The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/31/25 has been entered.
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2, “comprise” should apparently be --comprises--.
Claim 14, line 5, “is” should apparently be deleted.
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 1-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, last two lines, the recitation “configured to … in one process” is vague and not understood. Although the specification provides nominal support at page 3:26-27 for this disclosure, there is no indication or explanation as to what constitutes “one process” in which three separate actions are performed, noting that a single process may involve multiple steps. The only previous claim limitation of the industrial truck set forth as having any interaction with the “container as a load” are the first and second groups of engagement means, which allow centering of the support frame (on which the container is positioned) in relation to the vehicle frame. As such, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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 1-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskinen et al (US 4,943,193) in view of Kniess et al (DE 102018210348), both previously cited.
Koskinen shows an industrial truck 1 for transporting a load 15 (which can be a container; note col. 1:15-26) on a support frame 5, the industrial truck comprising a vehicle frame 2 with height-adjustable wheel suspensions 4 (see col. 2:40-46) and engagement means 6 (generally; includes 12-14) for fixing the vehicle frame to the support frame which can be picked up by the industrial truck, the engagement means being mounted on the vehicle frame so as to be movable between a passive position (Fig. 4 solid) and an active position (Fig. 4 phantom), characterized in that the engagement means comprise a first group of engagement means and a second group of engagement means, wherein the movement from the passive position into the active position in the first group of engagement means takes place laterally with respect to a front of the industrial truck, and the movement from the passive position into the active position in the second group of engagement means takes place laterally in the opposite direction to the first group (Fig. 4, noting that the fixed guides 7 shown in Figs. 1 and 5 can be replaced by an additional set of movable guides 6; see col. 1:65 to col. 2:9), the lateral opposite movement of both the first group of engagement means from the passive position to the active position and the second group of engagement means from the passive position to the active position allowing an automatic centering of the support frame on the vehicle frame in relation to the wheel suspensions and thus an equal distribution of the load in the lateral direction, as broadly recited (e.g., see Fig. 6d and col. 1:10-14, col. 1:65 to col. 2:14, col. 2:58-66, and col. 3:16-19), wherein the industrial truck is configured to pick up a container as a load (Fig. 6c), to center the load (Figs. 6a and/or 6d), and to fasten the load on the industrial truck (Fig. 6d) “in one process”, as broadly and indefinitely claimed. Note that the claim merely requires a relative movement between the support frame and the vehicle frame. Furthermore, the apparatus of Koskinen is inherently capable of centering the support frame on the vehicle frame when the engagement means move from the passive to the action positions in Fig. 6d. Applicant is not claiming a method of automatic centering.
Koskinen does not explicitly show the industrial truck to have at least one sensor for detecting the position of the support frame relative to the industrial truck. However, Koskinen discloses that “by applying known technology, they [the aligning and locking means] can be equipped with various position sensors … [for] facilitating control” (col. 3:20 to col. 4:3).
As noted in the Written Opinion for corresponding PCT/EP2022/058832, Kniess shows an industrial truck 2 for transporting a container 3 on a support frame 12/13, the industrial truck comprising a vehicle frame 8 with height-adjustable wheel suspensions (see par. [0029], lines 331-333) and engagement means (locking pins, not shown; see par. [0029], lines 334-335) for fixing the vehicle frame to the support frame which can be picked up by the industrial truck, the industrial truck having at least one sensor 11 for detecting the position of the support frame relative to the industrial truck (par. [0031]).
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 Koskinen by providing at least one sensor for detecting the position of the support frame relative to the industrial truck, as shown by Kniess, for improved control of the loading process, especially since Koskinen indicates generally that known sensing devices may be utilized for enhanced control of the apparatus.
Re claim 2, Koskinen shows the first and second groups of engagement means in their passive positions are arranged in an inside of the vehicle frame and can be pivoted into their active positions through openings in an upper side of the vehicle frame, as broadly recited (Figs. 4 and 6d).
Re claim 3, the groups of engagement means of Koskinen are arranged in pairs on either side of the support frame over the length of the industrial truck (at least when the fixed guides 7 are replaced by the movable guides 6, as alluded to above), wherein each pair comprises an engagement means of the first group and an engagement means of the second group, wherein a potential rotational movement of the container relative to the vehicle frame is avoided, as broadly recited.
Re claims 4 and 5, Koskinen shows that the groups of engagement means are movable from the passive position to the active position by controllable actuators 14 which comprise double-acting cylinders, but does not show that the actuators comprise a safety device comprising a nonreturn valve which ensures the application of force of the actuators on the engagement means in the active position.
However, Koskinen discloses that “by applying known technology, … [the aligning and locking means] can be equipped with … auxiliary devices [for] facilitating control” (col. 3:20 to col. 4:3). It would have been obvious to have further modified the apparatus of Koskinen by providing each of the actuators with a safety device in the form of a nonreturn valve which ensured the application of force of the actuators on the engagement means in the active position, as the examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a nonreturn valve for ensuring that the force of a hydraulic cylinder remains in effect in the event of pressure loss is simply a well-known and conventional safety feature, and would have merely been the selection of one of a finite number of known auxiliary devices for facilitating control.
Re claim 6, the controllable actuators are considered to inherently be configured to provide equal forces to the engagement means of the first group and to the engagement means of the second group, at least under certain circumstances, noting that no particular conditions are associated with the limitation.
Re claim 7, Kniess shows at least one distance sensor 11 provided on an upper side of the vehicle frame for determining the distance between the distance sensor and an object 3 placed on the vehicle frame. This feature would obviously be included in the apparatus of Koskinen when modified as above.
Re claim 17, Koskinen discloses that the object placed on the vehicle frame is a support frame 5 for a container 15.
Claims 8-16 are allowed (although the objection to claim 14 noted above in par. 3 should be addressed).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the outset, it is noted that applicant’s arguments referring to the Kniess reference (which is the teaching reference) are believed to have been intended to refer to the primary Koskinen reference, and will be treated as such. Applicant argues that [Kniess] Koskinen does not disclose that the engagement means … allows an automatic centering of the support frame on the vehicle frame in relation to the wheel suspensions and thus an equal distribution of the load in the lateral direction, wherein this combination of features allows to pick up a container as a load by the industrial truck, to center the load and to fasten it on the industrial truck in one process, enabling an easy and highly efficient automation of the loading and unloading processes (penultimate section on page 3 of the original description). In addition, this combination of features allows to pick up a support frame in a more flexible way in the sense that the industrial truck does not have to be positioned accurately in the center below the support frame as it is the case with the system according to [Kniess[ Koskinen.
This is not persuasive. There is no nexus between the claim limitations concerning automatic centering of the support in response to the oppositely directed movements of the first and second groups of engagement means and the industrial truck being configured to pick up, center and fasten a load in one process. In other words, nothing in the claim requires the “process” to be a result of the automatic centering. Furthermore, since there is no clear definition as to what is meant by “one process”, as noted above, nothing precludes the picking up, centering and fastening of the load to be performed as distinct, separate steps of a process. Further still, although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached on 571-270-5565. 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
2/18/26