DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 11-20 have been examined and rejected. This is the first Office action on the merits.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 11 recites the limitation “said at least one element” in [lines 9, 10-11] of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 11 had only previously mentioned “an element” in [line 5]. Examiner suggests changing “an element” in [line 5] to --at least one element-- or changing “said at least one element” in [lines 9, 10-11] to --said element--.
b. Claim 12 recites the limitation “said elements” in [line 2] of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because only “an element” was introduced in [line 5] of claim 11.
c. Claim 13 recites the limitation “at least one said element” in [line 2] of the claim. Since there is only “an element” introduced in [line 5] of claim 11, there appears to only be a single element. Therefore, Examiner suggests changing “at least one said element” to --said element--.
d. Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one said element” in [lines 3-4] of the claim. Since there is only “an element” introduced in [line 5] of claim 11, there appears to only be a single element. Therefore, Examiner suggests changing “at least one said element” to --said element--.
e. Claim 16 recites the limitation “at least one said element” in [line 3] of the claim. Since there is only “an element” introduced in [line 5] of claim 11, there appears to only be a single element. Therefore, Examiner suggests changing “at least one said element” to --said element--.
f. Claim 17 recites the limitation “at least one said element” in [line 1] of the claim. Since there is only “an element” introduced in [line 5] of claim 11, there appears to only be a single element. Therefore, Examiner suggests changing “at least one said element” to --said element--.
g. Claim 18 recites the limitation “at least one said element” in [line 5] of the claim. Since there is only “an element” introduced in [line 5] of claim 11, there appears to only be a single element. Therefore, Examiner suggests changing “at least one said element” to --said element--.
h. On [line 4] of claim 20, Examiner suggest changing “at least one said element” to --at least one of said elements--.
i. On [lines 6-7 and 9] of claim 20, Examiner suggest changing “said at least one element” to --said at least one of said elements--.
j. Claim 20 recites the limitation “said state of use” in [line 9] of the claim and “said states of use” in [line 10] of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations because the claim had only previously recited “at least one state of use” in [line 6] of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "and the like" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 11-14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beji et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,889,478).
7-1. Regarding claims 11 and 20, Beji teaches the claim comprising at least: a vehicle which can move over ground, by disclosing an aerial lift 3 comprising a chassis 30 provided with members for moving on the ground such as wheels or tracks, a platform 32, and a lift structure 34 of the platform 32 relative to the chassis 30 [column 3, lines 50-53; figures 5, 7]. The aerial lift may also be mounted on a truck chassis or a trailer chassis [column 9, lines 1-5].
Beji teaches a telescopic boom which is supported, directly or indirectly so that it can rotate, by said vehicle and is adapted to support a work accessory, by disclosing a telescoping upper arm 34b that can be rotated [column 3, line 55; column 4, lines 48-50; figure 5]. The upper arm 34b is connected to a pendular arm 34c and a platform 32 [column 3, lines 54-57].
Beji teaches an element for actuation of a respective movement of said lift, said element being of a type chosen from a button, a lever, a switch, a selector, and the like, by disclosing manual control members 13, 15, and 17 on control console 1 that control movement of the aerial lift [column 3, lines 40-42; column 4, lines 15-28].
Beji teaches further comprising an electronic control and management unit, provided at least with first instructions for a determination, instant by instant, at least of a state of use of the movement actuated by said at least one element, said state being variable between at least two from an enabled state, an inhibited state and an uncontrolled state, by disclosing one or several electronic control units of the aerial lift that limit the movement possibility based on a certain number of criteria [column 1, lines 18-22; column 6, lines 15-24].
Beji teaches the electronic control and management unit, provided at least with second instructions, for giving said at least one element a respective color, which corresponds to one of said states of use and is different from a color that corresponds to another of said states of use, by disclosing that for each of the manual control members 13, 15, and 17, lighted indicators can be fastened directly on the manual control member [column 6, lines 52-57; figure 3] having a color that indicates whether it is possible to perform movement via the control [column 5, lines 31-60].
