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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites “the adjustment strokes of the second prong” which does not agree in number with “a predetermined adjustment stroke” from claim 1. Correction is suggested to “the adjustment stroke of the second prong”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the possibility of sliding” in lines 5-6, in line 8, and in line 10, which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, it is not clear what is mean by “the possibility”. In order to further examine the claims, the limitations that follow “the possibility” will be interpreted as capabilities of the claimed adjustable fork.
Claim 1 recites “a predetermined adjustment stroke” in line 9 and in line 11. It is not clear whether these are the same limitation or different limitations.
Claim 2 recites “the actuator unit” in lines 4 and 5, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 2 recites “the presence” in line 6, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 3 recites “the actuator unit” in line 2, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 4 recites “the adjustment stroke of the first slider” and “the adjustment stroke of the second slider”. In claim 1—from which claim 4 depends, a single adjustment stroke is recited for both the first slider and the second slider, toward and away from each other. Thus, it is not clear to what “the adjustment stroke of the first slider” refers and to what “the adjustment stroke of the first slider” refers.
Claim 6 recites “the distributor” in line 20 and in line 23. It is not clear whether these limitations refer to the first distributor from claim 6, line 13, or are new limitations, especially since different reference characters “(D1)” and “(D)” are used in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the first line”, “the third line”, “the second line”, and “the fourth line” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 8 recites “the third line” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the fourth line” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 10 recites “the fourth line”, “the flow”, “the pressure present”, “the fifth line”, and “the sixth line” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 11 recites “the second line” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 12 recites “the side” and “the rods” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 13 recites “the rod” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
In order to further examine the claims, they will be interpreted as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chase et al. (US 5,139,385), hereafter referred to as Chase.
Consider claim 1. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above, Chase teaches an adjustable fork, comprising: a main frame (22); a first and a second prong (left and right 172), associated with the main frame; a first slider (288) and a second slider (272), associated with the main frame with the possibility of sliding along an adjustment direction away from and towards each other for a predetermined adjustment stroke (via 270); the first prong is associated with the first slider with the possibility of sliding, relative to the first slider, along the adjustment direction for a predetermined adjustment stroke (via 268); the second prong is associated with the second slider with the possibility of sliding, relative to the second slider, along the adjustment direction for a predetermined adjustment stroke (via 266).
Consider claim 2. Chase teaches an actuating unit (80, 266, 268, 270), designed for determining said adjustment strokes of the first slider, the second slider, the first prong and the second prong; a control system (see figs. 8-11), connected to the actuator unit and configured for activating the actuator unit in response to at least one widening command and to a narrowing command. Chase’s control system is capable of performing the recited functional language: in the presence of an active widening command, determining a moving of the prongs away from each other up to a maximum distance position (via 266 and 268), followed by a moving away from each other of the sliders (via 270); and in the presence of an active narrowing command, determining a moving of the prongs towards each other up to a minimum distance position (via 266 and 268), followed by a moving towards each other of the sliders (via 270). Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 3. Chase’s control system is capable of performing the recited functional language: activating the actuator unit in response to at least a first lateral movement command and to a second lateral movement command; the first lateral movement command determines a simultaneous movement of the sliders in a first direction along the adjustment direction (via 80 or 270); the second lateral movement command determines a simultaneous movement of the sliders in a second direction, opposite to the first direction, along the adjustment direction (via 80 or 270). Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 4. Chase teaches a first actuator (304), connected to the first slider and designed for determining the adjustment stroke of the first slider; a second actuator (296), connected to the second slider and designed for determining the adjustment stroke of the second slider; a third actuator (268), connected to the first prong and designed for determining the adjustment stroke of the first prong; a fourth actuator (266), connected to the second prong and designed for determining the adjustment stroke of the second prong; wherein the control system is connected to said actuators and is configured for activating each actuator in response to said widening and narrowing commands (see figs. 8-11).
Consider claim 5. Chase teaches that said actuators are hydraulic actuators (80, 266, 268, 270), and wherein the control system comprises a hydraulic circuit (see figs. 8-11).
Conclusion
There are not prior art rejections for claims 6-13.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various laterally-adjustable forks for material handlers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652