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 .
Status of the claims
This office action is made in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 12/17/2025 wherein claims 2, 4, and 9 have been canceled, claims 1 and 3 have been amended, no new claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10-11 are pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/17/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claims 4 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
a portable radio-controlled device configured for controlling the vehicle;
a plurality of control elements which are configured to be operated manually by an operator for driving relative.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Portable radio-controlled device 12 in Fig. 3; Page 6, Lines 1-15;
Control Elements in Figure 4; Page 7, Lines 1-20;
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2021/276848 A1; herein “Miller”) in view of OTAKE (US20170232973).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a multifunctional lifting vehicle (par.187 "Referring now to FIGS. 47-49, an operator is depicted remotely controlling a material handling vehicle
using a controller 2006" fig. 47 and 49) comprising:
- a base frame (fig. 47 and 49 the material handling vehicle has a base frame, there is no reference number related with it),
- a lifting assembly including at least one operating arm (fig. 47 and 49 the material handling vehicle has a telescopic lift arm, there is no reference number related with it) equipped with a connection section for mounting a tool (par.189 "If the lift device 10 or controller 2006 detects that a platform assembly 90 is coupled to the lift apparatus 14 (as opposed to forks 18, for example), the lift device 10 can first travel to a nearby location to execute an implement changing operation. The platform assembly 90 can be decoupled from the lift apparatus 14 and the forks 18 can be engaged by the lift apparatus 14." It is implied that a variety of tools can be attached to the lifting arm),
- a portable radio-controlled device (par.187 "The various equipment throughout the jobsite 2000 can be monitored and/or controlled using the controller 2006, which can be a part of or incorporated into a handheld mobile device 2008 (e.g., a phone, a tablet, laptop, etc.)") configured for controlling the vehicle from a remote position,
- wherein the portable radio-controlled device comprises a plurality of control elements which can be operated manually by an operator for driving relative movements and functions of the vehicle (fig.48),
- said multifunctional lifting vehicle (2002) wherein the a portable radio-controlled device comprises at least one control display screen (par.187 "the mobile device 2008 includes a graphical user interface (GUI) 2010 that can display a variety of different data sets relating to the jobsite 2000.")
- configured and programmed to display a plurality of movements and/or functions of the vehicle corresponding to respective actuations of the control elements of the radio-controlled device (par.190 "In some examples, the GUI 2010 is configured to provide a forward facing view 2012 from a camera positioned on the lift device 10, as well as one or more virtual joysticks 2014 or pads that can allow an operator to execute different driving, steering, lifting, or tilting operations. Accordingly, the operator
can control both the primary mover and the lift apparatus 14 using the mobile device 2008 and GUI 2010. In some examples, the GUI 2010 further includes a mode selection actuator 2016 as well. Tapping the mode selection actuator 2016 can toggle the lift device 10 (or other selected equipment) through various operational modes, as discussed above.");
an operating mode selector for selecting a specific operating mode of the vehicle, from those available operating modes, according to a type of the tool (par.186, fig.47 and 49; par.187:"The various equipment throughout the jobsite 2000 can be monitored and/or controlled using the controller 2006, which can be a part of or incorporated into a handheld mobile device 2008 (e.g., a phone, a tablet, laptop, etc.)"; par.188: "In some examples, the controller 2006 can be used to adjust a status of the one or more lift devices 10, MEWPs 2002, or drones 2004 on the jobsite 2000. For example, and as depicted in FIG. 48, the controller 2006 can be used to toggle through various different operational modes of the equipment at the jobsite 2000"; par.189: "In some examples, the different modes can include a material handling mode and an aerial work platform (AWP) mode. Depending on the selection of mode made by the user (e.g., using the controller 2006 and/or GUI 2010), the lift device 10 can determine whether it first needs to reconfigure its implement assembly 16. If the material handling mode is selected, the lift device 10 (e.g., using the controller 200) or the controller 2006 will first determine whether the appropriate implement is currently coupled to the lift apparatus 14");
the portable radio-controlled device is configured and programmed to display on the at least one control display screen a digital representation control elements (Par.190: "In some examples, the GUI 2010 is configured to provide a forward facing view 2012 from a camera positioned on the lift device 10, as well as one or more virtual joysticks 2014 or pads that can allow an operator to execute different driving, steering, lifting, or tilting operations. Accordingly, the operator can control both the primary mover and the lift apparatus 14 using the mobile device 2008 and GUI 2010. In some examples, the GUI 2010 further includes a mode selection actuator 2016 as well. Tapping the mode selection actuator 2016" it is implied that the remote controller provides according to the selected mode a specific user configuration.”).
However, Miller does not explicitly state a digital representation of a first subset of control elements of said plurality of control elements which are available for use according to the selected operating mode and/or stability conditions of the vehicle , without displaying other control elements of the plurality of control elements that are non-operable due to current operating conditions of the vehicle nor upon reaching a stability limit condition, the portable radio-controlled device is configured and programmed to display only a second subset of control elements of the plurality of control elements that allow the vehicle to return to a condition with increased stability.
On the other hand, OTAKE teaches a digital representation of a first subset of control elements of said plurality of control elements which are available for use according to the selected operating mode and/or stability conditions of the vehicle , without displaying other control elements of the plurality of control elements that are non-operable due to current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 4, Fig. 6: the vehicle control functions are selectively enabled or disabled depending on the operating mode of the vehicle, thereby defining a subset of control operations available to the operator; [0176]) and upon reaching a stability limit condition, the portable radio-controlled device is configured and programmed to display only a second subset of control elements of the plurality of control elements that allow the vehicle to return to a condition with increased stability (Abstract: acceleration is invalidated when abnormal state is detected; Fig. 9: abnormality detection, system transitions into restricted mode; Fig. 15; [0208]-[0210]: upon detection of abnormal condition, acceleration commands are invalidated and only deceleration or braking operations are permitted, restricting operator control to actions that restore vehicle safety; Note: By prohibiting acceleration override and enforcing only deceleration or braking operations the available control actions are limited to only those that increase stability, thus excluding non-permissible control actions from the set of controls available to the operator).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Miller reference and include features from the OTAKE reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves operational safety and reduce operator error by preventing selection of unavailable or unsafe control actions.
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses a main part of the at least one control display screen is arranged to display: i) relevant information of the selected operating mode, being a fork mode, ii) a schematic representation of the vehicle and related operating parameters including a height from the ground of the tool, and ii) an angle of inclination of the at least one operating arm with respect to the base frame (par.187: "In some examples, and as depicted in FIG. 48-49, the mobile device 2008 includes a graphical user interface (GUI) 2010 that can display a variety of different data sets relating to the jobsite 2000. The data sets can include machine performance or health status, for example, and can also include real-time data feeds (performance parameters, camera views, etc.) from one or more lift devices 10, MEWPs 2002, or drones 2004 positioned throughout the jobsite 2000; par.189 "the forks 18”).
Claims 3, 5-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and OTAKE in further view of Pfaff (US 2023/048274 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Miller does not explicitly state the at least one control display screen is configured and programmed to dynamically display functions and the plurality of movements and/or functions of the vehicle responsive to respective control elements of the portable radio-controlled device, as a function of a selected operating mode and/or the plurality of control elements of the portable radio-controlled device activated being actuated in real time.
On the other hand, Pfaff teaches the at least one control display screen is configured and programmed to dynamically display functions and the plurality of movements and/or functions of the vehicle responsive to respective control elements of the portable radio-controlled device, as a function of a selected operating mode and/or the plurality of control elements of the portable radio-controlled device activated being actuated in real time (par.79: "For example, the joystick 401 on the remote control device 292 can correspond to the digital joystick 426 on the GUI 422. According to some examples, movement or selection of the operator input modules 400 on the remote control device 292 can be mirrored on the corresponding digital inputs 424 on the GUI 422.").
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Miller reference and include features from the Pfaff reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety and operator usability by ensuring the operator can access controls dynamically.
Regarding claim 5, Miller does not explicitly state: - said plurality of control elements comprise at least one joystick, a portion of the at least one control display screen is constantly dedicated to a digital reproduction of the at least one joystick and its relative degrees of freedom, so as to show at said portion multiple icons representing the plurality of vehicle movements and/or functions of the vehicle, which are configured to be controlled by means of the at least one joystick.
On the other hand, Pfaff teaches - said plurality of control elements comprise at least one joystick, a portion of the at least one control display screen is constantly dedicated to a digital reproduction of the at least one joystick and its relative degrees of freedom, so as to show at said portion multiple icons representing the plurality of vehicle movements and/or functions of the vehicle, which are configured to be controlled by means of the at least one joystick (par.76, fig.8 ref.401; fig.9 see dedicated part of the screen 420 or user interface 422 the digital representation of the joysticks 426; par.76, fig.9 ref.426; fig.9 Each direction of the digital joystick corresponds to a specific motion of the lifting vehicle).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Miller reference and include features from the Pfaff reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety and operator usability by ensuring the operator can access controls dynamically.
Regarding claim 6, Miller discloses the claimed invention except for a color is associated with each available operating mode of the vehicle, shown on the at least one control display screen during a dynamic representation of the controls plurality of control elements available.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to have a color associated with each available operating mode of the vehicle since the examiner takes Official Notice that the use of colors to represent the vehicle operating modes is a slight construction in the Multifunctional lifting vehicle claimed herein which comes within the scope of the current invention, to make the lifting vehicle more interactive and user friendly.
Regarding claim 7, Miller does not explicitly state the plurality of control elements of the portable radio-controlled device activated that are actuated in a given instant are highlighted on the at least one display screen, so as to constantly indicate to the operator the plurality of control elements that are currently actuated.
On the other hand, Pfaff teaches the plurality of control elements of the portable radio-controlled device activated that are actuated in a given instant are highlighted on the at least one display screen, so as to constantly indicate to the operator the plurality of control elements that are currently actuated (par.79 "According to some examples, movement or selection of the operator input modules 400 on the remote control device 292 can be mirrored on the corresponding digital inputs 424 on the GUI 422." The mirroring action on the GUI 422 has to be indicated by highlighting the corresponding operator input).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Miller reference and include features from the Pfaff reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety and operator usability by ensuring the operator can access controls dynamically.
Regarding claim 8, Miller does not explicitly state the digital reproduction of the at least one joystick comprises directional keys in which respective icons are shown, said icons representing the vehicle functions that are configured to be controlled with the relative a respective directional key.
On the other hand, Pfaff teaches the digital reproduction of the at least one joystick comprises directional keys in which respective icons are shown, said icons representing the vehicle functions that are configured to be controlled with the relative a respective directional key (Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Miller reference and include features from the Pfaff reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety and operator usability by ensuring the operator can access controls dynamically.
Regarding claim 11, Miller does not explicitly state said at least one control display screen is arranged to display in all windows relevant information for operating the portable radio-controlled device and controlling the vehicle, including an amount of fuel contained in a tank of the vehicle, a battery charge of the portable radio-controlled device, an intensity of a transmission signal, a bubble level and a stability percentage of the vehicle.
On the other hand, Pfaff teaches said at least one control display screen is arranged to display in all windows relevant information for operating the portable radio-controlled device and controlling the vehicle, including an amount of fuel contained in a tank of the vehicle, a battery charge of the portable radio-controlled device, an intensity of a transmission signal, a bubble level and a stability percentage of the vehicle (see par.75).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Miller reference and include features from the Pfaff reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety and operator usability by ensuring the operator can access controls dynamically.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666