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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a protection operation instructions” recited at line 7 should be “the protection operation instructions”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the forklift prevention method” recited at lines 5-6 should be “a forklift prevention method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of claim 1:
STEP 1: Does claim 16 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1. A forklift overturning prevention method, comprising:
acquiring a wheel load on a wheel of a forklift;
obtaining a center of gravity of the forklift based on wheel loads on all wheels of the forklift; and
sending a protection operation instruction when the center of gravity reaches a preset boundary line.
The limitation highlighted in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitation of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of obtaining a center of gravity of a forklift based on the wheel loads detected. A person, if given the wheel load of the wheels on the forklift, can perform an calculations necessary to obtain the center of gravity of the forklift (mental observation). This is equivalent to a person looking at obtained sensor data and mentally making determinations/observations as to the center of gravity of the forklift based on a person’s knowledge of interpreting the sensor data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1. A forklift overturning prevention method, comprising:
acquiring a wheel load on a wheel of a forklift;
obtaining a center of gravity of the forklift based on wheel loads on all wheels of the forklift; and
sending a protection operation instruction when the center of gravity reaches a preset boundary line.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information) and amounts to data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the sending an instruction is also claimed at a high level of generality and is merely the transmission of information, which amounts to mere post solution actions which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The examiner notes that the claim merely recites the transmission of the instruction but does not positively recite that the instruction is received and implemented by a controller or the like on the forklift.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Acquiring, obtaining/determining and sending/transmitting are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors, such as the (implied) processor in claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 16 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of claim 16:
With respect to claim 16, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claim 16, with claim 1 being drawn to a method and claim 16 being drawn to a corresponding device. The additional limitations recited in claim 16 including “a processor; a memory, and computer program instructions stored in the memory, wherein when the computer program instructions are run by the processor, the processor is configured to implement the forklift overturning prevention method,” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The device is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As such, since claim 16 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 16 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of Claims 2-13, 15 and 17-20
Dependent claims 2-13, 15 and 17-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. The limitations of claims 2-13, 15 and 17-20 are further limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are limitations that can be performed in the human mind or are limitations that amount to insignificant extra solution activity using a similar analysis as applied under claims 1 and 16 above.
As such, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya (JP 2020111403) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 104085804). Please note that the below citations are in reference to the provided machine translations of the references.
With respect to claim 1, Tatsuya teaches a forklift overturning prevention method (see at least Abstract and ¶[0042]-[0044], comprising: acquiring a wheel load on a wheel of a forklift (see at least ¶[008]; obtaining a center of gravity of the forklift based on wheel loads on all wheels of the forklift (see at least ¶[0019]-[0033] wherein the center of gravity of the entire forklift is determined based on the loads on the wheels of the forklift). While Tatsuya teaches the sending of a warning when the center of gravity of the load exceeds a predetermined limit (see ¶[0044]), Tatsuya does not specifically teach sending a protection operation instruction when the center of gravity reaches a preset boundary line. However, Zhu et al. teaches such matter (see at least Abstract and ¶[0049]-[0060] and Fig. 8 wherein the system determines the center of gravity of the crane in all the x, y and z directions to determine the overall barycenter of the crane based on the axle pressures in the crane (axle loads) and based on the determined overall center of gravity (or any of the center of gravities in the x, y or z direction) exceed a predetermined limit (safety range) an action is taken to ensure operation of the crane in a safe manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Zhu et al. going to the determination of the center of gravity of an industrial vehicle in all of the x, y and z directions and the overall center of gravity of the industrial machine based on axle loads in the forklift safety system of Tatsuya as both systems are directed to the determination of an overall center of gravity on a vehicle that routinely moves/transports loads on the front end of the vehicle whereby the center of gravity of the overall vehicle changes routinely during operation and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the safety system of Zhu et al. in the forklift system of Tatsuya as both systems concern similar considerations during operation (including the overturning of the vehicle based on overloading or incorrect loading) and such a system would increase safety in the vehicle (see Zhu et al. ¶[005]-[008]).
With respect to claim 2, Tatsuya teaches wherein the acquiring a wheel load on a wheel of a forklift comprises: acquiring strain data for an axle housing of a steering axle, wherein the steering axle is configured to connect a drive shaft of the forklift and the wheel of the forklift; and converting the strain data into the wheel load, wherein the larger the strain data, the greater the wheel load (see at least ¶[008] and [0019]-[0025]).
With respect to claim 3, Tatsuya teaches wherein the acquiring a wheel load on a wheel of a forklift comprises: acquiring an axial pressure on a steering knuckle shaft of the forklift; and converting the axial pressure into the wheel load, wherein the greater the axial pressure, the greater the wheel load (see at least ¶[008] and [0019]-[0025]).
With respect to claim 4, Tatsuya teaches wherein the obtaining a center of gravity of the forklift based on wheel loads on all wheels of the forklift comprises: acquiring wheel load information values for four wheels respectively based on wheel loads on the four wheels of the forklift; and determining the center of gravity based on the wheel load information values for the four wheels, wherein a position of the center of gravity is shifted to a position of a wheel corresponding to a larger wheel load information value (see at least ¶[0019]-[0033] wherein the center of gravity of the entire forklift is determined based on the loads on the wheels of the forklift)
With respect to claim 6, Tatsuya teaches wherein the obtaining a center of gravity of the forklift based on wheel loads on all wheels of the forklift comprises: acquiring wheel load information values for four wheels respectively based on wheel loads on the four wheels of the forklift; and obtaining the center of gravity of the forklift based on weights of the four wheels and the wheel load information values for the four wheels, wherein the weights of the four wheels are preset based on positions of the four wheels (see at least ¶[0019]-[0033] wherein the center of gravity of the entire forklift is determined based on the loads on the wheels of the forklift).
With respect to claim 8, Tatsuya does not explicitly teach wherein the preset boundary line comprises a combination of one or more of the following: a connection line of two front tires, a connection line of two rear tires, a connection line of two left tires, and a connection line of two right tires. However, such matter is taught by Zhu et al. (see at least Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Zhu et al. going to the determination of the center of gravity of an industrial vehicle in all of the x, y and z directions and the overall center of gravity of the industrial machine based on axle loads in the forklift safety system of Tatsuya as both systems are directed to the determination of an overall center of gravity on a vehicle that routinely moves/transports loads on the front end of the vehicle whereby the center of gravity of the overall vehicle changes routinely during operation and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the safety system of Zhu et al. in the forklift system of Tatsuya as both systems concern similar considerations during operation (including the overturning of the vehicle based on overloading or incorrect loading) and such a system would increase safety in the vehicle (see Zhu et al. ¶[005]-[008]).
With respect to claim 9, Tatsuya does not explicitly teach wherein the sending a protection operation instruction when the center of gravity reaches a preset boundary line comprises: when the center of gravity reaches the connection line of the two front tires, sending a protection operation instruction corresponding to forward overturning of the forklift. However, such matter is taught by Zhu et al. (see at least Abstract and ¶[0049]-[0060] and Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Zhu et al. going to the determination of the center of gravity of an industrial vehicle in all of the x, y and z directions and the overall center of gravity of the industrial machine based on axle loads in the forklift safety system of Tatsuya as both systems are directed to the determination of an overall center of gravity on a vehicle that routinely moves/transports loads on the front end of the vehicle whereby the center of gravity of the overall vehicle changes routinely during operation and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the safety system of Zhu et al. in the forklift system of Tatsuya as both systems concern similar considerations during operation (including the overturning of the vehicle based on overloading or incorrect loading) and such a system would increase safety in the vehicle (see Zhu et al. ¶[005]-[008]).
With respect to claim 10, Tatsuya et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the sending a protection operation instruction when the center of gravity reaches a preset boundary line comprises: when the center of gravity reaches the connection line of the two rear tires, sending a protection operation instruction corresponding to backward overturning of the forklift. (see at least Abstract and ¶[0049]-[0060] and Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Zhu et al. going to the determination of the center of gravity of an industrial vehicle in all of the x, y and z directions and the overall center of gravity of the industrial machine based on axle loads in the forklift safety system of Tatsuya as both systems are directed to the determination of an overall center of gravity on a vehicle that routinely moves/transports loads on the front end of the vehicle whereby the center of gravity of the overall vehicle changes routinely during operation and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the safety system of Zhu et al. in the forklift system of Tatsuya as both systems concern similar considerations during operation (including the overturning of the vehicle based on overloading or incorrect loading) and such a system would increase safety in the vehicle (see Zhu et al. ¶[005]-[008]).
With respect to claim 11, Tatsuya does not explicitly teach wherein the sending a protection operation instruction when the center of gravity reaches a preset boundary line comprises: when the center of gravity reaches the connection line of the two left tires, sending a protection operation instruction corresponding to leftward overturning of the forklift. However, such matter is taught by Zhu et al. (see at least Abstract and ¶[0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Zhu et al. going to the determination of the center of gravity of an industrial vehicle in all of the x, y and z directions and the overall center of gravity of the industrial machine based on axle loads in the forklift safety system of Tatsuya as both systems are directed to the determination of an overall center of gravity on a vehicle that routinely moves/transports loads on the front end of the vehicle whereby the center of gravity of the overall vehicle changes routinely during operation and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the safety system of Zhu et al. in the forklift system of Tatsuya as both systems concern similar considerations during operation (including the overturning of the vehicle based on overloading or incorrect loading) and such a system would increase safety in the vehicle (see Zhu et al. ¶[005]-[008]).
With respect to claim 12, Tatsuya does not explicitly teach wherein the sending a protection operation instruction when the center of gravity reaches a preset boundary line comprises: when the center of gravity reaches the connection line of the two right tires, sending a protection operation instruction corresponding to rightward overturning of the forklift. However, such matter is taught by Zhu et al. (see at least Abstract and ¶[0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Zhu et al. going to the determination of the center of gravity of an industrial vehicle in all of the x, y and z directions and the overall center of gravity of the industrial machine based on axle loads in the forklift safety system of Tatsuya as both systems are directed to the determination of an overall center of gravity on a vehicle that routinely moves/transports loads on the front end of the vehicle whereby the center of gravity of the overall vehicle changes routinely during operation and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the safety system of Zhu et al. in the forklift system of Tatsuya as both systems concern similar considerations during operation (including the overturning of the vehicle based on overloading or incorrect loading) and such a system would increase safety in the vehicle (see Zhu et al. ¶[005]-[008]).
With respect to claim 13, Tatsuya teaches wherein the protection operation instruction comprises: performing playback of a warning voice for forklift forward overturning, an operation of prohibiting a forklift boom from extension, and an operation of retracting a forklift boom; or performing playback of a warning voice for forklift backward overturning, an operation of prohibiting a forklift boom from retraction, and an operation of extending a forklift boom; or performing playback of a warning voice for forklift leftward overturning, a stopping operation of a forklift boom, and an increase in right counterweight torque; or performing playback of a warning voice for forklift rightward overturning, a stopping operation of a forklift boom, and an increase in left counterweight torque (see at least ¶[0044]-[0045).
With respect to claim 14, Tatsuya teaches a forklift, comprising: a forklift body for handling a materia (see at least traveling device 2 which includes a vehicle body 4)l; a forklift overturning prevention apparatus disposed on the forklift body (see at least ECU 21), configured to perform the forklift overturning prevention method according to claim 1 (please see rejection above with respect to claim 1); and a controller disposed on the forklift body and electrically connected to the forklift overturning prevention apparatus, configured to control the forklift body to perform a protection operation when a protection operation instruction sent by the forklift overturning prevention apparatus is received (see at least ECU 21 and ¶[0014] and [0047]).
With respect to claim 15, Tatsuya teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores computer program instructions, and when the computer program instructions are run by a processor, the processor is configured to implement the forklift overturning prevention method according to claim 1 (see at least ¶[0014] and [0047]).
With respect claim 16, please see the rejections above with respect to claims 1, 14 and 16, which are commensurate in scope claim 16.
With respect to claims 17-19, please see the rejections above with respect to claims 2-4, respectively, which are commensurate in scope to claims 17-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights