The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14, a comma should apparently be inserted after “units” (it appears to have been inadvertently deleted in the most recent amendment).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1 as most recently amended, the last two lines merely repeat the limitation (with slightly different but non-patentably distinct wording) set forth in the two immediately preceding lines.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al (US 11,370,643 or corresponding 2020/0307974) in view of Brouwer et al (US 4,365,921), both previously cited.
Hasegawa shows a cargo transport apparatus, comprising:
a vehicle chassis 11;
a platform (not separately identified but considered to be the “top surface of the vehicle body”; col. 3:55-57) coupled with the chassis configured to receive cargo CN to be transported using the cargo transport apparatus;
a fork assembly 12 coupled with a mast 13, the mast movably coupled with the platform to move the fork assembly between a forward location at which the fork assembly is movable above or below a top plane of the platform (Figs. 2, 3, 11, 15) and a rearward location at which the fork assembly is movable above the top plane (Figs. 1, 5, 7-9, 12, 14); and
one or more propulsion units 33, 34 coupled with the chassis for driving and steering travel unit 15 (i.e., wheels 151-153), each of the propulsion units coupled with a power source 30 and a controller (includes at least 41) to control operation of each propulsion unit (not explicitly disclosed but considered inherent insofar as the vehicle is disclosed as unmanned and is capable of autonomously accelerating/decelerating, steering, etc.);
an anti-tip system 60 that includes one or more movable supports 605, 606 that move between a retracted position (Fig. 9) and a deployed position (Fig. 11), wherein:
the controller is coupled with the fork assembly and mast, and each of the one or more propulsion units, to control movement of cargo by the cargo transport apparatus (note col. 13:22-23),
wherein a tipping point of the cargo transport apparatus moves responsive to the one or more movable supports being moved in the deployed position to enable the cargo transport apparatus to handle a load that is heavier than it otherwise could if the movable supports were not in the deployed position, and wherein the cargo transport apparatus has “dimensions that are compatible for transport as cargo on an aircraft”, as broadly recited, when the one or more movable supports are in the retracted position.
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose that the movement of the tipping point responsive to the one or more movable supports being moved in the deployed position enables the cargo transport apparatus to handle a load that is heavier than a mass of the cargo transport apparatus.
Brouwer shows a forklift vehicle 10 “weighing about 2300 pounds” and which has a longitudinally movable mast/fork assembly 26/28 and an anti-tip system (front outriggers) 330, which, when deployed, enables the vehicle to lift and transport “a load of at least 4500 pounds ... without tipping” (col. 11:54 to col. 12:13). While it is acknowledged that this is not an explicit teaching that the load is necessarily heavier than a mass of the vehicle (insofar it could be as little as 2200 pounds/1000 kilograms), since Brouwer uses the terms “about 2300” and “at least 4500”, it is believed that one of ordinary skill would logically conclude that the load could be heavier than a mass of the vehicle in at least some circumstances. Furthermore, Brouwer’s anti-tip supports are directly below the front of the vehicle, rather than extended out in front thereof. Clearly, if such supports extended beyond the front of the vehicle, as in Hasegawa, the load capacity would be even higher.
As such, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Hasegawa by configuring the anti-tip system such that, responsive to the movable supports being moved in the deployed position, the tipping point moved to enable the cargo transport apparatus to handle a load heavier than a mass of the cargo transport apparatus, as suggested by Brouwer, to enable the vehicle to lift and transport cargo heavier than it otherwise could.
Re claim 2, the anti-tip system of Hasegawa is coupled with the vehicle chassis and moves away from a front of the chassis when the mast is located at the forward location relative to the platform (Fig. 11).
Re claim 3, the anti-tip system comprises two or more anti-tip supports 605/606 coupled with the chassis at a first end 601 that are movable between the retracted position in which a second end 602 is adjacent to the chassis and the deployed position in which the second end is located away from the front of the chassis.
Re claim 5, the cargo transport apparatus of Hasegawa further comprises a sensor suite coupled with the controller, wherein the controller autonomously controls cargo movement based at least in part on inputs from the sensor suite (col. 7:1 to col. 9:21).
Re claim 6, the sensor suite of Hasegawa includes one or more of an optical camera, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, a global positioning system (GPS) module, an acceleration sensor 50, a sonar, or any combinations thereof.
Re claim 10, Hasegawa further discloses one or more cargo detection sensors mounted at a distal end away from the mast of at least one fork of the fork assembly (col. 8:64-66).
Re claim 15, the one or more propulsion units of Hasegawa comprise a plurality of propulsion units.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Brouwer et al, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Tollenaar (US 8,086,370, previously cited).
Hasegawa as modified does not disclose that the anti-tip system further comprises one or more pressure sensors located at the second end of each of the two or more anti-tip supports, wherein the one or more pressure sensors provide information to the controller for load and stability monitoring.
Tollenaar shows a load controlled vehicle stabilizer system wherein an anti-tip system comprises ground-engaging stabilizers 20 which may be deployed when a load handling device 15 is being used to engage a load outside the footprint of the vehicle (Figs. 1, 2 4, 5A). The stabilizers include pressure sensors S4 which provide information to a controller 55 for load and stability monitoring (col. 7:3 to col. 8:39).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Hasegawa by providing pressure sensors in each of the two or more anti-tip supports, wherein the one or more pressure sensors provided information to the controller for load and stability monitoring, as taught by Tollenaar, to ensure that the anti-tip supports were properly supporting the vehicle during a load handling operation. Further, when incorporated in the apparatus of Hasegawa, such sensors would obviously be located at the second end of the supports, i.e., located away from the front end of the chassis when deployed.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Brouwer et al, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ambrosio et al (US 9,944,213) and Otto et al (US 10,421,609), both previously cited.
Re claims 7-9, Hasegawa as modified does not disclose that the controller is configured to receive commands to control the cargo transport apparatus from a remote location, wherein the controller provides a video feed from a camera that is coupled with the platform to the remote location, and wherein the commands provide for autonomous cargo movement via GPS wayfinding and object detection and object avoidance.
Otto shows a generally similar material handling vehicle wherein a controller (Figs. 10-11) can be configured to receive commands from a control unit 600 to control the vehicle from a remote location (col. 16:40-43), wherein the controller provides a video feed from a camera that is coupled with a platform of the vehicle to the remote location (col. 15:45-65, col. 16:49-51), and wherein the commands provide for autonomous cargo movement via GPS wayfinding (col. 4:38-41, col. 5:26-65, noting that while the term “wayfinding” is not explicitly utilized, the disclosure that the navigation system may be of the type described in U.S. Patent No. 9,174,830, which teaches following a set of fixed points, is deemed to be within the scope of wayfinding).
Additionally, Ambrosio discloses an autonomous robotic vehicle with autonomous cargo movement via GPS wayfinding and object detection and object avoidance, wherein a controller autonomously controls cargo movement based at least in part on inputs from sensors (col. 4:20-36, col. 6:32-41, col. 7:1-21, col. 8:40-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Hasegawa by configuring the controller to receive commands to control the cargo transport apparatus from a remote location, wherein the controller provided a video feed from a camera that was coupled with the platform to the remote location, and wherein the commands provided for autonomous cargo movement via GPS wayfinding and object detection and object avoidance, as collectively suggested by Otto and Ambrosio, to provide a means of effectively operating the vehicle from a centralized location as deemed necessary and/or desirable for increased operator safety, convenience and comfort as well as cost effectiveness.
Re claim 11, although the one or more cargo detection sensors of Hasegawa are coupled with the controller and provide information about the cargo or dunnage, the information is not about the fork and vehicle location relative to the cargo or dunnage.
However, Otto further discloses cargo detection sensors 26 and/or 40 at a distal end of a cargo handling device 60 away from a mast 207 of the vehicle (Figs. 2-6), which provide fork and vehicle location information relative to the cargo or dunnage (col. 6:49 to col. 8:7).
As such, it would have been obvious to have still further modified Hasegawa by utilizing the cargo detection sensors thereof to provide fork and vehicle location information relative to the cargo or dunnage, as taught by Otto, to more accurately position the forks relative to the cargo when controlling the cargo handling operation remotely.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Brouwer et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaup (WO 2012/010160, previously cited).
Hasegawa as modified does not show a first powered roller assembly mounted on a first fork of the fork assembly and a second powered roller assembly mounted on a second fork of the fork assembly, wherein the first and second powered roller assemblies move cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast, wherein each of the first powered roller assembly and the second powered roller assembly comprise a drive motor and a conveyer chain coupled with the drive motor, wherein a plurality of pads are mounted on an exterior side of the conveyer chain, and wherein the conveyer chain is mounted on the respective fork between a first end of the respective fork adjacent to the mast and a second end of the respective fork away from the mast, wherein the plurality of pads on the conveyer chain are configured to contact the cargo on the fork assembly and, when the drive motor is actuated, move the cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast.
Kaup shows a fork lift vehicle wherein first and second powered roller assemblies 7 (Figs. 1-2, 10-13) are mounted on respective first and second forks 1 of a fork assembly, wherein the first and second powered roller assemblies move cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward a mast of the fork lift vehicle (not shown but considered inherent), wherein each of the first and second powered roller assemblies comprise a drive motor 2 and a conveyer chain 23 coupled with the drive motor, wherein a plurality of pads 22 are mounted on an exterior side of the conveyer chain, and wherein the conveyer chain is mounted on the respective fork between a first end of the respective fork adjacent to the mast and a second end of the respective fork away from the mast, wherein the plurality of pads on the conveyer chain are configured to contact the cargo on the fork assembly and, when the drive motor is actuated, move the cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Hasegawa by configuring the fork assembly thereof with a first powered roller assembly mounted on a first fork of the fork assembly and a second powered roller assembly mounted on a second fork of the fork assembly, wherein the first and second powered roller assemblies moved cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast, wherein each of the first powered roller assembly and the second powered roller assembly comprised a drive motor and a conveyer chain coupled with the drive motor, wherein a plurality of pads were mounted on an exterior side of the conveyer chain, and wherein the conveyer chain was mounted on the respective fork between a first end of the respective fork adjacent to the mast and a second end of the respective fork away from the mast, wherein the plurality of pads on the conveyer chain were configured to contact the cargo on the fork assembly and, when the drive motor was actuated, moved the cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast, as taught by Kaup, to more effectively push or pull cargo off of or onto the forks of the fork assembly.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes only a generic and conclusory statement asserting that claim 1 has been amended to recite features not taught or suggested by the cited combination of references. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Furthermore, as noted above in par. 4, the “amendment” merely repeats a limitation that is recited elsewhere in the claim.
It is also noted that applicant makes a request for the examiner to cite on a PTO Form 892 US Patent No. 9,174,830 to Bell, asserting that this reference was cited by the examiner in the previous Office action without being cited on an 892. However, this request will not be granted, as no such reference was mentioned in the previous (or any other) Office action.
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 James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
12/12/25