The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 7/22/25 remains objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the recitation in claim 11 as previously amended of the step of “aligning, at least partially based on tilt sensor feedback, a cargo lift assembly of the cargo transport apparatus relative to the cargo, when the cargo is at the first location, to a position in which the cargo can be lifted by the cargo lift assembly” (emphasis added). Only par. [0026] provides any disclosure relevant to such a limitation. Specifically, par. [0026] discloses that under certain conditions, such as when lightly loaded, a determination that cargo may not need to be moved by the fork assembly/mast (i.e., the cargo lift assembly) can be based on tilt sensor feedback (emphasis added). However, mere movement (or lack thereof) of the cargo by the cargo lift assembly is not a disclosure of aligning the cargo lift assembly relative to the cargo, when the cargo is at the first location, to a position in which the cargo can be lifted by the cargo lift assembly, as recited in the claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above in par. 2, the recitation in claim 11 of the step of “aligning, at least partially based on tilt sensor feedback, a cargo lift assembly of the cargo transport apparatus relative to the cargo, when the cargo is at the first location, to a position in which the cargo can be lifted by the cargo lift assembly” is considered to be new matter.
Applicant argues that since par. [0026] discloses utilizing tilt sensor feedback to determine whether a load can be safely transported without movement of the mast/fork on which the load is supported to a rearward position, and since Figs. 7 and 12 and pars. [0024] and [0031] – [0041] disclose utilization of a sensor suite for various alignment purposes, then one of ordinary skill would understand that tilt sensor feedback is within the suite of sensor inputs used when controlling the cargo lift assembly relative to cargo in the manner set forth in the claim.
This is not persuasive. Again, the only disclosure of using tilt sensor feedback for control of the cargo lift assembly is the above-noted recitation in par. [0026] that under certain conditions, such as when lightly loaded, a determination that cargo may not need to be moved relative to the platform by the fork assembly/mast (i.e., the cargo lift assembly) can be based on tilt sensor feedback. This determination is made when the load is already supported on the cargo lift assembly; it does not involve alignment of the lift assembly relative to the cargo for picking up the cargo. The only other mentions of the tilt sensors are in pars. [0036] and [0037] (of the published application) in reference to calculating track angle and vehicle orientation. Such tilt sensors are neither specifically identified nor disclosed as being part of the sensor suite that is used for alignment purposes. Furthermore, even if an argument could be made that the tilt sensors could be used for alignment purposes of the vehicle in general, there is certainly no disclosure that they are used specifically for alignment of the cargo lift assembly relative to the cargo for the purpose of lifting the cargo, as recited in claim 11.
Additionally, as noted in prior Office actions, claim 15 is separately rejected for its recitation that “the one or more sensors include pressure sensors located at … a forklift tine of the cargo lift assembly” (emphasis added), wherein the one or more sensors are, according to claim 13 from which this claim depends, “coupled with the anti-tip system”, and are used in the step of “determining, based on signals from the one or more sensors, to deploy the anti-tip system”. While the specification describes sensors for use in performing such a function, they are located at the distal end of the anti-tip supports (as in claim 6, which is believed to be what applicant may have intended), not on any of the fork tines. Conversely, while the specification also describes sensors located on the fork supports, they are distance or optical sensors used in determining a location of the fork relative to cargo, not pressure sensors for deploying the anti-tip system.
Applicant previously traversed this rejection by asserting that since the specification discloses that pressure sensors may be located on forklift tines, that dunnage detection sensors may be located on the distal ends of the forklift tines, and that information concerning forklift conveyor speed/direction may be provided by pressure sensors, then by extrapolation such pressure sensors would necessarily need to be located at the distal end of the conveyor (and thus on the forklift tines) in order to provide meaningful information. The examiner does not agree with applicant’s reasoning. However, this is a moot point, because even if pressure sensors per se were located at the forklift tines, claim 15 depends from claim 13, which, as noted above, requires the sensors to be “coupled with the anti-tip system” and to be used in the step of “determining, based on signals from the … sensors, to deploy the anti-tip system”. Clearly, even if applicant’s reasoning is conceded (which it is not) and pressure sensors were located at the tines, such sensors are not disclosed as being part of the anti-tip system or to provide signals for use in determining deployment thereof.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al (US 11,370,643 or corresponding US 2020/0307974) in view of Mourlam (US 10,124,773), 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 vehicle chassis configured to receive cargo CN to be transported using the cargo transport apparatus;
a cargo lift assembly 12/13 coupled with the vehicle chassis configured to raise and lower the cargo to be transported relative to a top plane of the platform (e.g., Figs. 7-9), and to move the cargo forward or rearward relative to a front edge of the platform (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 11-12); and
an anti-tip system 60 coupled with the vehicle chassis that includes one or more anti-tip supports 605/606 movable away from and toward the vehicle chassis (Figs. 9-11),
wherein the one or more anti-tip supports are configured to move away from the vehicle chassis and engage with a driving surface to shift a tipping point of the cargo transport apparatus from a first location adjacent to the vehicle chassis to a second location away from the vehicle chassis in a direction of the cargo when the cargo is located away from the vehicle chassis (Fig. 11), and
wherein the one or more anti-tip supports are configured to disengage with the driving surface and move toward the vehicle chassis when the cargo is moved toward or above the platform, to shift the tipping point from the second location toward the first location (Fig. 9).
Hasegawa does not show that the cargo lift assembly is also configured to move at least a portion of the cargo lift assembly based on tilt sensor feedback.
Mourlam shows a vehicle chassis stabilizing system wherein a cargo lift assembly 14/16 is configured to move at least a portion of the cargo lift assembly based on tilt sensor feedback (see Fig. 8, col. 3:48-60, col. 6:45-56 and col. 11:20 to col. 12:67).
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 cargo lift assembly to move at least a portion of the cargo lift assembly based on tilt sensor feedback, as suggested by Mourlam, as this would ensure safe operation of the cargo lift assembly by preventing operation thereof if a potential vehicle tilt condition was detected.
Re claim 2, note in Hasegawa controller 41/42 coupled with the cargo lift assembly and anti-tip system that controls movement of the cargo lift assembly and the one or more anti-tip supports (col. 7:10-57, col. 10:32-67, col. 13:18-23).
Re claim 3, the controller autonomously moves the one or more anti-tip supports relative to the vehicle chassis based on a location of the cargo lift assembly relative to the platform (col. 10:50-67).
Re claim 4, Hasegawa does not show one or more tip sensors coupled with the anti-tip system, wherein the controller moves the one or more anti-tip supports based on signals from the one or more tip sensors.
However, Mourlam shows the vehicle chassis stabilizing system to further comprise anti-tip supports 18 coupled with an anti-tip system 20, wherein a controller 76 moves the one or more anti-tip supports based on signals from one or more tip sensors 78 coupled with the anti-tip system (Figs. 2, 7, col. 6:27-44 and col. 9:35 to col. 11:19).
It also would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Hasegawa by utilizing one or more tip sensors coupled with the anti-tip system, wherein the controller moved the one or more anti-tip supports based on signals from the one or more tip sensors, as taught by Mourlam, to provide an additional means of ensuring that the anti-tip supports were supporting and stabilizing the vehicle during loading.
Re claims 5 and 6, Mourlam still further discloses that the one or more tip sensors include (at least) one or more pressure sensors (col. 6:40-41) located at a distal end, away from the vehicle chassis, of the one or more anti-tip supports (Fig. 2), and wherein the pressure sensors provide information to the controller for load and stability monitoring (col. 10:1-16). Such features would obviously be included in the apparatus of Hasegawa when modified as above.
Re claim 8, the one or more anti-tip supports of Hasegawa comprises one or more outriggers 605/606 that rotate or extend away from the vehicle chassis and engage with the driving surface when the cargo is lifted from the driving surface, and that rotate or retract toward the vehicle chassis when the cargo is moved above the platform or placed at a destination location.
Re claim 9, the cargo lift assembly of Hasegawa comprises 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).
Re claim 10, the cargo transport apparatus of Hasegawa further comprises one or more propulsion units 33 coupled with the vehicle chassis, each of the one or more propulsion units coupled with a power source 30 and a controller to control operation of the one or more propulsion units (not explicitly disclosed but considered inherent insofar as the vehicle is an unmanned forklift capable of accelerating, steering, braking, etc.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Mourlam, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brouwer et al (US 4,365,921, previously cited).
Hasegawa as modified does not explicitly disclose that the anti-tip system enables the cargo transport apparatus to lift and transport cargo that is heavier than the cargo transport apparatus when unloaded, although it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would find such a feature to be highly likely if not inherent.
In any event, 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 necessarily weighs more than the vehicle (since it could be as little as 2200 pounds), 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 weigh more than 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the apparatus of Hasegawa by configuring the anti-tip system such that it enabled the cargo transport apparatus to lift and transport cargo that was heavier than the cargo transport apparatus when unloaded (if not inherent), as suggested by Brouwer, to enable the vehicle to lift and transport cargo heavier than it otherwise could.
Claims 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Chilson et al (US 7,980,808, previously cited).
Hasegawa discloses a method for transporting cargo using a cargo transport apparatus, comprising (see Figs. 3-4 and col. 6:1-62):
identifying cargo CN that is to be transported using the cargo transport apparatus, wherein the cargo transport apparatus is adapted to transport the cargo via a driving surface from a first location to a second location;
aligning a cargo lift assembly 12/13 of the cargo transport apparatus relative to the cargo, when the cargo is at the first location, to a position in which the cargo can be lifted by the cargo lift assembly;
deploying, responsive to the aligning the cargo lift assembly relative to the cargo, an anti-tip system 60 to move one or more anti-tip supports 605/606 away from a vehicle chassis of the cargo transport apparatus and engage with the driving surface adjacent to the first location (Fig. 11), wherein the deployed anti-tip supports shift a tipping point of the cargo transport apparatus from a first position adjacent to the vehicle chassis to a second position away from the vehicle chassis in a direction of the cargo when the cargo is at the first location;
lifting the cargo using the cargo lift assembly;
moving the cargo lift assembly and the cargo on the vehicle chassis to shift the tipping point of the cargo transport apparatus toward the first position; and
retracting the anti-tip system responsive to the moving the cargo lift assembly and the cargo (Fig. 9).
To whatever extent the limitation may be given patentable weight in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) set forth above in par. 4, Hasegawa does not show that the step of aligning a cargo lift assembly of the cargo transport apparatus relative to the cargo, when the cargo is at the first location, to a position in which the cargo can be lifted by the cargo lift assembly, is at least partially based on tilt sensor feedback.
Chilson shows in Figs. 12-19 a method of transporting cargo using a cargo transport apparatus 10, wherein a cargo lift assembly 17/18 of the cargo transport apparatus is aligned, based at least partially on feedback from tilt sensor 42, relative to cargo 60, when the cargo is at a first location, to a position in which the cargo can be lifted by the cargo lift assembly (col. 17:23 to col. 19:50).
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 modified the method of Hasegawa by basing, at least partially on tilt sensor feedback, the step of aligning the cargo lift assembly of the cargo transport apparatus relative to the cargo, when the cargo was at the first location, to a position in which the cargo could be lifted by the cargo lift assembly, as taught by Chilson, to accommodate differences in level between the cargo to be loaded and the cargo transport apparatus.
Note that although Hasegawa does not explicitly use the terminology “identifying cargo” or “aligning a cargo lift assembly … relative to the cargo”, in performing the process of traveling to and picking up the cargo, as seen in Fig. 3 and described in the above-noted passage in col. 6, an unmanned forklift would inherently identify the cargo and align the cargo lift assembly relative thereto, as broadly recited. Applicant is not claiming any particular means for identifying cargo or aligning the cargo lift assembly.
Re claim 12, as readily apparent from at least the above-noted passages in cols. 6 and 10, Hasegawa’s method further comprises:
driving the cargo transport apparatus from the first location to the second location;
deploying the anti-tip system to move the one or more anti-tip supports away from the vehicle chassis and engage with the driving surface adjacent to the second location (Fig. 11);
lowering the cargo to place the cargo on a destination surface at the second location;
moving the cargo lift assembly away from the cargo; and
retracting the anti-tip system responsive to the moving the cargo lift assembly away from the cargo (Fig. 9).
Claim 17 is treated in substantially the same manner as analogous claim 8, as noted above in par. 7.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Chilson et al, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Mourlam.
This rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 7 with respect to claims 4 and 5.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Chilson et al, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Brouwer et al.
This rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 8 with respect to claim 7.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marb shows a method for optimizing the operation of a load handling AGV.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Mourlam … does not teach or suggest commanding a sliding mast/fork as recited and coordinating with … anti-tip supports to translate the tipping line … based on cargo location”, that there is no motivation to combine Mourlam with Hasegawa, and that the “combination does* address the aircraft operation disclosed by applicant” (*it is assumed applicant meant “does not address”). This is not persuasive. First, Mourlam is recited only for its teaching of basing the movement of at least a portion of a cargo lift assembly on tilt sensor feedback, which is all that the claim requires (with respect to tilt sensor feedback). All other claim limitations are disclosed by Hasegawa. Furthermore, the claims do not involve “aircraft operation”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the 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).
Further still, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is to provide an additional means of ensuring that the anti-tip supports were supporting and stabilizing the vehicle during loading, as noted above in par. 7.
Applicant also argues that Chilson merely profiles the transport and determines a transport path of an AGV based on distance measuring sensors, and alleges that Chilson does not teach or suggest tilt sensor feedback to align forks relative to cargo. This is not persuasive. While it is acknowledged that Chilson does disclose profiling the transport and determining a transport path of an AGV based on distance measuring sensors, this does not mean that Chilson doesn’t also disclose using tilt sensor feedback to align forks relative to cargo. In particular, and as noted above in par. 9, Chilson discloses in Figs. 12-19 and col. 17:23 to col. 19:50 a method of transporting cargo using a cargo transport apparatus 10, wherein a cargo lift assembly 17/18 of the cargo transport apparatus is aligned, based at least partially on feedback from tilt sensor 42, relative to cargo 60, when the cargo is at a first location, to a position in which the cargo can be lifted by the cargo lift assembly.
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
1/15/26