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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/25 has been entered.
The amendment filed 11/06/25 is 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 claims 1 and 16 that the first powered roller assembly is “detachably and electrically coupled to a power supply comprising at least one of: a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system”. The only apparent disclosure of such an electric power supply is in par. [0028], which discloses that propulsion unit 310 “may include a motor … to propel, raise, and lower the chassis” and which “may be driven … electrically using a battery system (e.g., a 48 V rechargeable battery system) and/or generator (e.g., internal combustion engine, fuel cell, photovoltaic system, etc.)”. Further, the only apparent disclosure of a power supply for the roller assembly is in par. [0029], which discloses “a powered roller assembly 605 that is coupled with each fork 610 of the cargo transport system” and that “may have a drive motor” (which is not identified in the drawings), and wherein “mechanism 620 may be provided that secures the powered roller assembly to the fork assembly.” However, as can best be determined, there is no nexus between the disclosed power supply of the propulsion units 310 and the means of powering the roller assembly. Specifically, there appears to be no disclosure that the power supply comprising at least one of a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system is detachably and electrically coupled to the roller assembly, nor is such a feature deemed inherent or even implicit from the original disclosure. For example, the motor for powering the detachable roller assembly could be powered by a power supply integral with the roller assembly. Further, even if the power supply for the roller assembly did come from an outside source (such as somewhere on the vehicle), there is no disclosure that such a source would be detachably and electrically coupled to the roller assembly and would comprise at least one of a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first powered roller assembly being detachably and electrically coupled to a power supply comprising at least one of: a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system (claims 1 and 16) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-22 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. 3, the recitation in each of claims 1 and 16 of “the first powered roller assembly being detachably and electrically coupled to a power supply comprising at least one of: a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system” is considered new matter.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14, last line, it is not understood what is meant by the recitation “operation of one or more a forklift or one or more drivetrain propulsion units”, as not only is this grammatically incorrect, but also none of a forklift, a drivetrain, and/or propulsion units therefor have previously been recited and as such it is unclear what operational relationship such components would have with the claimed cargo transport apparatus.
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 1-11, 13, 16-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finke (US 11,623,706 or corresponding PCT Publication WO 2019/179768) in view of Kaup (WO 2012/010160), Masubuchi (JP 2001-139287), and Heywood et al (GB 854460).
Any specific passages cited with respect to Finke will refer to the US Patent.
Finke shows a cargo transport apparatus, comprising:
a vehicle (AGV) 50 having an inherent chassis (not separately identified);
a mast 70 coupled with the vehicle chassis; and
a fork assembly 66 movably coupled with the mast, the mast configured to raise and lower the fork assembly, and the fork assembly including at least a first powered assembly 72, 74, 76 or 78 mounted on at least a first fork of the fork assembly, wherein the first powered assembly moves cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast (col. 11:44-52).
Finke shows the first powered assembly to be a conveyor belt rather than a roller assembly, and does not show the assembly to be detachably mounted on and secured to the first fork of the fork assembly by a securement assembly located at an end of the first powered assembly adjacent to the mast.
Kaup shows a cargo transport apparatus, comprising: a fork assembly 1 configured as an attachment to an unillustrated lift truck which is considered to inherently comprise a mast coupled to a vehicle chassis, the fork assembly movably coupled with the mast (inherent), the mast configured to raise and lower the fork assembly (inherent), and the fork assembly including at least a first powered roller assembly 7 (Figs. 10-12 embodiment) mounted on at least a first fork 1b of the fork assembly, wherein the first powered roller assembly moves cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast (inherent).
Masubuchi shows an attachment 3 for a forklift truck F comprising at least a first roller assembly 6 detachably mounted on at least a first fork 2 of a fork assembly 1 that is movably coupled to a mast which is coupled to a chassis of the forklift truck (Fig. 1), wherein the roller assembly is secured to the fork by a securement assembly 9 located at “an end of the … roller assembly adjacent to the mast”, as broadly recited (or at least closer to such an end than the end distal from the mast; Fig. 2).
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 apparatus of Finke by substituting the conveyor belt thereof with a powered roller assembly, as shown by Kaup, as this would simply be the substitution of one known type of powered means to load or unload cargo to or from a fork assembly of a lift truck for another, the use of which in the apparatus of Finke would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results. It also would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Finke by configuring such a powered roller assembly so as to be detachably mounted on the first fork of the fork assembly and secured thereto by a securement assembly located at an end of the roller assembly adjacent to the mast, as suggested by Masubuchi, so that the fork lift truck could be used for other work when the roller assembly was not needed, without having to remove the entire fork assembly from the lift truck.
The examiner notes that to any extent the limitation “an end of the first powered roller assembly adjacent to the mast” may be deemed to define over the examiner’s broad interpretation thereof as set forth above (or the claim is further amended to clearly do so), since Masubuchi clearly shows the securement assembly to be located closer to the end of the roller assembly proximal to the mast than to the end distal therefrom, and since there is no apparent disclosure in the instant application that such a location is in any way critical or provides any advantages, one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that locating the securement assembly immediately adjacent to the mast to be a simple and obvious modification which would in no way impact the usefulness or operation of the apparatus.
To whatever extent the limitation may be given patentable weight in light of the new matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth above in par. 6, Finke as modified does not show the first powered roller assembly to be detachably and electrically coupled to a power supply comprising at least one of: a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system. However, Finke discloses in col. 2:53-59 and col. 11:29-33 that independent electric motor drives powered by a battery of the AGV are used for powering various components of the handling unit.
Further, Heywood discloses a powered chain conveyor 15 for a battery powered lift truck that can be either manually, hydraulically or electrically driven and that can be configured as either a fixed component of the lift truck or as a removable attachment to the forks thereof (page 1:80-81, page 2:20-33, page 3:11-23, and page 4:38-47).
As such, it also 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 Finke by configuring the first powered roller assembly to be detachably and electrically coupled to a power supply comprising at least one of: a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system, as collectively suggested by Finke and Heywood, to provide a convenient source of power for the detachable roller assembly.
Re claims 2-5, the powered roller assembly of Finke as modified in the manner above would obviously be mounted on each of first and second forks of the fork assembly and would each include all of the features of Kaup’s roller assembly described as follows:
Claim 2: Kaup’s fork assembly comprises: the first powered roller assembly mounted on the first fork of the fork assembly, and a second powered roller assembly mounted on a second fork of the fork assembly (not shown in Figs. 10-12 but note an analogous second fork in Fig. 1), wherein the first and second powered roller assemblies move cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast.
Claim 3: Kaup shows that each of the first powered roller assembly and the second powered roller assembly comprise a drive motor 2, and a conveyer chain 23 coupled with the drive motor and including a plurality of pads 22. Although Kaup does not show the motor coupled to the conveyor chain via a drive chain, Figs. 3-5 depict a multi-gear mechanism 3a-c for transmitting power from the motor to a conveyor. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a drive chain in place of the gear train of Kaup to transmit power from the motor to the conveyor, as the examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a drive chain to couple a motor to a conveyor chain is an alternate equivalent to a multi-gear transmission arrangement, and the use thereof in the apparatus of Kaup would have required no undue experimentation and produced no unexpected results.
Claim 4: Kaup shows that the plurality of pads are mounted on an exterior side of the conveyer chain, and 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.
Claim 5: Kaup further shows that 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.
Re claim 6, the vehicle of Finke is an AGV having a controller for automating the loading and unloading operations (col. 3:31-44, col. 10:52-62, col. 11:29-33 and 44-52, col. 12:16-20 and 44-49), and as such is considered to include a controller coupled with the fork assembly that controls movement of the cargo on the fork assembly away from or toward the mast.
Re claim 7, when modified as above, the securement assembly would obviously be coupled with the first powered roller assembly and allow for removal of the first powered roller assembly from the first fork.
Re claims 8 and 9, the first powered roller assembly of Finke when modified as above is configured to load and unload cargo onto and off of the first fork when the cargo transport apparatus operates in a cross-decking or cross-loading operation for cargo handling onto and off of a raised surface (production shelves 8), wherein the raised surface is associated with an aircraft or warehouse conveyer system (Fig. 1).
Re claims 10 and 11, when modified as above, Finke shows a controller coupled with at least the first powered roller assembly and one or more sensors coupled with the first fork, the controller configured to activate the first powered roller assembly when the one or more sensors indicate the first fork is located at a proper position for the cross-decking or cross-loading operation, wherein the controller autonomously activates the first powered roller assembly to move the cargo onto or off of the first fork when the one or more sensors indicate the first fork is located at the proper position for the cross-decking or cross-loading operation (see at least col. 3:31-44).
Re claim 13, Finke as modified would clearly include one or more propulsion units (inherent in any AGV or “self-driving forklift”) coupled with the vehicle chassis, each of the one or more propulsion units coupled with a power source (i.e., battery; see at least col. 2:53-59), one or more sensors, and a controller to control operation of the one or more propulsion units (col. 10:66 to col. 11:4).
Re claim 16, Finke discloses a method for transporting cargo using a cargo transport apparatus, comprising:
identifying cargo that is to be transported using the cargo transport apparatus, wherein the cargo transport apparatus is adapted to transport the cargo from a first location to a second location (col. 3:31-44, col. 8:45-58);
aligning a fork 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 moved onto the fork assembly (col. 12:4-15);
activating, responsive to the aligning the fork assembly relative to the cargo, a powered assembly coupled with the fork assembly to move the cargo onto the fork assembly (col. 12:16-33);
lifting the cargo using the fork assembly (not explicitly disclosed as part of the method but clearly the fork assembly would lift the cargo at some point during the loading and/or unloading operations, depending on the level of the shelving to which the cargo is to be removed from or delivered to);
moving the cargo to the second location (col. 12:44-46).
As noted above with respect to claim 1, Finke shows the powered assembly to be a conveyor belt rather than a roller assembly, and does not show the assembly to be detachably mounted on and secured to the fork assembly by a securement assembly located at an end of the powered assembly adjacent to a mast of the cargo transport apparatus.
As also noted above, Kaup discloses a powered roller assembly mounted on a fork of a fork assembly of a lift truck, while Masubuchi shows a roller assembly detachably mounted on a fork of a fork assembly movably coupled to a mast of a forklift truck, wherein the roller assembly is secured to the fork by a securement assembly located at an end of the roller assembly adjacent to 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 modified the method of Finke by substituting the conveyor belt thereof with a powered roller assembly, as shown by Kaup, as this would simply be the substitution of one known type of powered means to load or unload cargo to or from a fork assembly of a lift truck for another, the use of which in the method of Finke would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
It also would have been obvious to have modified the method of Finke by configuring such a powered roller assembly so as to be detachably mounted on the fork assembly and secured thereto by a securement assembly located at an end of the roller assembly adjacent to a mast of the cargo transport apparatus, as suggested by Masubuchi, so that the fork lift truck could be used for other work when the roller assembly was not needed, without having to remove the entire fork assembly from the lift truck.
As still further noted above, Finke as modified does not show the first powered roller assembly to be detachably and electrically coupled to a power supply comprising at least one of: a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system. However, Finke discloses that independent electric motor drives powered by a battery of the AGV are used for powering various components of the handling unit, while Heywood discloses a powered chain conveyor 15 for a battery powered lift truck that can be either manually, hydraulically or electrically driven and that can be configured as either a fixed component of the lift truck or as a removable attachment to the forks thereof (page 1:80-81, page 2:20-33, page 3:11-23, and page 4:38-47).
As such, it also 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 method of Finke by configuring the first powered roller assembly to be detachably and electrically coupled to a power supply comprising at least one of: a battery, a generator, a fuel cell, or photovoltaic system, as collectively suggested by Finke and Heywood, to provide a convenient source of power for the detachable roller assembly.
Re claim 17, Finke’s method further comprises lowering the cargo at the second location, using the fork assembly, to a surface associated with the second location (not explicitly disclosed, but the fork assembly would clearly lower the cargo at least under certain circumstances, such as when the level of the shelving at the second location is lower than the level at which the cargo is disposed during transport, and activating, responsive to the lowering the cargo to the surface, the powered roller assembly to move the cargo off of the fork assembly and onto the surface (col. 12:46-49).
Re claim 18, Finke as modified discloses “sensor means” for checking that cargo has been delivered to a shelf (col. 9:32-34), which is a way of determining that cargo is off the fork assembly of the AGV. Clearly, in the fully automated AGV of Figs. 8-18, such sensors would be coupled with the fork assembly, and such a determination would be used to deactivate the powered roller assembly.
Re claim 19, Finke further discloses a sensor means for determining the position of the handling unit relative to a shelf to be “any … suitable sensor means” such as “at least one optical sensor” (col. 3:31-50). Presumably, the sensor means disclosed at col. 9:32-34, as noted above, would also be such a suitable optical sensor.
Re claim 21, when modified as above, the deactivating would clearly be performed autonomously by the previously noted controller coupled with the powered roller assembly based at least in part on the indication from the one or more sensors.
Similarly, re claim 22, activating the powered roller assembly to move the cargo onto the fork assembly would clearly comprise autonomously activating, by a controller coupled with the cargo transport apparatus, the powered roller assembly based at least in part on one or more sensors of the fork assembly indicating that the cargo can be moved onto the fork assembly (implicit from at least col. 3:31-44).
Claims 12, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finke in view of Kaup, Masubuchi and Heywood et al, as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al (US 11,370,643).
Finke as modified does not show a platform coupled with the vehicle chassis, wherein the mast is 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 and a rearward location at which the fork assembly is movable above the top plane.
Hasegawa shows a cargo transport apparatus, comprising:
a vehicle 1 having a chassis 11, a mast 13 coupled with the vehicle chassis, and a fork assembly 21 movably coupled with the mast, the mast configured to raise and lower the fork assembly, the fork assembly including at least first and second forks 12 of the fork assembly.
Hasegawa further discloses 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, wherein the mast is 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 and 15) and a rearward location at which the fork assembly is movable above the top plane (Figs. 1, 5, 7-9, 12 and 14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the apparatus of Finke by providing a platform coupled with the vehicle chassis, wherein the mast was movably coupled with the platform to move the fork assembly between a forward location at which the fork assembly was movable above or below a top plane of the platform and a rearward location at which the fork assembly was movable above the top plane, as shown by Hasegawa, so that the load could be positioned closer to the center of gravity of the vehicle when being transported, allowing a heavier load to be carried with greater vehicle stability.
Re claim 14, Hasegawa further discloses a controller 41 that when modified as above would obviously be coupled with at least the first powered roller assembly and one or more sensors coupled with the first fork, wherein the controller is configured to weigh the cargo and control operation of one or more forklift or drivetrain propulsion units (col. 8:64 to col. 9:3). Such a feature would obviously be included in the apparatus of Finke when modified in the manner above.
Re claim 15, Finke discloses scanning a bar code or other cargo unique identifier code (col. 6:53-61, col. 8:22-63) and communicating information associated with the cargo to a logistician (operator) or central control computer (remote controller; col. 3:31-44, col. 5:18-22, col. 5:64 to col. 6:4). In the fully automated version of the AGV, such functions would obviously be performed by the controller on the AGV rather than an operator.
Re claim 20, Finke as modified does not show that the one or more sensors include pressure sensors located at a distal end, away from a vehicle chassis of the cargo transport apparatus, of one or more forks of the fork assembly.
However, Hasegawa further discloses a load sensor on a top surface of the distal end 122 of fork 12 away from chassis 11 of cargo transport apparatus 1, wherein the sensor is used for acquiring weight data of cargo on the fork (i.e., a pressure sensor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the method of Finke by configuring the one or more sensors as pressure sensors located at a distal end, away from a vehicle chassis of the cargo transport apparatus, of one or more forks of the fork assembly, as shown by Hasegawa, as this would simply be the selection of one of a finite number of suitable sensor means, for determining whether or not a load is disposed on the fork assembly, from which to choose, the selection of which in the method of Finke would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the newly cited references shows a roller assembly mounted on a fork of a fork assembly and was previously cited in parent application 17/752655. For this reason, copies of the foreign references (including Heywood et al, cited above) are not being supplied with this Office 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
11/19/25