DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 3/25/2024, wherein claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in Japan. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2023-058721, filed on March 31, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2024 and 03/12/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as containing an informality. Claim 2 recites “one or more front wheels” and “one or more rear wheels,” while claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 subsequently refer to “the front wheel” and “the rear wheel.” Applicant is invited to conform the recitations by amending claim 2 to recite “at least one front wheel” and “at least one rear wheel,” and amending the subsequent references in claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 to “the at least one front wheel” and “the at least one rear wheel.” Consistency with the “plurality of front wheels” recited in claim 12 should be maintained. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 invokes 112(f) describing a “lifting unit and “moving unit.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned are “lifting unit” (pantograph links 43/coupling units 44) and “moving unit” (first cylinder 61, second cylinder 62, connecting unit 63).
Claim 4 invokes 112(f) describing a “load lifting unit” as understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings to be the combined load lifting unit 52 on mast 53.
Claim 7 invokes 112(f) describing a “first/second lifting unit” as understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings to be pantographs 43/44.
Claim 9 invokes 112(f) describing a “front wheel lifting unit” as understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings to be outrigger 91.
Claim 10 invokes 112(f) describing a “first base body lifting unit” as understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings to be suspension 29.
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;
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Picha discloses:
A carriage (See Fig. 6, pallet shelfing apparatus 400) comprising:
a first base including wheels (See Fig. 6, ground locomotion chassis 420 including locomotion chassis 424 and wheel sets 426, 428, 434, and 436);
a second base positioned above the first base (See Fig. 6, platform 402 above locomotion chassis 424);
a lifting unit for lifting the second base from the first base or lowering the second base to the first base (See Fig. 6, scissors lift 422 raising/lowering platform 402); (See also Paragraph [0171]: “Scissors lift 422 sets the height of platform 402 as desired. Scissors lift 422 includes four lock lift bars 445 and 446, four roll lift bars 448 and 449 and lift drive mechanism that includes lift motor 458, lift shaft 457, and lift nut 456”);
a loading unit having a fork for holding an object, the loading unit being configured to load or unload an object (See Fig. 6, deployable pallet carrying structure in the form of two telescopic retractably extendable beams 406 mounted to platform 402 configured to enter hollow inner apertures of a pallet and support the pallet, together with trolley 416 and load support jacks 472 for carrying the pallet during loading/unloading); (See also Paragraph [0178]: “Diamond-type carry jacks 408 are operative to deploy for supporting beams 406 against the far side of the selected shelf during loading/unloading of the pallet”); (See also Paragraph [0182]: “For both the loading mode and the unloading mode the sequence starts when ground locomotion 420, places apparatus 400 at an appropriate ground location, base turret 484 sets apparatus 400 at an appropriate operation direction and scissors lift 422 appropriately sets the height of deployable spars 410 slightly above a support shelf, which is located below the selected shelf within the shelf structure. For the loading mode, thereafter, the height and ground location of beams 406 is further set by ground locomotion 420 and by platform height adjustment mechanism 482, such that beams 406 are directed to adjacently face the hollow inner apertures of the pallet. For the unloading mode, thereafter, the height and ground location of beams 406 is further set by ground locomotion 420 and by platform height adjustment mechanism 482, so as to enable the pallet, resting on beams 406, to move freely above the selected shelf, when trolleys 416 carry the pallet to the selected shelf, right after extraction of beams 406”);
a moving unit for moving the loading unit away from or toward the second base in a front-rear direction in which the fork extends (See Fig.6, static beam portions 460, dynamic beam portions 462, rollers 464 and 466, lead grooves 468, trolleys 416); ”); (See also Paragraph [0183]: “beams 406 are extracted by extracting dynamic beam portions 462 from static beam portions 460 until carry jacks 408 are placed above the distal side of the selected shelf”).
Regarding Claim 2, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 1, wherein the wheels include:
one or more front wheels positioned on a front side toward which the fork extends in the front-rear direction, and one or more rear wheels positioned on a rear side of the front wheel, the rear side being opposite to the front side in the front-rear direction (See Fig. 6, first wheel set 426, 428 and second wheel set 434, 436 arranged front and rear). The wheels located on the side toward which beams 406 extend correspond to the claimed front wheels, and the wheels located on the opposite side correspond to the claimed rear wheels.
Regarding Claim 4, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 1, wherein the loading unit includes a load lifting unit for lifting the fork from the second base or lowering the fork toward the second base (See Fig. 6, the load support jacks 472 and platform height adjustment mechanism 482 correspond to the claimed load lifting unit because they raise and lower the pallet-supporting beam/trolley loading structure relative to platform 402.); (See also Paragraph [0175]: “Telescopic load support jacks 472 are pivotally mounted on mid front of spars 410 by hinges 474. Jacks 472 are operative in three different ways, according to the operation mode of apparatus 400. In the loading/unloading mode, jacks 472 are operative to raise or lower distal side of beams 406”); (See also [0180]: “Platform height adjustment mechanism 482 is operative to raise and lower platform 402 together with beams 406, as required during the loading/unloading process”).
Regarding Claim 12, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 2, wherein the wheels include a plurality of front wheels (See Fig. 6, first wheel set 426, 428 and second wheel set 434, 436 arranged front and rear). The wheels located on the side toward which beams 406 extend correspond to the claimed front wheels, and the wheels located on the opposite side correspond to the claimed rear wheels.
Picha further discloses beams 406 and their associated movement structure positioned centrally between the front-side wheel locations in the width direction:
wherein the moving unit is positioned between the front wheels in a width direction that is perpendicular to the front-rear direction and parallel to a horizontal direction (See Paragraph [0176]: “Beams 406 are telescopically retractably extendable, and include static beam portions 460 and dynamic beam portions 462”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 2. Picha also discloses stabilizing pallet loading and unloading by controlling the height and position of beams 406. (See Paragraph [0182]: “the height and ground location of beams 406 is further set by ground locomotion 420 and by platform height adjustment mechanism 482, such that beams 406 are directed to adjacently face the hollow inner apertures of the pallet”); (See also Fig. 6, Scissors Lift 422 disposed rearward of the forward wheels).
However, Picha does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a center of gravity of the lifting unit is positioned on a rear side of the front wheel.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the center of gravity of the lifting unit on a rear side of the front wheel in order to reduce forward tipping during loading and unloading. Positioning a lifting-unit mass rearward of the forward wheel/tipping side would have been a predictable arrangement of a known component to obtain the recognized stability benefit in a load-handling carriage.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Kooi (EPO Patent Pub. EP 0367356 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 4.
However, Picha does not appear to disclose wherein the load lifting unit lifts or lowers the fork between a position above an upper surface of the second base and a position below the upper surface.
In the field of endeavor, Kooi teaches:
wherein the load lifting unit lifts or lowers the fork between a position above an upper surface of the second base and a position below the upper surface (See FIG. 1, frame (2) as the base and where fork (6) is moveable above and below the surface of the base).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively provide the load lifting unit to Picha to move the fork/beams between a position above and a position below the upper surface of platform 402, as taught by Kooi, in order to provide positive and negative vertical fork travel and thereby allow the loading unit to pick up or deposit loads at different elevations relative to the carriage platform; this would have yielded the predictable result of expanded vertical loading/unloading range. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding Claim 6, Picha in view of Kooi discloses:
The carriage of claim 5.
However, Picha does not appear to disclose wherein the loading unit has a mast housing therein the load lifting unit.
In the field of endeavor, Kooi teaches:
wherein the loading unit has a mast housing therein the load lifting unit (See Col. 4, Line 3: “The main mast 4 comprises an outer mast 25 connected to the frame and an inner mast 24 slidable therein. The auxiliary mast 23 is again mounted slidably in the inner mast 24 by means of rollers 31, 32”); (See also Figs. 1-4). Thus, Kooi teaches a mast structure housing/guiding the load lifting unit that moves the forks up and down.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the loading unit of Picha, as modified by Kooi, with a mast housing/guiding the load lifting unit as taught by Kooi, in order to support the guide vertical movement of the fork/load bearer during loading and unloading. Applying Kooi’s known mast-housed fork-lifting arrangement to the mobile pallet-loading carriage of Picha would have yielded the predictable result of guided and structurally supported vertical fork travel. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Ghirardi et al. (US Patent 11,780,718 B2), hereinafter “Ghirardi.”
Regarding Claim 7, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 1 including the lifting unit, as well as one lifting unit connected to a first site of the first base and second site of the second base.
However, Picha does not appear to disclose wherein the lifting unit includes: the first lifting unit being configured to lift the second base from the first base or lower the second base to the first base; and a second lifting unit that is connected to a third site of the first base and to a fourth site of the second base, the second lifting unit being configured to lift the second base from the first base or lower the second base to the first base, wherein the first and third sites sandwich a center of the first base in the front-rear direction and in a width direction that is perpendicular to the front-rear direction and parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein the second and fourth sites sandwich a center of the second base in the front-rear direction and in the width direction.
In the field of endeavor, Ghirardi teaches:
a first lifting unit that is connected to a first site of the first base and to a second site of the second base, the first lifting unit being configured to lift the second base from the first base or lower the second base to the first base; and a second lifting unit that is connected to a third site of the first base and to a fourth site of the second base, the second lifting unit being configured to lift the second base from the first base or lower the second base to the first base (See Col. 3, Line 18: “The accessory device 1 according to the invention is configured to be mounted on board the AGV A, for example, to facilitate loading onto, and unloading from, said AGV, of an object transported by the AGV itself, for example object or component T (shown in phantom line) in FIG. 1. Exemplary component T is illustrated as supported by an exemplary pillar PP.”); (See also Col. 3, Line 62: “The upper platform 4 has two end portions 40, each of which is rigidly connected above a respective lifting unit 2, in such a way that the upper platform 4 can be raised or lowered by the lifting units 2.”); Ghirardi discloses the two pantograph lifting units connected between base surface 3 and upper platform 4;
wherein the first and third sites sandwich a center of the first base in the front-rear direction and in a width direction that is perpendicular to the front-rear direction and parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein the second and fourth sites sandwich a center of the second base in the front-rear direction and in the width direction (See Figs.1- 6); (See also Claim 1: “two lifting units arranged to be mounted above a base surface of said AGV and positioned transverse to a longitudinal direction of the AGV”); the two lifting units 2 are fixed on opposite sides of, and thereby flank, the center of base surface 3, and the two end portions 40 connected to them flank the center of upper platform 4.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single scissors lift of Picha to comprise two spaced lifting units connected to the first and second bases at sites flanking their centers, as taught by Ghirardi, in order to support and raise the platform in a balanced manner by distributing the lifting forces to opposite sides of the base center since so doing is to apply Ghirardi’s known dual-lifting-unit arrangement from an analogous wheeled load-lifting platform and arranging two such units to flank the center in both directions which is a predictable arrangement of a known number of lifting units involving only routine skill.
Regarding Claim 8, Picha in view of Ghirardi discloses:
The carriage of claim 7 as set forth above, as well as:
wherein the first base is shaped like a rectangle when seen in a lifting direction in which the lifting unit lifts or lowers the second base and wherein the second base is shaped like a rectangle when seen in the lifting direction (See Picha Fig. 6, locomotion chassis 424 and platform 402 are generally rectangular when seen in the lifting direction).
Ghirardi further teaches:
wherein the first site is positioned at a first corner of the first base; wherein the third site is positioned at a second corner of the first base, the second corner being diagonally opposite to the first corner, wherein the second site is positioned at a third corner of the second base, and wherein the fourth site is positioned at a fourth corner of the second base, the fourth corner being diagonally opposite to the third base connection corner (See Figs. 6A and 6B), the site of one lifting unit 2 positioned at a diagonally opposite corner region of upper platform 4). Ghirardi teaches, across related alternate examples of the same accessory modular device, two lifting units 2 arranged between base surface 3, and upper platform 4. In particular, Figs. 6A and 6B show the corner/diagonal position relied upon in Claim 8 of the instant application.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the two lifting units of Picha, as modified by Ghirardi, at diagonally opposite corner regions of the rectangular first and second bases, as taught by Ghirardi, in order to distribute lifting forces across the rectangular base/platform structure and provide stable lifting support. Applying Ghirardi’s known corner-positioned dual-lifting-unit arrangement to Picha’s rectangular mobile platform would have yielded the predictable result of balance lifting support. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Lim (KR 2022-0104989 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 2.
However, Picha does not appear to disclose wherein a front wheel lifting unit for lifting a portion of the first base that faces a front side such that the front wheel moves away from a surface on which the carriage is placed.
In the field of endeavor, Lim teaches:
wherein a front wheel lifting unit for lifting a portion of the first base that faces a front side such that the front wheel moves away from a surface on which the carriage is placed (See Fig. 7, wheel lifting means 100, lever 101, displacing the support so a ground-contacting member is lifted from the floor).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carriage of Picha with a front wheel lifting unit, as taught by Lim, in order to selectively raise a front-side portion of the base and improve stability during loading/unloading operations. Such modification applies a known wheel-lifting technique to a known mobile load-handling carriage to obtain the predictable result of adjusting wheel-ground contact and resisting forward tipping.
Regarding Claim 10, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 2, including wherein a first base body having the wheels (See Fig. 6, first wheel set 426, 428 and second wheel set 434, 436 arranged front and rear).
However, Picha does not appear to disclose a first base body lifting unit for changing a distance between the front wheel and the first base body in a lifting direction in which the lifting unit lifts or lowers the second base.
In the field of endeavor, Lim Teaches wherein the first base includes:
a first base body lifting unit for changing a distance between the front wheel and the first base body in a lifting direction in which the lifting unit lifts or lowers the second base (See Fig. 7, wheel lifting means 100 displacing driving wheel 60 and steering shaft 70 relative to frame 10).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lim’s wheel-to-body distance-changing mechanism into the first base body of Picha, in order to raise the front portion relative to the wheels for the same anti-tip purpose described for claim 9. The modification would have been a predictable use of Lim’s wheel lifting structure in Picha’s analogous wheeled load-handling carriage. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Lim (KR 2022-0104989 A), and further in view of Draayer et al. (US Patent 11760615 B2), hereinafter “Draayer.”
Regarding Claim 11, Picha in view of Lim discloses:
The carriage of claim 9.
However, Picha/Lim do not appear to disclose a sensor for measuring a load applied to the front wheel and a load applied to the rear wheel.
In the field of endeavor, Draayer teaches:
a sensor for measuring a load applied to the front wheel and a load applied to the rear wheel (See Col. 5, Line 29: “Other suitable vehicle condition sensors 106 may include one or more wheel force sensors, a vehicle level sensor, a carriage level sensor, one or more support element force differential sensors, a mast tilt force sensor, a vehicle direction sensor, or some combination thereof. The wheel force sensors may measure the force experienced by one or more of the wheels affected by the body of the vehicle and/or the load. The vehicle level sensor may measure an orientation of the body of the vehicle relative to the level position of the body. The carriage level sensor may measure an orientation of the carriage relative to a level position of the carriage.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the carriage of Picha, as modified by Lim, with wheel force sensors as taught by Draayer, in order to measure forces or loads applied to the front and rear wheels and determine vehicle/load stability during lifting and transport. Applying known wheel-force sensing to a mobile load-handling carriage would have yielded the predictable result of improved stability monitoring and control. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Koga et al. (US 3871265 A), hereinafter “Koga.”
Regarding Claim 13, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 1, including a moving unit for moving the loading unit away from or toward the second base in a front-rear direction as set forth above (See Paragraph [0183]: “beams 406 are extracted by extracting dynamic beam portions 462 from static beam portions 460 until carry jacks 408 are placed above the distal side of the selected shelf”); (See also Paragraph [0186]: ”Dynamic beam portions 462 are then retracted to fold into static beam portions 460”).
However, Picha does not appear to disclose the moving unit including the specifically recited first cylinder connected to the second base, second cylinder connected to the loading unit, and connecting unit connected to the first and second cylinders, wherein the first cylinder moves the connecting unit from or to the second base in the front-rear direction or wherein the second cylinder moves the loading unit from or to the connecting unit in the front-rear direction.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem of extending and retracting a load-supporting member, Koga teaches a staged hydraulic extension mechanism including first and second cylinders and an intermediate connecting member. As shown in Fig. 1 and disclosed at Col. 2, Line 42, “The hydraulic cylinder assembly 10 comprises a lower or base cylinder 12 and an upper or forward cylinder 13 disposed in parallel with each other, and the boom 11 comprises an outer boom 14 and a middle boom 15 and an inner boom 16 which are telescopically fitted into the outer boom 14.”
Koga further teaches that the two cylinders act in series through the intermediate member (See Col. 3, Line 8: “when the lower cylinder 12 is actuated, the middle or intermediate boom 15 is extended or retracted in unison with the inner boom 16 with respect to the outer boom 14. Similarly, when the upper cylinder 13 is actuated the inner boom 16 is extended or retracted with respect to the intermediate or middle boom 15.”). The cylinder barrels 17 and 18 of the lower and upper cylinder are joined together by connecting pin 23 and are both securely fixed to the middle boom 15, so the middle boom 15 is connected to both cylinders. (See Fig. 1).
Applying this teaching to the recited limitations: the lower or base cylinder 12 corresponds to the claimed first cylinder; the upper of forward cylinder 13 corresponds to the claimed second cylinder; and the middle boom 15 corresponds to the claimed connecting unit. In the proposed combination, Koga’s outer boom 14/base-side support would be fixed to or supported by Picha’s platform 402, which corresponds to the claimed second base. Thus, Koga’s lower or base cylinder 12 is connected to the second base through the fixed outer boom/base-side support of the extension mechanism.
Koga’s lower or base cylinder 12 moves the middle boom 15 relative to the outer boom 14, corresponding to moving the connecting unit from or to the second base in the front-rear direction. Koga’s upper cylinder 13 moves the inner boom 16 relative to the middle boom 15, corresponding to moving the loading unit from or to the connecting unit in the front-rear direction.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the moving unit of Picha to alternatively use the staged hydraulic extension mechanism of Koga in order to extend and retract the loading unit in the front-rear direction using first and second cylinders with an intermediate connecting unit. Such modification would have been the simple substitution of one known extension-drive arrangement for another, yielding the predictable result of extended front-rear travel using known hydraulic extension components. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I).
Claim 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US Patent 4986387 A), hereinafter “Thompson.”
Regarding Claim 14, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 1,
However, Picha does not appear to disclose wherein the wheels include a first wheel and a second wheel having a smaller diameter than the first wheel.
In the field of endeavor, Thompson teaches:
wherein the wheels include a first wheel and a second wheel having a smaller diameter than the first wheel (See Col. 4, Line 54: “The front wheels are of larger diameter than the rear wheels and the torque hubs thereof are selected to provide a predetermined torque thereto.”); (See also Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wheels of Picha with a first wheel and a second wheel having a smaller diameter than the first wheel, as taught by Thompson, in order to provide larger front load-supporting wheels and a smaller rear steerable wheel in a forklift-type load-handling vehicle. Applying this known wheel-size arrangement to the carriage of Picha would have yielded the predictable result of providing front-side load support, rear-side steering, and compact rear-wheel packaging using known wheel-size selection. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding Claim 16, Picha in view of Thompson discloses:
The carriage of claim 14 as set forth above, as well as motors for driving the wheels (See Paragraph [0169]: “drive motors 430 and 438”).
However, Picha does not appear to disclose the carriage comprising: a first speed reducer for reducing rotation input from the first motor and transmitting the reduced rotation to the first wheel; and a second speed reducer for reducing rotation input from the second motor and transmitting the reduced rotation into the second wheel, wherein the first speed reducer has a higher reduction ratio than the second speed reducer.
In the field of endeavor, Thompson teaches:
a first motor for inputting rotation into the first wheel (See Fig. 2, hydraulic motor 31 for driving forth wheel 21 and hydraulic motor 32 for driving front wheel 22);
a first speed reducer for reducing rotation input from the first motor and transmitting the reduced rotation to the first wheel (See Fig. 2, torque hubs 36 and 37);
a second motor for inputting rotation into the second wheel (See Fig. 2, hydraulic motor 33); and
a second speed reducer for reducing rotation input from the second motor and
transmitting the reduced rotation into the second wheel (See Fig. 2, torque hub 38),
wherein the first speed reducer has a higher reduction ratio than the second speed reducer (See Col. 1, Line 38: “the hydraulic motor for the single rear dolly wheel and the two front wheels, although receiving fluid from the same manifold, are geared to the respective wheels so that the single smaller third wheel is driven at a predetermined faster speed than the two larger wheels”). Because Thompson teaches that the smaller rear wheel 23 is driven at a faster speed than the larger front wheels, Thompson teaches selecting different reduction ratios for the front-wheel torque hubs 36/37 and rear-wheel torque hub 38. The larger front wheels are driven at a slower speed than the small rear wheel, corresponding to the first speed reducer having a higher reduction ratio than the second speed reducer.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the carriage of Picha, as modified by Thompson, with first and second speed reducers having different reduction ratios, as taught by Thompson, in order to match wheel speed and output toque to different wheel diameters while maintaining desired tractive force. Selecting a reduction ratio to obtain a desired torque/speed relationship is an optimization of a result-effective variable in vehicle drive design. See KSR; MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17, Picha in view of Thompson discloses:
The carriage of claim 14 as set forth above.
Picha further discloses:
wherein the first wheel is a front wheel positioned on a front side toward which the fork extends in the front-rear direction, and wherein the second wheel is a rear wheel positioned on a rear side of the front wheel in the front-rear direction, the rear side being opposite to the front side; (See Fig. 6, first wheel set 426, 428 and second wheel set 434, 436 arranged front and rear); The wheels located on the side toward which beams 406 extend correspond to the claimed front wheels, and the wheels located on the opposite side correspond to the claimed rear wheels.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US Patent 4986387 A), and further in view of Inoh et al. (US Patent 11273706), hereinafter “Inoh.”
Regarding Claim 15, Picha in view of Thompson discloses:
The carriage of claim 14 as set forth above.
Thompson also teaches the carriage comprising a first motor for inputting rotation into the first wheel; and a second motor for inputting rotation into the second wheel (See Col. 2, Line 60: “The hydraulic motors for the front wheels and the rear wheel may be different, the respective motors being selected in accordance with the gear ratios of the respective hubs. Each motor is selected to give only sufficient power to drive its connected torque hub to attain the desired torque.”).
However, Picha/Thompson does not appear to disclose wherein the first motor has larger output capacity than the second motor.
In the field of endeavor, Inoh teaches:
wherein the first motor has larger output capacity than the second motor (See Col. 5, Line 20: “FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram of characteristics of the first motor 21 and the second motor 23. Maximum rated torque of the first motor 21 may be greater than maximum rated torque of the second motor 23”). The greater maximum rated torque of the first motor corresponds to the first motor having a larger output capacity that the second motor.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the carriage of Picha, as modified by Thompson, with a first motor having larger output capacity than the second motor, as taught by Inoh, in order to match motor output capacity to wheel size, torque demand, or traction requirements. Thompson already teaches selecting different motors and torque hubs for the front and rear wheels to attain desired torque, and Inoh expressly teaches first and second motors having different maximum rated torque. Applying Inoh’s known unequal motor-output arrangement to Thompson’s unequal wheel/torque arrangement would have yielded the predictable result of providing appropriate drive output to differently loaded or differently sized wheels.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha (US Patent Pub. US 20200391986 A1) in view of Hu et al. (China Patent CN 104692293 A), hereinafter “Hu.”
Regarding Claim 18, Picha discloses:
The carriage of claim 1.
However, Picha does not appear to disclose wherein the wheels are mecanum wheels.
In the field of endeavor, Hu teaches:
wherein the wheels are mecanum wheels (See Fig. 1, forklift chassis 1 and two groups of Mecanum wheels 2); (See also Abstract: “A full automatic omni-directional forklift, forklift chassis, the bottom is set with two groups of Mecanum wheel[s]”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Mecanum wheels, as taught by Hu, for the wheels of Picha, in order to provide omnidirectional movement and improved maneuverability in confined warehouse environments. Such modification is the simple substitution of one known wheel arrangement for another to obtain the predictable result of multidirectional movement of a mobile load-handling carriage. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7823698 B2, Three Stage Mast, relates generally to the industrial vehicle field and more particularly, to a forklift truck providing both extensive positive (upward above ground level) and negative (downward below ground level) lift capabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights