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 .
Priority
Benefit of earlier filing date of 04/05/2019 of provisional application No. 62/829,941 is acknowledged as required by 35 U.S.C. 119.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahern et al. (US 10065843 B2) hereinafter Ahern in view of Baginski et al. (US 8055405 B2) hereinafter Baginski.
Regarding claims 1-2, 9-11 and 16-17 Ahern teaches a lift device (scissors lift vehicle 100), comprising: a lift assembly (scissors lift mechanism) configured to be driven to increase or decrease in length along a first direction by extension and retraction of one or more actuators (actuator comprises at least “steer motor 232, gear box 234, and linear steer actuator 235”), the first direction being substantially perpendicular with a surface upon which the lift device is positioned; a platform coupled at a first end (upper end) of the lift assembly; a controller (Control system 200) configured to: receive a value of a pitch angle (par. 20: “trim angle”) and a roll angle (par. 20: “roll angle”) of the lift device from a sensor (par. 20: “Tilt sensor 210”), the value of the pitch angle and the roll angle indicating a slope of the surface (par. 20, 26: “slope”); determine a maximum allowable elevation of the platform based on (par. 20: maximum elevation is allowed for slopes lower than three degrees; however the lift assembly will be completely lowered (maximum elevation is zero) when the slope is equal or greater than three degrees); and limit operation of the lift assembly based on the maximum allowable elevation of the platform (par. 20: “a slope equal or greater than three degrees and platform 113 is raised the only operation permitted is to lower scissors stack assembly 112).Ahern further teaches one or more processors (one or more processors 204); and one or more memory devices (one or more memory devices 206) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (par. 20: “The one or more processors execute one or more programs stored on the one or more memory devices 206 to perform the control functions described herein”.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baginski in par. 17 teaches lifting height is calculated based on weight of the load measured by load sensor 6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to lift the load based on the weight of the load for safety reasons.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18, Ahern teaches the controller is further configured to: prevent an operator from operating the lift assembly to elevate the platform above the maximum allowable elevation of the platform (as described in par. 20, maximum allowable elevation for slopes equal or greater than three degrees is zero and the controller does not permit elevation).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Ahern teaches the maximum allowable elevation of the platform maintains a tipping moment of the platform below a threshold value (as described in par. 20, maximum allowable elevation for slopes equal or greater than three degrees is zero and the controller does not permit elevation and therefore tipping moment of the platform stays below a threshold value).
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19, Baginski teaches the controller is further configured to: operate an alert device of the lift device to provide an alert to a user in response to the lift assembly operating to elevate the platform to the maximum allowable elevation (“alarm horn 218” described in par. 23-26).
Claims 6, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahern in view Baginski as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaipaul et al. (US 20150246797 A1), hereinafter Jaipaul.
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 20, combined device of Ahern and Baginski does not teach the claimed user interface device.
Jaipaul teaches a vehicle lift system comprising a module 60 with graphic display which can be programmed to display a real time animation of the lift positions and/or the vehicle position as the vehicle is being lifted and/or lowered by the lift system 20 (see par. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a user interface to the combined device of Ahern and Baginski to visually monitor position of the lift for safety reasons.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artoni et al. (US 20170217745 A1) hereinafter Artoni in view Baginski.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9-11, Artoni teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 1-6 below) a lift device (aerial lift platform 1), comprising: a lift assembly (raising device 11) configured to be driven to increase or decrease in length along a first direction (first direction is interpreted to be direction vertical to flat ground surface shown in Fig. 4) by extension and retraction of one or more actuators (third jack 114; par. 0104: “an extended configuration and a retracted configuration”), the first direction being substantially perpendicular with a surface (flat ground surface shown in Fig. 4) upon/on which the lift device is positioned; a platform (cage 10) coupled at a first end (upper end) of the lift assembly; a controller configured to receive a value of a pitch angle and a roll angle of the lift device from a sensor (par. 0108-0114),the value of the pitch angle and the roll angle indicating a slope of the surface (entire par. 0121: first and second slopes; entire par. 0124: “control and command panel is configured such as to determine a maximum lifting travel of the cage 10, as a function of the angle of inclination of the support frame 23 with respect to the support base 22”); determine a maximum allowable elevation of the platform based on (entire par. 0121: first and second slopes; entire par. 0124: “control and command panel is configured such as to determine a maximum lifting travel of the cage 10, as a function of the angle of inclination of the support frame 23 with respect to the support base 22”); and limit operation of the lift assembly based on the maximum allowable elevation of the platform (entire par. 0124).
PNG
media_image2.png
892
1436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baginski in par. 17 teaches lifting height is calculated based on weight of the load measured by load sensor 6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to lift the load based on the weight of the load for safety reasons.
Regarding claim 7, Artoni teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 1-6 above) the controller is configured to monitor a current elevation of the platform and limit operation of the lift assembly to increase in length when the current elevation of the platform is substantially equal to the maximum allowable elevation (par. 0095: “a control console 102 for controlling the vertical platform 1” and “easily accessible by the operator who is positioned internally of the volume defined by the rest plane 100 and the parapets 101”; par. 0124: “the maximum height that can be reached by the cage in the raised position is a function of the angle of inclination of the support base 22”).
Regarding claim 8, Artoni teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 1-6 above) a plurality of leveling actuators, wherein the leveling actuators are configured to extend or retract to adjust the pitch angle or the roll angle of the lift device, the controller configured to operate the plurality of leveling actuators to extend or retract using the value of the pitch angle and the value of the roll angle to decrease the value of the pitch angle and the value of the roll angle (par. 0057: leveling group 20; entire par. 0028-0029).
Claim 3, 5, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artoni in view Baginski as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Knapp et al. (US 20150166315 A1), hereinafter Knapp.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Artoni in par. 0095 teaches “a control console 102 for controlling the vertical platform 1”; but does not explicitly teach prevention of operation of the lift assembly above the maximum allowable/threshold elevation.
Knapp teaches a lifting apparatus with a safety alert 404 when the lift track is elevated 402 (see par. 0075 and Fig. 4A). Knapp teaches if lift track 3100 is elevated 402, a safety alert 404 will return and the operated is requested to confirm to lower lift track 406.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Knapp in device of Artoni and equip it with a stop system to stop operation of the platform when reached the maximum allowable/threshold elevation, so that the operator will be notified that only keeping the platform at the maximum level or lowering the it is possible.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Artoni in par. 0095 teaches “a control console 102 for controlling the vertical platform 1”; but does not explicitly teach the claimed alert device.
Knapp teaches a lifting apparatus with a safety alert 404 when the lift track is elevated 402 (see par. 0075 and Fig. 4A). Knapp teaches if lift track 3100 is elevated 402, a safety alert 404 will return and the operated is requested to confirm to lower lift track 406.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Knapp in device of Artoni and equip it with an alert system to alert the operator when the platform has reached the maximum allowable elevation, so that the operator will be notified that only keeping the platform at the maximum level or lowering the it is possible.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artoni in view Baginski as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Lafrenier (US 20170130429 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Artoni does not teach the maximum allowable elevation of the platform maintains a tipping moment of the platform below a threshold value.
Lafrenier teaches a work vehicle having a lift device. Fig. 4 and Par. 0032 teaches calculation of tipping moment: “The excavator 10 is considered to be on the sloped ground surface 12 at an angle θ at a threshold of tipping about the non-driven front idler sprockets 20 which carry the track 22, due in part to a variable load L applied to the material bucket 24 of the attachment assembly 16.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to elevate the load based on tipping moment of the platform to decrease tipping tendency (see par. 0030-032).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artoni in view of Baginski as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaipaul.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Artoni does not teach the claimed user interface device.
Jaipaul teaches a vehicle lift system comprising a module 60 with graphic display which can be programmed to display a real time animation of the lift positions and/or the vehicle position as the vehicle is being lifted and/or lowered by the lift system 20 (see par. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a user interface to the device of Artoni to visually monitor position of the lift for safety reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723