Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, I s being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application Number: 18/696,571 filed on 3/28/24 has a total of 20 claims pending for examination; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (e) with reference to Application Number: 2110269 filed on 9/29/21.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11 and 17-19 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,336,596 to Puszkiewicz et al. (hereinafter Puszkiewicz) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20190309901 to Crook (hereinafter Crook).
With regards to claims 1, 9 and 17, Puszkiewicz teaches a platform [figs 1, 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B] comprising:
a self-propelled chassis [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 12] equipped with a driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] configured to move the chassis [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 12] relative to a ground surface [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element below elements 40, 50]:
a deck [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 70] having a location configured to receive an operator [column 1 lines 39-41, column 6 lines 22-24];
a driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] configured to move the deck [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 70] between a low position and a high position [column 1 lines 41-43, column 4 lines 7-10];
a stair assembly [figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] mounted to be movable between a first position [figs 2A, 3, 8, 10, 11A] retracted in the chassis [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 12] and a second position [figs 2B, 4, 9A, 9B, 9C, 11B] at least partially extracted from the chassis [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 12] in which the stair assembly [figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] extends at least partially laterally offset with respect to the chassis [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 12] to allow access to an inside of the content of the stair assembly [element 102 is deployed to allow an operator access to the rungs within the stair/ladder structure in order to ascend/descend];
a manual control device [fig 3 elements 250, figs 2A, 2B element 252] configured to manually control the driving device and the driving system [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31]; and
a control unit [fig 7 element 242] configured to acquire data from the manual control device and to control the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] as a function of the data from the manual control device [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – elements 250, 252 send signals that control the movement along the ground and the raising or lowering of the scissor lift],
wherein
the platform [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B] comprises a position sensor [figs 7-8 element 254] configured to detect when the stair assembly [figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] is in the first position [column 12 lines 32-51] or [note use of alternate language] the second position [column 12 lines 32-51],
the control unit [fig 7 element 242] is configured to control the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] as a function of stair assembly position data supplied by the position sensor [figs 7-8 element 254 - column 12 lines 32-51], and
the control unit [fig 7 element 242] is configured to prevent operation of the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] when the stair assembly [figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] is in the second position [figs 2B, 4, 9A, 9B, 9C, 11B] at least partially extracted from the chassis [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 and column 12 lines 32-51].
Puszkiewics teaches all of the above but is silent as to having a technical box performing the functions of the stair assembly above.
However, Crook teaches a scissor lift [Crook fig 1] having a technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20] that is mounted to be movable between a first position [Crook figs 1, 5 – paragraph 19] retracted in the chassis [Crook fig 1 element 12] and a second position [Crook fig 3 element 20 – paragraph 19] at least partially extracted from the chassis [Crook fig 3 element 20] in which the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20] extends at least partially laterally offset with respect to the chassis [Crook fig 1 element 12] to allow access to an inside of the content of the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20 – paragraph 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Puszkiewicz and Crook to have any technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20] that is mounted to either of the Puszkiewicz or Crooks inventions to be movable between a first position [Crook figs 1, 5 – paragraph 19] retracted in the chassis [Crook fig 1 element 12] and a second position [Crook fig 3 element 20 – paragraph 19] at least partially extracted from the chassis [Crook fig 3 element 20] in which the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20] extends at least partially laterally offset with respect to the chassis [Crook fig 1 element 12] to allow access to an inside of the content of the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20 – paragraph 19] and for the control unit [fig 7 element 242] be configured to prevent operation of the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] when the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20] is in the second position [Crook fig 3 element 20] at least partially extracted from the chassis for the benefit of providing safe operation of machinery to the operator and the surroundings by preventing movement of any elements that swing out from the chassis that may cause an accident [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 and column 12 lines 32-51].
With regards to claims 2, 10 and 18, the combination of Puszkiewicz and Crook teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the manual control device [fig 3 elements 250, figs 2A, 2B element 252] includes a control console [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] borne by the deck [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 70], the control console [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] including at least one of [note use of alternate language] a first manual control [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] for the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] and a second manual control [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] for the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40], and the control unit [fig 7 element 242] is configured to allow and prohibit control of the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] and of the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] from the control console [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] as a function of the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20 being in the same position as Puszkiewicz figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] position data supplied by the position sensor [figs 7-8 element 254 - column 12 lines 32-51], combined under the same rationale as above.
With regards to claims 3, 11 and 19, the combination of Puszkiewicz and Crook teaches the platform as claimed in claim 2, wherein the control unit [fig 7 element 242] is configured to prohibit any control [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 and column 12 lines 32-51] of the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] and of the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] when the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20 being in the same position as Puszkiewicz figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] is in the second position [figs 2B, 4, 9A, 9B, 9C, 11B], combined under the same rationale as above.
Claim(s) 4-6, 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,336,596 to Puszkiewicz et al. (hereinafter Puszkiewicz) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20190309901 to Crook (hereinafter Crook) in view of US Patent No. 6,272,413 to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter Takahashi).
With regards to claims 4, 12 and 20, the combination of Puszkiewicz and Crook teaches all of the above but is silent as to the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chassis includes an inclination sensor, the inclination sensor being a sensor configured to determine a parameter representative of an inclination of the chassis with respect to a reference plane corresponding to the chassis being positioned on a horizontal flat surface, and the control unit of the driving device and of the driving system is configured to acquire inclination data from the inclination sensor and to control the driving device as a function of the inclination data supplied by the inclination sensor and the position sensor.
However, Takahashi teaches a chassis [Takahashi figs 2, 5 element 11] includes an inclination sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34], the inclination sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34] being a sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34] configured to determine a parameter [Takahashi column 6 lines 55-57, 64-67] representative of an inclination of the chassis [Takahashi figs 2, 5 element 11] with respect to a reference plane [Takahashi – reference slope angle θ,0 – column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50] corresponding to the chassis [Takahashi figs 2, 5 element 11] being positioned on a horizontal flat surface, and a control unit [fig 1 elements 40, 41] of a driving device [Takahashi fig 2 elements 14, 17] and of the driving system [Takahashi fig 2 element 12] is configured to acquire inclination data [Takahashi fig 1 shows element 34 sending signals to elements 40, 41 - column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50] from the inclination sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34] and to control the driving device as a function of the inclination data supplied by the inclination sensor and the position sensor [Takahashi column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50] for the benefit of restraining or preventing the toppling over of the platform [Takahashi column 8 lines 6-46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Puszkiewicz, Crook and Takahashi to have the chassis [Takahashi figs 2, 5 element 11] include an inclination sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34], the inclination sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34] being a sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34] configured to determine a parameter [Takahashi column 6 lines 55-57, 64-67] representative of an inclination of the chassis [Takahashi figs 2, 5 element 11] with respect to a reference plane [Takahashi – reference slope angle θ,0 – column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50] corresponding to the chassis [Takahashi figs 2, 5 element 11] being positioned on a horizontal flat surface, and the control unit [fig 1 elements 40, 41] of the driving device [Takahashi fig 2 elements 14, 17] and of the driving system [Takahashi fig 2 element 12] is configured to acquire inclination data [Takahashi fig 1 shows element 34 sending signals to elements 40, 41 - column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50] from the inclination sensor and to control the driving device as a function of the inclination data supplied by the inclination sensor and the position sensor [Takahashi column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50] for the benefit of restraining or preventing the toppling over of the platform [Takahashi column 8 lines 6-46].
With regards to claims 5 and 13, the combination of Puszkiewicz, Crook and Takahashi teaches the platform as claimed in claim 4, wherein the manual control device [fig 3 elements 250, figs 2A, 2B element 252] of the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] and of the driving system [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B elements 40] includes a control console [figs 2A, 2B, 3 element 250 - column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] configured to be borne by the chassis [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 12], the control console [figs 2A, 2B, 3 element 250 - column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] including a manual control [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 – “may include joysticks, buttons, sliders, switches, touchscreens, displays or other components to facilitate an interface…”] of the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] and the control unit [fig 7 element 242] is configured to allow and prohibit control of the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] from the control console as a function of the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20 being in the same position as Puszkiewicz figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] position data supplied by the position sensor [figs 7-8 element 254 - column 12 lines 32-51] and the inclination data supplied by the inclination sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34 - Takahashi column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50], combined under the same rationale as above.
With regards to claims 6 and 14, the combination of Pszkiewicz, Crook and Takahashi teaches the platform as claimed in claim 5, wherein the control unit [fig 7 element 242] is configured to prohibit any control of the driving device [figs 1, 2A-2B, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 14] from the control console when the technical box [Crook fig 3 element 20 being in the same position as Puszkiewicz figs 2A-2B, 3, 4, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11B element 102] is in the second position [figs 2B, 4, 9A, 9B, 9C, 11B] at least partially extracted from the chassis [column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 and column 12 lines 32-51] and
when the inclination sensor [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34] detects that the inclination of the chassis is greater than a predetermined value [Takahashi fig 1 elements 34 - Takahashi column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 50], combined under the same rationale as above].
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,336,596 to Puszkiewicz et al. (hereinafter Puszkiewicz) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20190309901 to Crook (hereinafter Crook) in view of US Patent No. 6,272,413 to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter Takahashi) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20230079946 to Fung et al. (hereinafter Fung).
With regards to claim 7 and 15, the combination of Pszkiewicz, Crook and Takahashi is silent as to the platform as claimed in claim 4, wherein the inclination sensor is an accelerometer borne by the chassis.
However, Fung teaches a lift [Fung element 10] having using an inclination sensor [Fung element 72] being an accelerometer [Fung paragraph 30] borne by the chassis [Fung element 12] for the benefit of determining the grade of the lift with a high degree of sensitivity [Fung paragraphs 60-62, 64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Puszkiewicz, Crook, Takahashi and Fung to have the inclination sensor [Fung element 72] be an accelerometer [Fung paragraph 30] borne by the chassis [Fung element 12] for the benefit of determining the grade of the lift with a high degree of sensitivity [Fung paragraphs 60-62, 64].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,336,596 to Puszkiewicz et al. (hereinafter Puszkiewicz) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20190309901 to Crook (hereinafter Crook) in view of US Patent No. 11,770,677 to Lesesky et al. (hereinafter Lesesky).
With regards to claims 8 and 16, the combination of Puszkiewicz and Crook teaches all of the above but is silent as to the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the platform includes an emission device configured to emit an alert signal and the control unit is configured to control the emission device as a function of the technical box position data supplied by the position sensor.
However, Lesesky teaches an emission device [Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47] configured to emit an alert signal [Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47 – trigger an alert to the user] and a control unit is configured to control the emission device as a function of the an accessory’s position data supplied by a position sensor [Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47] for the benefit of making a user aware so they can prevent/correct a dangerous situation.[Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Puszkiewicz, Crook and Lesesky to have the platform include an emission device [Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47] configured to emit an alert signal [Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47 – trigger an alert to the user] and the control unit is configured to control the emission device as a function of the technical box position data supplied by the position sensor [Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47] for the benefit of making a user aware so they can prevent/correct a dangerous situation [Lesesky column 13 lines 36-47].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 1-20, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Puszkiewicz column 11 line 58 to column 12 line 31 and in particular column 12 lines 32-51 disclose using a limit switch to detect if an element (stair assembly) is open or closed and then relaying the information to a controller to prevent movement of the driving system when the element is in a position other than the stored position (a first position in the claims). This clearly provides for the safe operation of machinery to the operator and the surroundings by preventing movement of any elements that swings out from the chassis that would cause an accident if left open and allowed to get caught or hit something. This is what is being applied to Crook’s technical box that swings out laterally from a chassis, in a similar manner as the stair assembly of Puszkiewicz.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Puszkiewicz reference is relied upon to teach the function of preventing operation of a driving system based the orientation or position of an element (a stair assembly in this case) that is movable between a first position retracted in the chassis and a second position at least partially extracted from the chassis (extending laterally). Puszkiewicz teaches that when the stair assembly is in the second position at least partially extracted laterally, the operation of the driving system is prevented. The same teaching can be applied of preventing movement whenever an element isn’t closed (i.e. the element, such as a technical box taught by Crook, when being open/extending laterally from a chassis). This would prevent accidents when said element (technical box of Crook or the stair assembly) is left open/extending laterally and the system is attempted to be moved.
The above rejection is applying the teachings of Puszkiewicz to a technical box such as the one taught by Crook. The examiner isn’t replacing Puszkiewicz’s stair assembly by Crook’s technical box, but applying the teachings of Puszkiewicz’s stair assembly being open and preventing movement to Crook’s technical box. Puszkiewicz could have a technical box as taught by Crook on the opposing side of frame 12 as admitted in Applicant’s remarks, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that that would be the side driven tight next to a structure since either side could be driven by a structure or be driven by no structure at all laterally if the scissor lift is being used to reach a ceiling or something else that is elevated. Crook’s scissor lift could apply the teachings of Puszkiewicz and not have a stair assembly at all. Crook could easily incorporate the sensor and control unit of Puszkiewicz and easily prevent Crook’s scissor lift from moving if the technical box is open as well. Either way would work.
Due to the above reasoning, claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID E MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4152. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Daniel P Cahn can be reached on (571)270-5616. 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.
DEM
/DAVID E MARTINEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634