7-2. Regarding claim 12, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 11, further comprising a plurality of said elements for the actuation of respective movements, said first instructions being configured for the respective determination, instant by instant, of the state of use of the movement of each said element, by disclosing manual control members 13, 15, and 17 on control console 1 that control movement of the aerial lift [column 3, lines 40-42; column 4, lines 15-28].
Beji teach said second instructions being configured to give instant by instant to each said element a respective color, which corresponds to its said state of use and is different from the color that corresponds to the other said states of use, by disclosing lighted indicators for each of the manual control members 13, 15, and 17 that emits a light in a color indicating the state of the control member [column 5, line 26 to column 6, line 13; column 6, lines 52-55].
7-3. Regarding claim 13, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 11, further comprising a safety module, functionally associated with said electronic unit and configured to inhibit the movement actuated by at least one said element upon detection of dangerous conditions associated with said movement and/or with an impossibility to execute said movement safely, by disclosing that the operating conditions of the lift 3 correspond to the state of different parts of the aerial lift 3, in particular to the position of the platform 32 relative to a predefined authorized movement envelope relative to the need to preserve the stability of the aerial lift 3 and safety standards, and the mechanical movement possibilities of the different parts of the lift structure 34 [column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 5]. The operating conditions also include 5 parameters measured by sensors, in particular, for example, the mass present on the platform 32 and the incline of the chassis 30, which are limited for safety reasons [column 5, lines 5-8].
7-4. Regarding claim 14, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 13, further comprising at least one sensor, arranged in functional communication with said safety module and configured to acquire information related to a possibility of safe execution of the movement actuated by at least one said element, said first instructions being configured to determine the enabled or inhibited state on the basis of the information acquired by said at least one sensor, by disclosing that the operating conditions include 5 parameters measured by sensors, in particular, for example, the mass present on the platform 32 and the incline of the chassis 30, which are limited for safety reasons [column 5, lines 5-8].
7-5. Regarding claim 17, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 11, wherein at least one said element is configured to actuate an extension and/or retraction movement or a rotational movement of said telescopic boom, by disclosing that the telescoping upper arm 34b may be controlled to perform various movements [column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 1; column 4, lines 48-51].
7-6. Regarding claim 19, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 11, further comprising a rotating supporting structure for said boom, which is supported rotatably by said vehicle, at least one said element being configured to actuate a rotational movement of said structure, by disclosing a tower 31 rotatably relative to the chassis 30 along an axis A31 perpendicular to the axes of the wheels of the chassis 30 [column 4, lines 8-11; figure 5].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beji et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,889,478) in view of JLG (“Operation and Safety Manual Model 1850SJ,” October 2, 2020).
9-1. Regarding claim 15, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Beji does not expressly teach wherein said first instructions are configured to determine said uncontrolled state upon the deactivation of said safety module. JLG discloses a telescopic boom lift comprising a main boom 3 connected to a jib 2 and platform 10, and having a platform control console 1 [pages 2-4, 3-4]. The jib may be extended, retracted, raised, lowered, and rotated [pages 3-5 to 3-6], and the main telescope may be extended and retracted [page 3-7, ‘13’]. Skysense is used to assist the operator, and comprises sensors used to alert the operator of potentially dangerous situations [pages 7-14 to 7-15]. Once the machine enters a “stop zone,” SkySense will stop all machine functions [page 7-15, right column, paragraph 1]. An override button is provided that allows operators to bypass normal SkySense operation in order to move closer to an object in the stop zone [page 7-17, right column, paragraph 1]. This would allow operation of the boom lift in emergency situations where the need to control the boom lift outweighs the safety measures in place. Since Beji discloses disabling controls of the aerial lift under certain conditions for safety reasons [Benji, column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 5; column 7, line 50 to column 8, line 22], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ability to override restrictions on operating controls and place the restricted control in an uncontrolled state, as taught by JLG. This would allow operation of the boom lift in emergency situations where the need to control the boom lift outweighs the safety measures in place.
9-2. Regarding claim 16, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Beji does not expressly teach wherein said electronic control and management unit is provided with third instructions for attributing an intermittent luminous effect to at least one said element upon determination of said uncontrolled state. JLG discloses a telescopic boom lift comprising a main boom 3 connected to a jib 2 and platform 10, and having a platform control console 1 [pages 2-4, 3-15]. The jib may be extended, retracted, raised, lowered, and rotated [pages 3-19 to 3-20], and the main telescope may be extended and retracted [page 3-19, ‘13’]. Skysense is used to assist the operator, and comprises sensors used to alert the operator of potentially dangerous situations [pages 7-14 to 7-15]. Once the machine enters a “stop zone,” SkySense will stop all machine functions [page 7-15, right column, paragraph 1]. LED indicators are provided on the platform control box that signal SkySense activity, wherein a red LED indicates that the machine is in the stop zone and all machine functions are ceased [page 7-16]. An override button is provided that allows operators to bypass normal SkySense operation in order to move closer to an object in the stop zone [page 7-17, right column, paragraph 1]. When the operator overrides the SkySense via the override button, the machine will maintain creep speed and flash the appropriate indicator color based on location in either the warning or stop zones [page 7-17, right column, paragraph 2]. Thus, when in a stop zone, a flashing red LED will indicate to the user that the operator has overridden safety precautions and placed the controls in an uncontrolled state.
Since Beji discloses disabling controls of the aerial lift under certain conditions for safety reasons [Benji, column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 5; column 7, line 50 to column 8, line 22], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ability to override restrictions on operating controls and place the restricted control in an uncontrolled state, as taught by JLG. This would allow operation of the boom lift in emergency situations where the need to control the boom lift outweighs the safety measures in place.
Further, since Beji discloses providing lighted indicators on a control to assist the user in identifying which movements are allowed and which are not [Beji, column 1, lines 22-27, 61-65; column 6, lines 52-57], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, as one of the lighted indicators of Beji, a flashing light effect to indicate a control is in an uncontrolled state, as taught by JLG. This would help reduce confusion by allowing the user to identify the state of the control when a safety precaution has been overridden.
10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beji et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,889,478) in view of Iotti (U.S. Patent No. 10,843,909).
10-1. Regarding claim 18, Beji teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Beji does not expressly teach the claim further comprising an apparatus for stabilizing said vehicle, which is provided with telescopic and rotating legs, which are configured to move between a first configuration of minimum space occupation and at least one second configuration, in which said telescopic and rotating legs define the ground resting of said vehicle, at least one said element being configured to actuate the extension and/or retraction movement or the rotational movement of said legs. Iotti discloses a vehicle comprising a self-propelled working machine such as a telehandler or an aerial platform that includes stabilizers 10 intended to be mounted on the vehicle and provided with a plurality of stabilizer arms 10 [column 3, lines 25-32]. The stabilizers 10 provided in the system of the invention are of the so called "scissor" type, i.e. they include two pairs of telescopic arms 2 located frontally and at the 35 rear of the vehicle 1 [column 3, lines 33-38]. Each pair of arms 2 is mounted rotatably on a support element 3 which may be fixed or incorporated into 40 the frame of the vehicle 1 and which, together with the related arms 2, forms a stabilizing unit [column 3, lines 39-42]. The stabilizer arms 2 are movable between a raised ground-placement position, wherein they are distanced from the ground surface (FIG. 7), and in particular allow the free run of the vehicle 1, and at least one lowered position (FIG. 8), in which they are placed on the ground surface to initiate stabilization [column 3, lines 49-54]. A computer program, when running on a processing unit, executes the steps of the method described [column 7, lines 35-37].
Since Beji discloses the need to preserve stability of the aerial lift [Benji, column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 5], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stabilizers, as taught by Iotti. This would help keep the aerial lift from overturning.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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 Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights