now US 10,458,799) → US 16/575,838 (this patent).

---

Abstract (as issued)

"Systems and methods for calibrating odometry of a materials handling vehicle. One embodiment of a method includes determining a current location of the materials handling vehicle, determining an odometry distance from the current location to a destination based on a calculation of a determined number of rotations of a wheel and a circumference of the wheel, and determining a positioning system distance from the current location to the destination. Some embodiments include comparing the odometry distance with data from the positioning system distance to calculate a scaling factor, applying the scaling factor to a fast alpha filter to achieve a fast filter result, and applying the scaling factor to a slow alpha filter to achieve a slow filter result. Similarly, some embodiments include applying the fast alpha filter to the scaling factor to smooth noise, calculating an updated odometry distance utilizing the scaling factor, and utilizing the updated odometry distance."

---

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

The patent has three independent claims (1, 16, and 18). All three share the same core idea: compare a wheel-based odometry distance against a more accurate positioning-system distance, derive a scaling factor from that comparison, smooth/condition that factor with an exponential moving average ("alpha") filter, and feed the corrected distance back into vehicle operation.

Claim 1 — Materials handling vehicle (apparatus)

A forklift-type vehicle (with materials-handling hardware, a wheel, an odometer, a positioning system, and a computing device) that:

1. Determines its current location;
2. Gets an odometry distance to a destination from the odometer;
3. Gets a positioning-system distance to the destination from the positioning system;
4. Compares the two to determine a difference and to calculate a scaling factor based on both distances;
5. Uses an exponential moving average (EMA) filter to adjust the scaling factor only when the difference exceeds a threshold;
6. Calculates an updated odometry distance using the adjusted scaling factor; and
7. Uses that updated distance to operate the vehicle.

Key limitation: the threshold-gated EMA-filter adjustment step.

Claim 16 — Materials handling vehicle (apparatus)

A vehicle with a wheel and computing device that:

1. Determines current location;
2. Determines odometry distance and positioning-system distance to the destination;
3. Compares them to calculate a scaling factor;
4. Uses the scaling factor to derive a "fast change value" — i.e., a change reflecting a wheel change/replacement (rapid change);
5. Updates the scaling factor by referring to the fast change value to smooth noise;
6. Calculates an updated odometry distance; and
7. Uses it to operate the vehicle.

Key limitation: it recites only the fast-change path (tuned for the sudden jump when a wheel is swapped).

Claim 18 — Method for calibrating odometry (process)

A method with the same information-gathering steps (current location; odometry distance; positioning-system distance; comparison to calculate a scaling factor), then:

1. Uses the scaling factor to derive a "slow change value" — a change reflecting gradual wheel/tire wear;
2. Updates the scaling factor by referring to the slow change value to smooth noise;
3. Calculates an updated odometry distance; and
4. Uses it to operate the vehicle.

Key limitation: it recites only the slow-change path (tuned for gradual wear), and is drafted as a method rather than tied to a specific apparatus.

---

Notable Dependent Claims (context)

• Claim 15: tolerance = about 0.075; Claim 13/14/20: slow filter α ≈ 0.99, fast filter α ≈ 0.9, using FV₁ = FV₀(α) + MV(1−α).
• Claim 10 (dep. of 1): dual slow/fast comparison with hysteresis-driven selection — arguably the richest recitation of the two-filter logic.
• Claim 3: determines whether a scaling-factor change is due to wheel wear vs. wheel change.
• Claim 5: image capture device used for positioning-system distance (relevant to the sibling overhead-light camera calibration disclosure).

---

Caveats on Uniqueness / Non-Confusion

Two details worth flagging so identifiers aren't conflated:

• The number 11060872 also appears in the patent's own related-family list as BR112017025109A2 (Brazil) and CN107667274B (China) counterparts — same family, different offices.
• Search also surfaced unrelated digit-string matches (e.g., "11060844," "11060869") from non-patent sources. These are not US 11,060,872.

If you need a certified bibliographic confirmation (e.g., current assignee-of-record, maintenance-fee status, or any post-grant proceedings/PGR/IPR), I'd recommend checking USPTO PatentCenter directly — my search did not return an authoritative live-API confirmation for that, so I flag it as an area of residual uncertainty.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 11060872.

Let me try more targeted searches on patent litigation databases.

Let me search more specifically on litigation databases and the patent's family/assignee.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 11,060,872

Bottom line: I found no litigation (district court, CAFC, or PTAB) specifically asserting or challenging US Patent 11,060,872 ("Systems and methods for materials handling vehicle odometry calibration," Crown Equipment Corporation).

What I searched and what I found

I ran multiple searches targeting the specific number — including queries for 11060872 litigation, 11060872 patent lawsuit defendant, "US 11,060,872" infringement, and Crown Equipment patent litigation tied to odometry calibration — plus the Unified Patents portal and general litigation aggregators. Results:

• No district court case naming US 11,060,872 as an asserted patent appeared.
• No Federal Circuit appeal referencing the patent appeared.
• No PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) challenging US 11,060,872 appeared.
• The Crown Equipment results that did surface were all product-liability / personal-injury suits (forklift injury claims), not patent suits, and none referenced the '872 patent:
  • McEuin v. Crown Equipment Corp. (design-defect/punitive damages, 9th Cir.)
  • Hanshaw v. Crown Equipment Corp. (Mo., Jackson Cty. 1816-CV21440; RC5500 forklift injury; appeal to Mo. Supreme Court No. SC101091)
  • Sansom v. Crown Equipment Corp. (E.D. Pa.; pallet truck / stockpicker products liability)
  • Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp. (1st Cir. Nos. 06-2705/06-2706)
  • Bourelle and Wendling v. Crown Equipment, 220 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2000)
  • Cole v. Crown Equipment (N.D. Ind. 3:22-cv-00935)
  • Sneed v. Crown Equipment Corp. (N.D. Tex. 3:23-cv-743-K)
  • Eisenbise v. Crown Equipment Corp. (S.D. Cal. 3:15-cv-00972)
  • Milbutas v. Crown Equipment Corp. (M.D. Fla. 8:26-cv-00421)
  • Jeter v. Crown Equipment Corp. (D.S.C. 7:26-cv-02847)
• The only patent case involving Crown Equipment that appeared was Insite Solutions, LLC v. Shieldmark, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 21-2164 — a trademark/patent appeal in which Crown was a defendant/appellee — but this does not involve the '872 patent.

Important caveats

• This is not proof that no litigation exists. My searches hit a tool/step limit before I could exhaustively query PACER, Docket Navigator, Unified Patents' litigation caselist, or CourtListener's docket search by patent number. A definitive negative requires a direct PACER / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina query.
• The patent is a continuation (App. No. 16/575,838), part of a family that includes US 9,921,067 ('067) and US 10,458,799 ('799). Related family members are also active in EP (EP3304002B1), KR (KR101878649B1), CN (CN107667274B), AU (AU2016268034B2), CA (CA2987318C), MX (MX373403B), and WO (WO2016191182A1). It may be worth searching litigation under those family members and under the '067/'799 patent numbers, since asserting parties sometimes plead a family member other than the '872 continuation.
• Crown Equipment is an active patent plaintiff historically (e.g., Crown Equipment Corp. v. I.D. Systems, Inc., S.D. Ohio 2:10-cv-00452) and has a large 2018–2019 patent portfolio around rack-leg identification and position calibration, so litigation naming related Crown patents is plausible even if none names '872 directly.

Recommendation

To confirm, run a direct patent-number litigation search on:

• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (filter by patent number)
• CourtListener / RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com (docket search)
• Docket Navigator or Lex Machina (PACER-backed) if available
• CAFC opinions/orders search and USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for IPR/PGR challenges

If you'd like, I can run a further round of searches specifically on the family members (US 9,921,067 and US 10,458,799) and the EP/KR/CN counterparts, which are the more likely targets of any asserted litigation.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before writing up the analysis.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,060,872: ZERO. The canonical structured "PTAB proceedings on file" data (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent searches — PTAB docket text, PTAB E2E/PTActs petition results, and third-party litigation/PTAB trackers — turned up no proceeding number naming US 11,060,872 or its family members (US 9,921,067; US 10,458,799). Bottom-line defensive posture: this is an un-challenged, un-hardened patent. Neither side has tested it at the Board, so a defendant cannot point to any canceled or narrowed claim — but equally, the patent owner has never had claims survive a PTAB validity attack, meaning the invalidity case is entirely greenfield for you to develop. Critically, the burden that would normally fall on a petitioner to beat an established FWD does not exist; instead you would be writing the first challenge on a blank slate.

I want to be explicit about one caveat: the IP Verse tracker page for Crown Equipment lists "PTAB Cases Faced" as blank/"-" and shows no PTAB case history from 2018 onward, which corroborates the ODP result. No fabricated proceeding numbers appear below because there are none to report.

---

No proceedings to enumerate

Because the structured data reports no AIA trials and search confirms it, there is no "most-impactful-first" ordering to produce. For completeness, the checks performed:

If a proceeding has been filed very recently and is not yet indexed by ODP, it would appear at PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations — worth a manual confirmation before you rely on "no proceedings" in a filing.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 20 claims UNTESTED. No independent claim (1, 16, 18) and no dependent claim of US 11,060,872 has been canceled, narrowed, or held patentable by the Board. Unlike the situation with heavily-litigated patents, there is no claim-level kill list and no surviving-claim map to reason from — the patent as issued (three independent claims plus 17 dependents) is fully intact and presumptively valid under § 282(a). The two most substantive limitations a challenger would target are (a) the threshold-gated EMA-filter adjustment of claim 1 and (b) the dual fast/slow "change value" selection logic of claim 10 (α ≈ 0.99 slow / α ≈ 0.9 fast; tolerance ≈ 0.075; hysteresis ≈ 0.0025). Those specific numeric parameters are recited only in dependent claims and in the specification, so a § 103 attack that persuasively reads the base claim elements on the "alpha filter = exponential moving average" art could unravel a broad swath at once.

Estoppel landscape: none — § 315(e)(2) is a non-issue. Because no petition was ever filed, no petitioner (or privy) is estopped from raising any ground. Every prior-art combination is available to you: § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, and — notably under-explored territory for odometry-calibration claims — § 112(a)/(b) written-description and enablement attacks on the numeric ranges (e.g., how "about 0.99," "about 0.9," "about 0.075," and "about 0.0025" are supported across their claimed scope). The prior-art references cited on the face of the patent (e.g., US 4,939,659; US 5,020,008; US 5,156,684; US 5,686,925; EP 0 806 632 A1) frame the field but are examiner-cited art, not a petitioner's curated set — treat them as a starting map, not a finished case.

Pattern signals: none of the usual hallmarks are present. There is no serial petitioner, no Unified Patents defensive-aggregator campaign (also consistent with Crown being a large, well-resourced operating company rather than an NPE target), and no Crown post-grant appeal activity on this patent. Crown Equipment does maintain an active offensive posture elsewhere — it has filed multiple EPO oppositions against competitors (Jungheinrich, STILL, Toyota, Linde) — which signals Crown is a sophisticated IP enforcer that knows how to defend its portfolio, should a challenge materialize. The absence of any IPR is itself telling: well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs, so this patent either has not been asserted against a party willing to fund an AIA trial, or has been asserted only in contexts that settled before the Board door was knocked on.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion: there is no FWD to link to and no canceled claim to cite. Your validity case must be built from scratch. Start from the prosecution history of the priority application (US 15/158,896, now US 9,921,067) and its continuations to see what art the examiner distinguished; the numeric-parameter dependents (claims 11–15, 20) and the claim-10 dual-filter logic are the highest-leverage obviousness targets because they are the narrowest and most concrete.
• Petition windows are open. With no prior proceeding, you are unconstrained by § 315(e)(1) estoppel and face the standard 1-year § 315(b) bar only if served — note the service date on any complaint.
• Timing if you file: a new IPR on this patent would run on the statutory clock — ~6 months to a POP/panel institution decision, ~3 months from institution to the Patent Owner Response, then the mandatory 1-year-from-institution FWD deadline (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)). There is no joinder or parallel-trial dynamic to manage because no other AIA case exists.
• Confirm the negative before relying on it. Verify on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations) that no brand-new petition has posted since the ODP ingest. The absence of PTAB activity is my high-confidence conclusion from the structured data plus search — but it is a point-in-time conclusion, and I flag manual E2E confirmation as the responsible final step, since I could not return a live API snapshot directly.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent before drafting. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me check for any litigation or post-issuance transfers, and confirm Crown Equipment's corporate status.

Note on sourcing

My two Assignment Center retrieval queries returned no indexed reel/frame records for US 11,060,872, and I hit the tool-call ceiling before I could pull a live Assignment Center page. What follows is drawn from (a) the authoritative patent front matter, (b) Google Patents' legal-events block for this patent, and (c) litigation/NPE-directory cross-checks that did return. Where a reel/frame number would normally appear, I have flagged it as "not retrieved" rather than inventing one. Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center and the legacy Assignment Search before relying on this for a clean chain-of-title opinion.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment — no departure anomaly. All three inventors assigned to the original assignee and stayed: the same names recur on later Crown Equipment applications (Thode and Estep appear as inventors on Crown's 2018–2020 rack-leg-identification family). This is the opposite of the "all inventors leave within 12 months of filing" precursor to a portfolio fire-sale — it indicates a retained R&D team inside a single operating company.

---

Original assignee

Crown Equipment Corporation (front matter: "Original Assignee: Crown Equipment Corp"; "Current Assignee: Crown Equipment Corp"). Address of record on related Crown filings: 40 South Washington Street, New Bremen, OH 45869.

• Primary line of business: Design and manufacture of electric materials handling equipment — forklifts, reach trucks, turret trucks, order pickers, tow tractors, pallet trucks — plus warehouse automation (Crown's automated guided/ceiling-light-localized vehicles are the direct commercial embodiment of this patent's subject matter).
• Product embodiment: Yes. The patent is directed to the materials handling vehicle itself (claim 1 recites "materials handling hardware, a wheel, an odometer, a positioning system, and a vehicle computing device"). Crown's automated lift-truck line — the odometry-plus-overhead-light-localization platform described in FIG. 1 and the sibling disclosure WO 2016/053115 — is the embodying product.
• Corporate status: Privately held, family-owned (Dicke family), headquartered in New Bremen, Ohio; an operating manufacturer, not an IP-holding shell. Caveat: I could not complete a live 2026 status verification (SEC/Secretary-of-State) before hitting the tool-call limit; Crown is not SEC-reporting, so there is no 10-K/8-K to cite. Treat "currently operating" as high-confidence-but-unverified for this run.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment is evidenced in the available sources.

• 2019-09-19 (executed) / recorded 2019-09-19 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Google Patents legal events title: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Timothy William Fanselow; Justin Forbes Thode; Ryan Michaels Estep (individually)
  • Assignee: Crown Equipment Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (no attorney/firm captured in the available record; the source returns only "SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
  • Context: Routine inventor-to-employer assignment — the standard filing-date assignment of invention rights that accompanies a company-owned continuation application. Not a sale, securitization, or asserter transfer.

No post-issuance assignment exists in the available record. There is no conveyance of any kind after issue (2021-07-13): no Assignment, Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, Release, or Correction. Family-list confirmations corroborate the absence of any transferee: the "Current Assignee" field still reads Crown Equipment Corp, and every sibling member (US 9,921,067; US 10,458,799; EP 3304002; KR 101878649; CN 107667274; AU 2016268034; BR 112017025109; CA 2987318; MX 373403; WO 2016/191182) is held under the same Crown parentage.

If Assignment Center does indeed show a second record (e.g., a re-recording or a Crown-internal "Change of Name"), I could not surface it — that gap is the main residual uncertainty in this section.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11060872
    2015 : Priority provisional filed
    2016 : Parent application filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Crown
    2018 : First continuation filed
    2019 : Second continuation filed
         : Inventor assignment re-recorded
    2021 : Patent issued to Crown Equipment

(Note: the 2021 label commemorates issuance under this number; it is not an assignment event.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment moves this patent off Crown Equipment Corporation. There is no successor entity with an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix anywhere in the retrieved chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original nor the current assignee matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Crown Equipment appears in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database only under the "Product company" category (its 2010 assertion Crown Equipment Corp. v. I.D. Systems, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00452, S.D. Ohio), which is the database's non-NPE classification.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (unclear). No correspondent attorney or recording firm was captured for the single available record, so recurrence cannot be tested. A single inventor-assignment correspondent would in any event be non-probative — the signal requires recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment across a 2015–2021 chain; nothing cascaded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. Crown's litigation appearances near this timeframe (Lowe/Spota v. Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment, Fed. Cir. 21-2164 and 23-1786) name Crown as an appellee/cross-appellant defendant, not as an asserter, and do not involve this patent. Crown v. I.D. Systems (2010) predates the 2015 priority date by five years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding associated with Crown Equipment Corporation surfaced.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to a third-party enforcement vehicle; Crown retains domestic and foreign family members itself and litigates/opposes (EPO oppositions against STILL, Linde, Toyota, Jungheinrich) in its own name — the signature of self-enforcement, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Crown is not a defensive-aggregator terminal assignee.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — but with the affirmative finding that the record shows no NPE pattern whatsoever.

The assignment record contains only the inventor→Crown Equipment Corporation filing-date assignment (executed and recorded 2019-09-19, reel/frame not retrieved) and no recorded post-issuance conveyance of any kind. Under the rubric, a chain consisting solely of the original assignment compels the "Insufficient data" label — there is simply no downstream transfer to characterize. Substantively, every anti-NPE indicator is satisfied: the patent sits with a private operating manufacturer that ships the embodying automated lift truck, the named inventors remained at Crown and kept filing, and Crown enforces its own portfolio in its own name. If the Assignment Center reveals a second record I did not retrieve, re-run this analysis against that reel/frame.

Verification links: Assignment Center · Legacy Assignment Search · search by patent number 11060872 or application 16/575,838.

I'll research the complete prior-art citation list for US 11,060,872, since the source text provided was truncated mid-way through the "Citations (19)" table.

I have partial data. Let me retrieve the complete citation list (19 references) for this patent and details on the key references.

I have partial citation data. Let me pin down the complete 19-reference list and details on the key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,060,872 B2

Patent: US 11,060,872 B2, "Systems and methods for materials handling vehicle odometry calibration," Crown Equipment Corp. (Fanselow, Thode, Estep), App. 16/575,838, filed 2019‑09‑19, issued 2021‑07‑13, priority 2015‑05‑26.

Critical-date framework used below: Because this is a continuation claiming the 2015‑05‑26 priority, a reference is § 102(a)(1) art only if it was publicly available before 2015‑05‑26. Anything published after that date can only be § 102(a)(2) art (i.e., an earlier‑filed U.S. application/patent), or cited-for-context only. I flag dates accordingly.

---

⚠️ Important scope note on the citation list

The authoritative source text you supplied began listing "Citations (19)" but was truncated mid‑table at the entry US7405834B1 … 2006‑02‑. I was able to fully confirm 7 of the 19 entries (plus the first line of the 8th) before a search step limit stopped retrieval. I have not fabricated the remaining entries. Below I separate:

• (A) Confirmed cited references (verbatim from the supplied source text), and
• (B) Family‑record references appearing in the sibling continuation US 9,921,067 (US 15/158,896) — the same disclosure and substantially the same IDS — which are likely the balance of the list but which I could not verify as being in this patent's list in this session.

A definitive per‑reference list requires pulling the "References Cited" section of the issued patent (PatentCenter / Google Patents PDF).

---

(A) CONFIRMED CITED REFERENCES

1. US 4,939,659 A

• Title: Speed/rpm transmitting device
• Filed: 1988‑01‑15 · Issued: 1990‑07‑03
• Assignee: Allied‑Signal, Inc.
• Description: Device for generating/transmitting a speed/RPM signal (e.g., a pulse train proportional to rotation) for vehicle instrumentation and control.
• § 102 relevance: Touches only the rotation‑counting underpinning ("determined number of rotations of a wheel"). It discloses no positioning‑system distance, no scaling‑factor comparison, and no filtering. Does not anticipate claims 1, 16, or 18. At most background art for the odometer input.

2. US 5,020,008 A

• Title: Method of calibrating vehicle speed signals
• Filed: 1989‑06‑05 · Issued: 1991‑05‑28
• Assignee: Allied‑Signal Inc.
• Description: Calibrates a sensed vehicle speed signal against a reference, i.e., derives/applies a correction (scale) value to the wheel‑derived signal.
• § 102 relevance: Conceptually the earliest "scaling factor" reference — bears on the scaling‑factor calculating step of claims 1, 7, and 18. But it calibrates against a speed reference, not a positioning‑system distance, and discloses no EMA filters, tolerance, or hysteresis. Likely § 103 material, not clean § 102 anticipation of any independent claim.

3. US 5,155,684 A

• Title: Guiding an unmanned vehicle by reference to overhead features
• Filed: 1988‑10‑25 (priority) · Issued: 1992‑10‑13
• Assignee: Tennant Company
• Description: Automated‑guided‑vehicle navigation by detecting overhead features — an absolute, overhead‑based positioning system analogous to the patent's ceiling‑light localization.
• § 102 relevance: Directly relevant to the "determine a positioning system distance" element and especially to the image‑capture‑device dependent claim 5. Standing alone it lacks the odometry comparison, scaling factor, and filters. Not full anticipation; strong § 103 combination art.

4. US 5,686,925 A

• Title: System for obtaining a velocity of a moving object from a speed sensor with an improved adjustment of a speed conversion coefficient
• Filed: 1994‑06‑30 · Issued: 1997‑11‑11
• Assignee: Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
• Classification cited: G01S 19/525 (wheel‑speed corrected against satellite positioning)
• Description: Derives velocity from a wheel/speed sensor and adjusts a "speed conversion coefficient" (a scaling factor), notably by reference to an external (satellite) reference.
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest confirmed reference to the odometry‑vs‑external‑reference correction concept behind claims 1, 7, and 18 — a wheel‑derived value scaled by comparison to an independent position/velocity source. Still no EMA filter, no threshold/hysteresis gating, no fast/slow dual path. § 103 material; possible § 102 anticipation only of the broadest reading of the scaling‑factor step in claim 18.

5. EP 0 806 632 A1

• Title: Vehicle navigation system with automatic calibration of on‑board sensors
• Filed: 1996‑05‑09 · Published: 1997‑11‑12
• Applicant: Magneti Marelli S.p.A.
• Description: Navigation system that automatically calibrates on‑board sensors (e.g., the odometer/distance sensor) using navigation‑system data — i.e., comparing sensor‑derived distance to a positioning/navigation‑derived distance to calibrate.
• § 102 relevance: The most conceptually on‑point confirmed reference. It discloses the core loop: compare a wheel/odometry‑derived distance to an independent positioning distance, and calibrate. Potentially anticipatory to the broad method steps of claim 18 if it discloses smoothing; absent the EMA/fast‑slow filter concept it is at minimum core § 103 art against claims 1 and 18.

6. US 5,884,207 A

• Title: Emergency wheel fast recognition process
• Filed: 1994‑08‑27 · Issued: 1999‑03‑16
• Assignee: ITT Manufacturing Enterprises Inc.
• Classification cited: B60T 8/17616
• Description: Rapidly recognizes an abnormal/changed wheel (wheel‑change event detection).
• § 102 relevance: Bears on the patent's wheel‑change detection and the "fast change value" of claim 16, and on claim 3 (distinguishing wheel wear vs. wheel change). It does not disclose odometry‑vs‑positioning comparison or any filter. Not anticipation; § 103 art on claim 16/claim 3.

7. US 2005/0029347 A1

• Title (per source): Automatic number plate recognition system
• Filed: 2001‑03‑28 · Published: 2005‑02‑10
• Named: Noble Lawson John
• Description: Per the source title, an ANPR (imaging + recognition) system.
• § 102 relevance: On its face unrelated to odometry/odometer calibration; likely cited for imaging/feature‑recognition context. Low § 102 relevance to claims 1–20.
• ⚠️ Flag / potential identifier confusion: the sibling record US 9,921,067 lists a cited reference as "2005/0029347 A1 … Noble et al." — the same publication number, but attributed to "Noble et al." rather than "Noble Lawson John," and expected to be a materials‑handling/localization reference from Crown's inventor Noble. The title supplied by the source ("Automatic number plate recognition system") is inconsistent with the family's Noble references. Treat the title/assignee of this entry as unverified; do not conflate it with the Crown "Noble" family (see note in Part B).

8. US 7,405,834 B1 (entry truncated in source)

• Named: Marron et al. · Date fragment: 2006‑02‑…
• Family record: appears as 7,405,834 B1 7/2008 Marron et al.
• Description / § 102 relevance: Cannot responsibly assess — title not retrieved. Flagged as a gap.

---

(B) FAMILY‑RECORD REFERENCES (likely the balance of the 19; unverified as being in this patent's list)

From the sibling continuation US 9,921,067 (same disclosure), the following were cited and are the probable remainder. I present them with the caveat that I could not confirm each is in US 11,060,872's own list:

Because the confirmed list (Part A) and this family list overlap only partially (e.g., 5,155,684 and 5,686,925 and 5,884,207 appear in both; 4,939,659 / 5,020,008 / EP 0806632 appear only in the confirmed list), the true 19‑entry set is a mix of the two, and I will not assert a precise union count.

---

Overall Assessment — Most Relevant Prior Art

Ranked by closeness to the independent claims (1, 16, 18):

1. EP 0 806 632 A1 (Magneti Marelli) — automatic calibration of on‑board vehicle sensors against a navigation reference. Closest to the core concept; principal § 103 (and possible broad § 102) art for claims 1 and 18.
2. US 5,686,925 A (Matsushita) — adjusting a speed conversion coefficient (scaling factor) using an external reference. Core art for the scaling‑factor limitation of claims 1, 7, 18.
3. US 5,020,008 A (Allied‑Signal) — calibrating vehicle speed signals; secondary support for the scaling‑factor concept.
4. US 5,884,207 A (ITT) — fast wheel‑change recognition; art for claim 16 ("fast change value") and claim 3 (wear vs. change).
5. US 5,155,684 A (Tennant) — overhead‑feature vehicle guidance; art for positioning‑system distance and claim 5.
6. Crown/Noble family (8,539,282; 8,548,671; 2011/0057816; 2013/0069765; 2015/0094900; etc.) — automatic vehicle‑parameter calibration and overhead‑light localization; pervasive § 103 context.

What none of the confirmed references discloses (the likely novelty/inventive‑step line):

• The threshold‑gated exponential moving average filter ("utilize an EMA filter to adjust the scaling factor when the difference exceeds a threshold") of claim 1;
• The dual fast/slow alpha filter with tolerance (≈0.075) and hysteresis (≈0.0025) switching, and the resultant wear‑vs‑wheel‑change discrimination, of claims 10–15, 16, 18–20;
• The specific FV₁ = FV₀(α) + MV(1−α) recitations with α ≈ 0.99 (slow) and α ≈ 0.9 (fast).

On the record as retrieved, no single confirmed reference appears to anticipate any of independent claims 1, 16, or 18; the references above function primarily as § 103 combinations (a wheel‑derived distance corrected/scaled against an independent positioning source) that the claimed dual‑filter, threshold/hysteresis logic would need to distinguish over.

---

Caveats

• Truncated source: 11 of the 19 cited references were not retrievable before a tool step limit; entries in Part B are likely but unverified for this specific patent and are labeled as such. Do not cite Part B as the patent's own list without checking the issued "References Cited" section.
• Date discipline: entries dated after 2015‑05‑26 (9,349,181; 9,354,070; 2015/0379704; 2015/0379715; 2016/0011595; 2016/0169278) are not § 102(a)(1) art against this priority; they can only be § 102(a)(2) art if effectively filed before the priority date.
• Identifier flag: the title/assignee of US 2005/0029347 A1 ("Automatic number plate recognition system" / "Noble Lawson John") is inconsistent with the same publication number being cited as "Noble et al." in the sibling record — verify before relying on it.
• Recommended verification: pull the issued patent's "References Cited" (Google Patents PDF or USPTO PatentCenter) to lock the definitive 19‑entry list, and run the cited references through a § 102/§ 103 element‑by‑element chart against claims 1, 16, and 18.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent's "Citations (19)" section. Let me pull details on the key references.

I've confirmed the substance of the key references. Let me pull the remaining cited references and the Tennant overhead-feature reference.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,060,872 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: Systems and methods for materials handling vehicle odometry calibration (Crown Equipment Corp.)
Priority: 2015-05-26 | App. No. 16/575,838 | § 103 focus: claims 1–20
Prior art base used: the references listed in the "Citations (19)" prior-art section of the Google Patents page, whose substance I verified individually via search.

---

0. Scope note and a caveat on the prior-art record

The "Citations (19)" list in the supplied source is truncated at US7405834B1, so I could only directly analyze the references that are actually visible there. Of those, the ones I was able to retrieve and confirm full-text content for are:

I could not independently confirm the teaching of US 7,405,834 B1 (truncated) or the relevance of US 2005/0029347 A1 (an automated number-plate-recognition system, apparently peripheral). Everything below therefore rests only on the confirmed references, and I flag where a rejection would depend on the unretrieved items.

---

1. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, I assess (a) scope/content of the prior art, (b) differences from the claims, (c) PHOSITA level, and (d) objective evidence. The Federal Circuit's KSR jurisprudence permits combination where the references are from the same field, address the same problem, and where the modification is a predictable use of prior-art elements or a design choice among a finite number of identified solutions.

PHOSITA (proposed): a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical, mechanical, or robotics engineering (or equivalent) and roughly 2–4 years' experience in vehicle navigation/odometry or warehouse automation, or a team including such a person. This is a mature, incremental art: odometry calibration by reference to an absolute position sensor was already a decades-old automotive practice by the 2015 priority date (see US 5,020,008 (1991), EP 0 806 632 (1997), US 5,686,925 (1997)).

---

2. Construction of the key claim terms

• "scaling factor" — on the specification's own terms, the multiplier that converts raw accumulated odometry distance (pulse count × nominal wheel circumference) into true distance. The patent explicitly gives it as (x_end−x_start)² + (y_end−y_start)² squared-rooted, divided by the summed Δdistance_odometry. This is the classic "speed/scale conversion coefficient" of US 5,686,925 and the "conversion factor between pulses and meters" of EP 0 806 632.
• "exponential moving average filter" / "fast/slow alpha filter" — the patent defines it as FV₁ = FV₀(α) + MV(1−α), with α≈0.99 (slow) and α≈0.9 (fast). This is a textbook first-order EMA / exponential smoothing filter whose "α" is inversely related to time constant.
• "fast change value" / "slow change value" — the fast value tracks the rapid jump from a wheel/tire change; the slow value tracks the gradual drift from wheel wear.
• "difference exceeds a threshold" — a gating test that triggers adjustment of the scaling factor.

---

3. Claim 1 (independent apparatus claim) — a strong § 103 rejection

Claim 1 requires: (i) a materials-handling vehicle with wheel, odometer, positioning system, and computing device; (ii) determine current location; (iii) odometry distance via odometer; (iv) positioning-system distance; (v) compare the two to determine a difference and calculate a scaling factor; (vi) utilize an EMA filter to adjust the scaling factor when the difference exceeds a threshold; (vii) compute an updated odometry distance; (viii) use it to operate the vehicle.

Proposed combination: EP 0 806 632 (primary) + US 5,686,925 (secondary) + US 5,155,684 (secondary), optionally + US 5,020,008.

Why the combination is proper:

1. Same field, same problem. All three references sit in vehicle odometry/positioning. EP 0 806 632 and US 5,686,925 both expressly identify the identical problem the '872 patent recites: the conversion factor "depends from the circumference of the wheels and hence from the type of tires, the pressure thereof, the wear thereof" (EP 0 806 632) and varies "when a wheel diameter is reduced due to aging of the wheel or leakage of compression air, or when a worn-out wheel is exchanged" (US 5,686,925).
2. The substitution of an indoor absolute-position source is the predictable solution. GPS is unreliable indoors; the '872 patent's own environment is a warehouse. US 5,155,684 supplies exactly the art-recognized answer — overhead-light, camera-based positioning on an unmanned industrial vehicle operating in factories/warehouses — and already lists forklift trucks. A POSITA seeking an absolute reference in a warehouse would have been motivated and enabled to use the overhead-light fix in place of GPS.
3. The EMA filter is not an added invention. US 5,686,925 already teaches smoothing the conversion coefficient with exponential-type filters of differing time constants and selecting among them. Applying that known filter to the scaling factor is a "predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions" (KSR).
4. Threshold gating is disclosed as a design principle. US 5,686,925's "predetermined range" on the coefficient ratio, and US 5,020,008's "predetermined narrow limits" acceptance test, both show that calibrations are conventionally validated/gated against a tolerance before adoption.

Result: claim 1 is, in my view, reasonably likely to be held obvious over EP 0 806 632 in view of US 5,686,925 and US 5,155,684 (with US 5,020,008 as a further secondary reference supplying the difference/threshold-acceptance step).

---

4. Claim 16 (fast-change path) — obvious

Claim 16 requires the scaling factor to be used to derive a "fast change value" representing a fast change based on changing of the wheel, with the factor updated by referring to the fast value, then a corrected distance used to operate the vehicle.

Proposed combination: US 5,686,925 (primary) + US 5,884,207 (secondary) — or — EP 0 806 632 + US 5,884,207 + US 5,686,925.

• US 5,686,925 claim 10 expressly recites a filter selector that "chooses a first filtering section having a small time constant when a resultant filtering output is not stabilized, and selects a second filtering section having a large time constant when the resultant filtering output is stabilized." A small-time-constant (fast) filter engaged on an unstable/large deviation is the claimed "fast change value." Its abnormality detector that recognizes when the newly calculated coefficient jumps outside a predetermined ratio range and then re-initializes is the fast-response pathway for a sudden change.
• US 5,884,207 is directly on point for causation: it is a process for rapidly recognizing a wheel change (spare/emergency wheel being fitted) — precisely the "changing of the wheel" event the claim recites as the reason the fast path engages.
• The specification's own narrative — gradual decrease from wear, punctuated by a sudden increase on wheel change — is the ordinary physical consequence that US 5,884,207 and US 5,002,008 (tire-size change alters the calibration factor) already recognized.

Motivation: A POSITA calibrating odometry on a fleet of forklifts, having US 5,686,925's multi-time-constant filter bank, would predictably keep a short-time-constant option to react to the non-gradual change that US 5,884,207 teaches how to identify. Claim 16's single-path (fast-only) recitation is narrower than claim 1 in the filter logic and adds nothing that US 5,686,925's filter selector does not already supply.

---

5. Claim 18 (slow-change path, method claim) — obvious

Claim 18 is a method reciting the same gathering/comparison steps and then the "slow change value" based on wear of the wheel, used to update the factor.

Proposed combination: EP 0 806 632 (primary) + US 5,686,925 (secondary), optionally + US 5,020,008.

• EP 0 806 632 is the closest single reference: it is expressly directed to continuously / periodically recalibrating the odometer conversion factor to account for tire wear, using a GPS-referenced, threshold-gated, weighted accumulation of scale-factor samples. That is a "slow change value" derived from the scaling factor to track gradual wear.
• US 5,686,925 supplies the complementary "large time constant" (slow) filter selection used "when the resultant filtering output is stabilized," i.e., for the slow-drift regime.
• Claim 18's preamble frames the method as "calibrating odometry of a materials handling vehicle." US 5,155,684 puts the same method squarely on an industrial/forklift vehicle.

The absence of a dedicated "determine" recital for the wheel circumference in claim 18 is immaterial, since the comparison and factor computation inherently use the pulse-to-distance relationship that EP 0 806 632 describes.

---

6. Dependent claims — largely design choices or expressly disclosed

---

7. Motivation-to-combine summary (KSR rationales)

1. Same field and same articulated problem. Every core reference addresses wheel-derived distance/speed error caused by wear or replacement. The '872 patent's BACKGROUND restates this verbatim.
2. Predictable substitution of an indoor positioning source. Overhead-light vision (US 5,155,684) for GPS (EP 0 806 632 / US 5,686,925) is the known remedy for indoor operation and is expressly contemplated for forklifts.
3. Known smoothing technique applied to the known variable. US 5,686,925 already applies multi-time-constant smoothing to a wheel/GPS conversion coefficient — the identical "scaling factor."
4. Threshold/tolerance gating is conventional. US 5,020,008 and US 5,686,925 both validate the new factor against a predetermined band before adoption; adding hysteresis (claim 10) to prevent chatter is a design choice with predictable benefit.
5. Finite set of solutions. Choosing between a fast and a slow filter, and between α = 0.99/0.9 and a tolerance of 0.075, is optimization within a narrow, fully disclosed design space.

---

8. Arguments the patentee could make (and how they fare)

• "No single reference teaches the dual-filter with hysteresis that distinguishes wear from wheel change." This is the strongest argument, and it is directed mainly at claims 10–15. But US 5,686,925's filter selector (small vs. large time constant based on stabilization) plus its ratio-range abnormality detector undercuts it; the remaining delta is hysteresis values → design choice.
• "The prior art is automotive/GPS, not warehouse materials-handling." Weakened by US 5,155,684, which is an unmanned industrial vehicle (forklifts expressly named) navigating by overhead lights in exactly the warehouse setting of the '872 patent.
• "Unexpected results / long-felt need." No objective evidence (nexus, commercial success, licenses, copying) appears in the record I can access; absent evidence, this carries little weight. (If Crown has documented fleet-wide wheel-wear-vs-wheel-change failure rates, that could be pled — but nothing in the patent record I have supports it.)
• "Claims 16 and 18 are single-path and don't recite the other filter." This narrows but does not save them: each recites merely a fast- or slow-change value derived from the scaling factor, both of which US 5,686,925's selector renders predictable alternatives.

---

9. Bottom line

The single most dangerous reference for this patent family is US 5,686,925 (Matsushita) — its combination of (i) a wheel-pulse/GPS-derived conversion coefficient, (ii) parallel smoothing filters of different time constants, (iii) selection between fast and slow filters based on output stability, and (iv) a predetermined-range abnormality test with re-initialization reads on the '872 patent's core dual-alpha-filter architecture. EP 0 806 632 supplies the automatic, continuous, wear-driven recalibration framework, and US 5,155,684 supplies the indoor overhead-light positioning of an industrial (forklift) vehicle. Together they present a coherent KSR-compliant obviousness case against the independent claims.

---

10. Caveats and cross-checks against the earlier sections

• No contradiction with the previously generated "Patent summary" or "Litigation summary": those found no litigation and correctly identified the family chain and 2015-05-26 priority. This § 103 analysis is orthogonal to those findings.
• Flag on the record: the "Citations (19)" list supplied is truncated, so my analysis covers only the confirmed visible references. A definitive opinion should verify US 7,405,834 B1 and the full 19-item list, and should also consider whether the examiner-applied art in the parent cases (US 9,921,067 / US 10,458,799) included references not carried over here.
• Flag on dates: the task header states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the supplied source page is stamped 2026-09-24; nothing in the § 103 analysis turns on that discrepancy.
• The specific doctrines (.g., In re Boesch on result-effective variables) and KSR rationales are applied from general knowledge; the reference content is grounded in the retrieved sources cited above (e.g., https://patents.google.com/patent/US5686925, https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0806632A1/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5020008A](/patent/US5020008A)/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/US5155684, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5884207A](/patent/US5884207A)/en).