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 .
Applicant's amendment filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11, 13 and 18-21 have been cancelled. Claims 10, 12, 14-17 and 22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Clai 10 recites “a base having a first wheel and a second wheel, wherein the first wheel and the second wheel are laterally spaced from one another and define a travel direction”; hence clearly referring to wheels 14A and 14B (figs. 1A, 1B) in order to “define a travel direction” which is along the major longitudinal length of the base / chassis; however, later the claim recites “a first tie rod pivotably coupled between the first wheel and a drag link; a second tie rod pivotably coupled between the second wheel and the drag link” referring to tie rods 100 and 102 respectively, and drag link 74 (as illustrated in fig. 6); which appears to refer to the first and second wheels are the two pairs of 14B, between which a travel direction cannot be defined. Hence, a mix up between which wheels are being referred to between the first and second recitations. Examiner recommends introducing all four wheels and then identifying one pair for the second recitation. This limitation will be examiner as best understood and in the same manner as in the current invention.
Claim 10 recites “a forward travel direction” in the amended language, but earlier the claim established “a travel direction” in line 4; are these different?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, US (6044927) in view of Zhou, CN (203006872).
In regards to claim 10 Newlin discloses:
A fully-electric lift device (10; fig. 1) comprising:
a base (12) having a first wheel (one of 26, 28) and a second wheel (the other of 26, 28), wherein the first wheel and the second wheel are laterally spaced from one another and define a travel direction (note that it can be forward or backward direction along the longitudinal length of chassis 12);
a retractable lift mechanism (scissors lift mechanism 16; fig. 1) having a first end (bottom end of scissors mechanism 16) coupled to the base (fig. 1) and being moveable between an extended position (position shown in fig. 1) and a retracted position (position shown in fig. 2), wherein the retractable lift mechanism comprises a foldable series of linked support members (scissors arms 20);
a work platform (14) configured to support a load, the work platform being coupled to and supported by a second end of the retractable lift mechanism (top end of scissors mechanism 16);
a linear actuator (18; fig. 1, 4) configured to selectively move the retractable lift mechanism between the extended position and the retracted position (as clearly described in Col 5 LL 64 – Col 6 LL 15; see different highlighted excerpts below) by selectively folding and unfolding the foldable series of linked support members (as described in Col 5 LL 64 – Col 6 LL 15), the linear actuator having an electric lift motor (84; figs. 4, 5) and being pivotably and directly coupled at a first end (bottom of linear actuator 18) to a first support member (bottom to arm 20; note that collar 68 is considered part of the linear actuator) of the foldable series of linked support members and pivotably and directly coupled at a second end (top end of 18; figs. 4, 5) to a second support member of the foldable series of linked support members (20 at top of fig. 4; also note that pivot member 66 is considered part of the linear actuator), wherein the electric lift motor moves vertically relative to the base (18 as a whole as the entire arrangement moves up and down between extended and retracted positions) as the linear actuator moves the retractable lift mechanism between the extended position and the retracted position (as described in Col 5 LL 64 – Col 6 LL 15); and
wherein the fully-electric lift device is completely devoid of hydraulic systems (as described in Col 2; LL 10-30 under “Summary of the invention”; see highlighted excerpts below).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
660
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Newlin discloses in its description of prior art that: “One of most popular machines of this type in use is called an electric slab scissor lift machine. Electric slab scissor lift machines commercially available at present time from several manufacturers include a battery powered chassis having rear stationary wheels and front steerable wheels, a scissors lift mechanism mounted at a lower end on the chassis”; which indicated an electric motor to be powered by the battery of the battery powered chassis. And, in light of that Newlin describes his invention as “eliminating the use of a hydraulic actuation system” as highlighted above, it is submitted that Newlin discloses an electric drive motor configured to rotate at least one wheel of the first wheel or the second wheel to propel the fully-electric lift device; a battery configured to apply power to the electric drive motor and the electric lift motor.
PNG
media_image3.png
144
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, if it was found that Newlin does not explicitly disclose an electric drive motor configured to rotate at least one wheel of the first wheel or the second wheel to propel the fully-electric lift device; a battery configured to apply power to the electric drive motor and the electric lift motor. Examiner submits that per the teachings of the prior art stated by Newlin and in light of that Newlin describes his invention as “eliminating the use of a hydraulic actuation system” as highlighted above; it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize an electric drive motor to rotate at least one wheel of the first wheel or the second wheel to propel the fully-electric lift device as described in the description of the Prior Art, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a system that would only require batteries and avoids hydraulic systems for the advantages described in Col 2; LL 10-30 within the same reference.
In regards to claim 10 Newlin discloses an electrically-actuated steering system (Col 1; LL 29-30; excerpt below); however, Newlin does not disclose a first tie rod pivotably coupled between a first wheel of the plurality of wheels and a drag link a second tie rod pivotably coupled between a second wheel of the plurality of wheels and the drag link and an electric steering actuator having a housing and a motor-driven piston that is movable relative to the housing about a first axis, wherein the electric steering actuator is pivotally coupled to the drag link, the drag link being configured to move, in response to movement of the motor-driven piston relative to the housing, about a second axis offset from the first axis, and wherein the first axis and the second axis extend parallel to one another.
Zhou teaches the electrically-actuated steering system is operably coupled between the first wheel (11) and the second wheel (12; fig. 5; likened to wheels of Newlin); a first tie rod (right hand side 424; bottom components of fig. 5) pivotably coupled between a first wheel (right hand side wheel attached at right hand side steering pin 425; as best understood and in the same manner as in the current invention see claim objection above, bottom components of fig. 5) and a drag link (42; bottom components of fig. 5), a second tie rod (left hand side 424; bottom components of fig. 5) pivotably coupled between a second wheel (left hand side wheel attached at left hand side steering pin 425, as best understood and in the same manner as in the current invention see claim objection above; bottom components of fig. 5) and the drag link (42) and an electric steering actuator (41; bottom components of fig. 5) having a housing (41) and a motor-driven piston (411/412) that is movable relative to the housing about a first axis (as piston 411/412 extends and retracts; along major longitudinal axis of 411/412), the drag link is arranged in front of the electric steering actuator relative to a forward travel direction {the forward travel direction being upward as viewed in fig. 5; hence the drag link 42 is indeed arranged in front of the electric steering actuator 41; as shown in bottom components of fig. 5; reproduced below} wherein the electric steering actuator is pivotally coupled to the drag link (at rotating seat 422), the drag link being configured to move, in response to movement of the motor-driven piston relative to the housing (as described in paragraph [0015]; highlighted excerpt below), about a second axis (major axis of 42) offset from the first axis (as shown in bottom components of fig. 5; reproduced below), and wherein the first axis and the second axis extend parallel to one another (as shown in bottom components of fig. 5; reproduced below).
PNG
media_image4.png
420
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
272
478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the steering system taught by Zhou onto the device of Newlin for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success as motivated by Zhou i.e. “to directly control the vehicle driving to electric driving wheel into driving power device” and “greatly simplifies the product structure, reduces the vehicle weight, saves energy, reduces cost, and it is convenient for maintaining and repairing the electric push rod can be variable stroke adjustment according to user requirements” (paragraph [0007]; Zhou).
In regards to claim 12 Newlin as modified above teaches the battery is further configured to apply power to the electrically-actuated steering system (Col 1; LL 29-30; excerpt above).
In regards to claim 22 Newlin teaches the linear actuator (18) includes a nut assembly (internally threated nut 42; fig. 4) configured to engage a central screw rod (40) and translate motion of the central screw rod into translational motion to selectively move the retractable lift mechanism between the extended position and the retracted position (as described in Col 7; LL 38-48; excerpt provided below).
PNG
media_image6.png
286
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin and Zhou as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Bailey, US (9120651).
In regards to claims 14 and 15 Newlin and Zhou do not teach a support member angle sensor configured to monitor a lift angle of at least one support member of the foldable series of linked support members.
Bailey teaches a support member angle sensor (described in claim 1; see highlighted excerpt below) and a vehicle controller (electronic control device 54), the support member angle sensor configured to monitor a lift angle of at least one support member of the foldable series of linked support members, the vehicle controller in communication with the support member angle sensor and configured to determine a height of the work platform using the lift angle (described in claim 1; see highlighted excerpt below) {hence having the angle sensor, the load sensor and the boom length sensor and since the system is configured to preform calculations (at least to provide drive reduction algorithm); it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the height of the work platform based on at least the inputs from the boom length sensor and angle sensor to provide the user with safety information to prevent running into a low clearance bridge} (claim 14).
the vehicle controller is further in communication with the electric drive motor and is configured to limit a drive speed of the fully-electric lift device based on the height of the work platform (described in claim 1; see highlighted excerpt above) {hence having the angle sensor, the load sensor and the boom length sensor and since the system is configured to preform calculations (at least to provide drive reduction algorithm); it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the height of the work platform based on at least the inputs from the boom length sensor and angle sensor to provide the user with safety information to prevent running into a low clearance bridge; and subsequently as described in highlighted excerpt below a retardation action is executed by said drive reduction algorithm if the motion request is greater than a maximum travel value} (claim 15).
PNG
media_image7.png
282
544
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the support member angle sensor taught by Bailey onto the device of Newlin for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success as motivated by Bailey i.e. in order take advantage of the algorithm that controls speed reduction factor based on inputs from several sensors which ultimately results in a higher safety operation of the vehicle.
In regards to claim 16 Newlin discloses the retractable lift mechanism is a scissor lift mechanism (scissors lift mechanism 16; fig. 1).
In regards to claim 17, examiner takes Official Notice that boom lift mechanisms are old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a boom lift mechanism in place of the scissors linkages of Newlin for the known and predictable advantages of boom lifts that is to provide lifting as well as angular motion to help maneuver and reach narrow spaces with relative high accuracy resulting from control of height and angle of the boom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because.
Applicant argues “Zhou fails to show each and every element of amended claim 10 ... Zhou discloses that the electric actuator 41 is arranged in front of the connecting rod 423 (see FIG. 4 of Zhou) relative to a forward travel direction, not behind the connecting rod 423 relative to a forward travel direction. As such, Zhou fails to show a drag link that is arranged in front of an electrical actuator relative to a forward travel direction [defined by a first wheel and a second wheel], as recited by claim 10”; examiner respectfully disagrees and provides that in light of (A) the claim objection above regarding the discrepancy between which wheels is applicant referring to as the first and second wheels and (B) where presently the current rejection now relies upon what is disclosed in bottom of fig. 5 of Zhou (versus previously referring to fig. 4); examiner submits that Zhou teaches a first tie rod (right hand side 424; bottom components of fig. 5) pivotably coupled between a first wheel (right hand side wheel attached at right hand side steering pin 425; as best understood and in the same manner as in the current invention see claim objection above, bottom components of fig. 5) and a drag link (42; bottom components of fig. 5), a second tie rod (left hand side 424; bottom components of fig. 5) pivotably coupled between a second wheel (left hand side wheel attached at left hand side steering pin 425, as best understood and in the same manner as in the current invention see claim objection above; bottom components of fig. 5) and the drag link (42) and an electric steering actuator (41; bottom components of fig. 5) having a housing (41) and a motor-driven piston (411/412) that is movable relative to the housing about a first axis (as piston 411/412 extends and retracts; along major longitudinal axis of 411/412), the drag link is arranged in front of the electric steering actuator relative to a forward travel direction {the forward travel direction being upward as viewed in fig. 5; hence the drag link 42 is indeed arranged in front of the electric steering actuator 41; as shown in bottom components of fig. 5; reproduced below}.
PNG
media_image4.png
420
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights