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 .
This is the First Office Action on the merits of Application No. 17/819377, filed on 08/12/2022. Claims 1-13 are still pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2012 112 428 to Naudin et al (henceforth referred to as Naudin).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, Naudin discloses a load part (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 2) for an autonomously guided industrial truck (i.e. Machine Translation page 2, under “Description”: “The invention relates to an industrial truck”) having a longitudinal direction and a width direction, the load part comprising:
one of a pair of fork prongs (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 4) extending substantially horizontally and arranged next to each other in the width direction; or
a mono fork extending substantially horizontally and having a two extension sections as well as a connecting section; and
a load stop (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 6) connected to the pair of fork prongs or to the two extension sections, the load stop extending substantially in the vertical direction above the pair of fork prongs or the mono fork,
wherein the load stop comprises a cutout (i.e. See Mark up of Fig. 1) adjacent to the corresponding fork prongs or one of the two extension sections, and
wherein the load part, including the load stop, is arranged in a vertically-displaceable manner on a vehicle body (i.e. Machine Translation page 5, third paragraph: “The fork 4 is on a lift 6 arranged in a mast 7 of the load part 2 is arranged liftable and lowerable”) of the autonomously-guided industrial truck.
Wherein the load stop comprises, on the two outer sides of the load stop, cutouts formed symmetrically in the width direction (i.e. See Mark up of Fig. 1).
Wherein the pair of fork prongs comprise a first fork prong and a second fork prong (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 5b, 5a, respectively), wherein the first fork prong comprises a first web (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 3b can be considered a web when attached) arranged on an inside of th4e first fork prong in relation to the width direction and a first “L” shaped cover plate (i.e. Fig. 5b is U-shaped which contains an L-shape within);
wherein the second fork prong comprises a second web (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 3a can be considered a web when attached) arranged on an inside of the second fork in relation to the width direction and a second “L” shaped cover plate (i.e. Fig. 5b is U-shaped which contains an L-shape within).
Regarding claims 8-9, Naudin discloses a vehicle body (i.e. Fig. 3, ref. 1) having at least one steered drive wheel (i.e. Machine Translation page 5, line 1: “The truck 1 consists of a non-illustrated drive part”); and
a load part (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 2) arranged comprising: one of
a pair of fork prongs (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 4) extending substantially horizontally and arranged next to each other in a width direction of the vehicle body; or
a mono fork extending substantially horizontally and having two extension sections as well as a connecting section; and
a load stop (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 6) connected to the pair of fork prongs or to the two extension sections, the load stop extending substantially in the vertical direction above the pair of fork prongs or the mono fork, wherein the load stop comprises a cutout (i.e. See mark up of Fig. 1) on at least one outer side of the load stop in the width direction adjacent to the corresponding fork prongs or one of the two extension sections,
wherein the load part, including the load stop, is arranged in a vertically displaceable manner with respect to the vehicle body (i.e. Machine Translation page 5, third paragraph: “The fork 4 is on a lift 6 arranged in a mast 7 of the load part 2 is arranged liftable and lowerable”).
Further comprising: a pair of wheel arms (i.e. Fig. 1, ref. 3a, 3b) extending from the vehicle body, each of the wheel arms carrying at least one load wheel (i.e. not referenced but wheels seen under arms, ref. 3a, 3b), and wherein the load part is arranged above the wheel arms.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003-040592 to Tanaka.
Regarding claims 7, Naudin does not specifically teach the vertical extension height. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a vertical extension of 50mm to accommodate the industrial truck’s use in a warehouse for use with pallets and shelves since it has been held where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEM M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7825. The examiner can normally be reached M 9-5, W-F 10-2.
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, Michael Mansen can be reached on 571-272-6608. 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.
/DIEM M TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3654