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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kaufmann (US 2007/0289798) does not disclose “a wheel arm forklift truck with a front end having at least two steerable drive rollers”; however, Examiner stated in the Non-final Rejection dated 8/12/25, that the front end 33 has at least two steerable wheels (22,24) wherein Paragraph 0006 states that ” The cab side wheels 22, 24 are driven by motors 59, 60. The cab side wheels are driven and steerable wheels”, additionally claim 1 does not state that the steerable drive rollers have to be align or offset from each other. Applicant also argues that Kaufmann only uses a single motor however, Paragraph 0065 provided by applicant states “According to one aspect of the present invention, the present inventor has recognized that a single motor 60 (FIG. 5) associated with drive wheel 24 is sufficient to drive the sideloader forklift truck under most circumstances. The further drive motor 59 can be eliminated while maintaining an effectively operable sideloader forklift truck”, however, the paragraph does not state that the motor 59 will always be eliminated, it just states that it can be eliminated, examiner assumes that the motor 59 can be eliminated for design choice but the preferred embodiment has 2 motors.
The rejection in view of Kaufmann is repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 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) 1,3,7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaufmann (US 2007/0289798). Kaufmann discloses a wheel arm forklift truck (see figures 4 and 5), preferably as an automated guided vehicle (the word “preferably” makes it seem as the automated guided vehicle is not what applicant is claiming, as it is not a necessity), comprising;
a front end (33, see Par. 0004 where it states, The chassis 32 includes a longitudinally extended base 33) having at least, preferably exactly, two steerable drive rollers (22,24), comprising at least one first wheel arm (35) which extends in a straight line away from the front end (33) and is fixedly connected to the front end (see figures 4 and 5 ), wherein the first wheel arm (35) has at least, preferably exactly, one first roller (26,28), and comprising at least one first fork arm (68, which are not present in figure 6, however are present in prior art figure 2, however, the truck of Kaufmann is a forklift , as mentioned in the abstract, wherein the fork arms are the forks of the forklift) which is located above the first wheel arm (35) in the vertical direction, and is designed to be raised and lowered in the vertical direction (as forks in a vehicle such as Kaufmann’s are made to move up and down to pick up heavy loads and carry them around),
wherein in that the first roller (26) of the first wheel arm is steerable through at least 90°steerable through at least 90° (see figure 6 and Par. 0035, wherein figure 6 and 6A show the wheels turning from facing straight to facing 90 degrees to the side) .
Regarding claim 3, the first and second roller of the first and second wheel arm are arranged on the end of the first and second wheel arm respectively remote from the front end (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, one second wheel arm (36) which extends parallel to the first wheel arm(35) in a straight line away from the front end and is fixedly connected to the front end (see figure 4), and by at least, one second fork arm (70, which are not present in figure 6, however are present in prior art figure 2) which is arranged parallel to the first fork arm in the vertical direction above the second wheel arm (36) and which is designed to be raised and lowered together with the first fork arm in the vertical direction, wherein the second wheel arm (36) has at least, one second roller(28), wherein the second roller of the second wheel arm is designed to be rotatable through at least 90° (see figure 6 and Par. 0035, wherein figure 6 and 6A show the wheels turning from facing straight to facing 90 degrees to the side).
Regarding claim 11, the first and second roller of the first and second wheel arm are arranged on the end of the first and second wheel arm respectively remote from the front end (see figure 4).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the two steerable drive rollers(22,24) are arranged in alignment with one another in the transverse direction (when steered see figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, the first steerable drive roller (22) of the two steerable drive rollers is arranged in the longitudinal direction (see figure 5) in alignment with the first roller of the first wheel arm, and the second steerable drive roller (24) of the two steerable drive rollers is arranged in the longitudinal direction (see figure 5) in alignment with the second roller of the second wheel arm (see figure 6).
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.
Claim(s) 2,4,5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Swasey (US 2010/0181136). Regarding claims 2 and 8, Kaufmann does not mention that the first or second roller can be steered 360 degrees. However, Swasey discloses a omnidirectional drive and steering unit comprising: a wheel (54) that is able to be steered 360 degrees (see Par. 0007 and claim 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaufmann by adding the capability of the first and second roller to steer 360 degrees, in order to make the truck steerable in tight spaces and for mobility, wherein turning the first and second roller 360 degrees would allow the truck to enhance control and maneuvering.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kaufmann does not mention a motor, instead only a hydraulic cylinder. However, Swasey discloses a first roller (54) with an electric motor (200) which rotates a roller mount (58) of the first roller by means of a gear unit (24,26,90) about the vertical direction, wherein the roller mount has at least a pair of rollers (68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaufmann by exchanging the hydraulic system for an electric motor and gearing, in order to be able to have a different variation of a steering system that would be able to steer the first roller when needed, wherein the combination of Kaufmann in view of Swasey ends with a simple substitution of one know element (the hydraulic system) for another (the electric motor and gearing system).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Swasey (US 2010/0181136) and in further view of McVicar (US 2016/0002016). Kaufmann and Swasey do not mention a wheel position sensor on the first of the wheel arms. However, McVicar discloses a truck with wheel position sensors (28,40). It would have been obvious to include both wheel position sensors onto the first roller of Kaufmann, in order to improve handling and stability, and enable advanced features like adaptive cruise control and automated parking. These sensors provide accurate and reliable data for various vehicle systems, contributing to a safer and more comfortable driving experience.
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 Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611