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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶0035 “pallets are to be used” should be –pallets that are to be used—, or similar language.
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 6-8 and 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.
Regarding claim 6, this claim is indefinite as it is unclear whether a single rear motor powers all of the rear wheel(s) or if each of the device’s rear wheels has its own motor.
Regarding claims 7-8, claim 7 is further indefinite as the last line is unclear whether the detection of the slippage is of: a) the entire set of the plural load wheels and/or the rear wheel(s); or (b) at least one of the plural load wheels, but not necessarily all of the load wheels and the rear wheel(s). Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is indefinite as it is unclear how clause A has additional features to steps that were introduced in clause B.
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, 6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Englert et al. (10,988,154).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 12, Englert discloses a pallet lift comprising:
a base (12);
at least one platform (14) for supporting an object thereon, the at least one platform extending forward of the base (see Fig. 1);
a plurality of load wheels (16) below the at least one platform (14) and configured to move toward and away from the at least one platform to selectively lower and raise the at least one platform (see e.g. Col. 3, lines 1-3);
a plurality of load motors (17), each configured to drive one of the plurality of load wheels (16; see Col. 3, lines 6-9);
at least one rear wheel (18) below the base (12); and
at least one processor programmed to control the plurality of load motors to provide differential steering to the pallet lift (see Col. 1, lines 40-60 and Col. 3, lines 6-12 describing how an electronic motor control can be programmed such that the control throttles of the two load motors can be operated to steer the pallet sled, implicit to these motorized load wheels 16/17 being capable of steering the sled is that one wheel will necessarily be driven faster than the other to cause the sled to be steered).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Englert further discloses rear motors (317) powering each of the at least one rear wheel (318; see e.g., Col. 4, lines 31-44).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 2-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert in view of McVicar et al. (9,586,797, hereinafter “McVicar ‘797”).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13, while Englert discloses that the operator controls the lift’s motors to steer the lift, it does not disclose a rotating tiller arm that controls the rear wheel or that sensors on the tiller direct the lift’s motors to steer.
McVicar ‘797 teaches another motorized material handling truck/pallet lift including a material carrying lift platform (18) in front of a base (10), within the base is a rear wheel (14) that is pivoted about a vertical axis (26) by an operator via a rotatable tiller arm (20; see e.g., Fig. 1a-1b), wherein a steering angle sensor (54) shows an operator-desired steering angle to actuate the lift’s wheel motors to steer the lift (see Col. 7, lines 48-64).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the pallet lift of Englert to include a tiller arm that controls a rear wheel and which includes steering angle sensors to control the motor-based steering as taught by McVicar ‘797 to arrive at the claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a steering handle on a material handling vehicle to improve control and handling of a load and using sensors to improve responsiveness and accuracy of an operator’s controller/input device) to known devices (e.g., motorized material handling lifts) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a steering input that allows a user to more easily/intuitively steer the lift).
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert in view of Laaksonen (US 2024/0025715).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-8, while Englert discloses that the operator controls the lift’s motors to steer the lift, it does not disclose monitoring the wheels to compensate for wheel slippage.
Laaksonen teaches another motorized material handling truck/pallet lift including a wheel speed sensor (see ¶0035), wherein a controller/processor (242) is programmed to control the lift’s motors based on the detection of wheel slippage (see e.g., ¶0055).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the pallet lift of Englert to include wheel speed sensors on its motorized wheels to detect whether the wheels are slipping and to control the motors based on this detection to arrive at the claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a steering handle on a material handling vehicle to improve control and handling of a load and using sensors to improve responsiveness and control of the motor vehicle) to known devices (e.g., motorized material handling lifts) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a motorized lift that maintains stable and under control across different terrain or traveling conditions).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert in view of McVicar et al. (9,561,943, hereinafter “McVicar ‘943”).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, while Englert discloses that the operator controls the lift’s motors to steer the lift, it does not disclose locking an opposing wheel during a turn.
McVicar ‘943 teaches another motorized material handling truck/pallet lift including a material carrying lift platform (22) in front of a base (14), within the base is a rear wheel (30), while a pair of front/load wheels (24/26) at least one of which is motorized. As shown in Fig. 4D, locking one of the front wheels (26) allows for the motorized lift to pivot about the locked wheel.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the differentially-steered pallet lift of Englert to lock a front wheel to allow the lift to pivot about the locked wheel as taught by McVicar ‘’943 to arrive at the claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., controlling the relative speed of the steering wheels to steer a material handling lift) to known devices (e.g., motorized material handling lifts) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a motorized material handling lift having improved turning capability).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert in view of McVicar et al. (US 2005/0061570, hereinafter “McVicar ‘’570”).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, while Englert discloses that the operator controls the lift’s motors to steer the lift, it does not disclose rotating opposing wheel in opposite directions during a turn.
McVicar ‘570 teaches another motorized (see ¶0036) material handling truck/pallet lift including a material carrying lift platform (20) in front of a base (10), within the base is a rear wheel (14), while a pair of motorized front/load wheels (12) are also provided. As shown in Figs. 7-8, the two powered front wheels (12) are rotated in opposite directions to allow for the motorized lift to have a zero-turn radius.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the differentially-steered pallet lift of Englert to lock a front wheel to allow the lift to pivot about the locked wheel as taught by McVicar ‘570 to arrive at the claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., controlling the relative speed/direction of the steering wheels to steer a material handling lift) to known devices (e.g., motorized material handling lifts) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a motorized material handling lift having improved turning capability).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618