DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on July 15, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2022/004550, filed on February 4, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 15, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pappas et al. US2020/0319613 A1 (Hereinafter, “Pappas”)
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, Pappas discloses the following limitation(s):
A transfer control system (100) comprising: at least one memory (104) storing instructions; and at least one processor (102) configured to execute the instructions to do a transfer control process, wherein the transfer control process includes: controlling of lifting or lowering (118) of a loading portion for loading an object in a mobile body for conveying the object; See at least [0035], “system 100 can be located on or within a forklift … lifting system 108 … a memory 104 … a processor 102 that executes … control component 118 … includes automatically lifting or lowering of the forklift.”
acquiring a load amount of the loading portion; See at least [0053], “In another example, the analysis component 116 can determine if the weight of a load is suitable for the forklift, the likely delivery route or the delivery vehicle.”
acquiring information relating to a first height that is a height of a place where the object is moved to and from the loading portion; See at least [0079], “FIG. 4 illustrates … The flatbed 408 can represent any surface on which the pallet 402 can be loaded by the forklift 400 (e.g., the bed of a truck, the floor of a van, or a shelf in a storage warehouse for example).” And [0048], “context component 114 can determine or infer context information such as type of load, type of vehicle transporting the load … height of load, height of forklift.”
specifying a second height that is one of heights for lifting or lowering the loading portion and is higher than the first height based on the first height, wherein the controlling of lifting or lowering includes a first control of lifting or lowering the loading portion according to the load amount between the first height and the second height above the place. See at least [0061], “control component 118 can have preset configurations for engagement of the forklift with various types of other equipment (e.g., vehicle type, pallet type, object type (e.g., beer kegs, chemical drums)). For example, the control component 118 can have a preset configuration for ideal lift points for the forklift corresponding to various types of trucks and vehicles.” And [0053], “analysis component 116 can determine if the weight of a load is suitable for the forklift, the likely delivery route or the delivery vehicle.” Note: By determining the load type and weight, the control component will have a preset configuration to specify the second height.
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 2-5, 9-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pappas in view of Nygren et al, US 2019/0230865 A1 (Hereinafter “Nygren”).
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, Pappas does not explicitly disclose lift control using load sensing. However, Nygren teaches the following limitations dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 15:
wherein, in the controlling lifting or lowering, in a case where the loading portion moves the object to the place, after performing a second control of lifting or lowering the loading portion to the second height, the first control is performed until the load amount becomes equal to or less than a threshold value. See at least [0080], “FIG. 4 comprises the steps of; e) registering at least two set points, a first set point being calibrated to the lower retrieval position LRP, and a second set point being calibrated to one of the two upper positions URP, UPP, and calculating the remaining position(s) of the four positions URP, UPP, LRP, LPP based on the recorded set points … c) automatically controlling the driving means 9 by means of the control unit 11, and d) sensing of, during the movement of the holding tool (3), if the holding tool (3) is no longer supporting the same amount of load, wherein upon such a detection the control unit (11) is arranged to automatically stop the driving means (9).” And in [0017], “the load sensing means will give a direct feedback if the pressure drops, which occurs when the object held by the holding tool reaches ground or another form of lower surface, wherein the object will then be partly supported by said ground or surface. Thereby a very trustworthy and efficient load sensing means is provided to the device.” Note: Threshold value comparison for stopping the first control is not useful in the art; it is only relevant if the load was supported by the device or not (i.e. any load greater than zero would not allow the device to disengage from the load thereby making the prior art equivalent to the claimed invention).
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Pappas’s device with the load sensing controls disclosed in Nygren with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety of unsupervised work, see Nygren [0009].
Regarding Claims 3,10 and 17, Pappas does not explicitly disclose lift control using load sensing. However, Nygren teaches the following limitations dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 15:
wherein, in the controlling lifting or lowering, in a case where the loading portion moves the object from the place, after performing a second control of lifting or lowering the loading portion to the first height, the first control is performed until a change in the load amount becomes equal to or less than a threshold value. See at least [0080], “FIG. 4 comprises the steps of; e) registering at least two set points, a first set point being calibrated to the lower retrieval position LRP, and a second set point being calibrated to one of the two upper positions URP, UPP, and calculating the remaining position(s) of the four positions URP, UPP, LRP, LPP based on the recorded set points … c) automatically controlling the driving means 9 by means of the control unit 11, and d) sensing of, during the movement of the holding tool (3), if the holding tool (3) is no longer supporting the same amount of load, wherein upon such a detection the control unit (11) is arranged to automatically stop the driving means (9).” And in [0017], “the load sensing means will give a direct feedback if the pressure drops, which occurs when the object held by the holding tool reaches ground or another form of lower surface, wherein the object will then be partly supported by said ground or surface. Thereby a very trustworthy and efficient load sensing means is provided to the device.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Pappas’s device with the load sensing controls disclosed in Nygren with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety of unsupervised work, see Nygren [0009].
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, Pappas does not explicitly disclose lift control using load sensing. However, Nygren teaches the following limitations dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 15:
wherein the first control includes a control of changing a speed of lifting or lowering the loading portion according to a change in the load amount. See at least [0074], “As shown in FIG. 1 … the driving means 9 further comprises load sensing means 7 … When an object 5 is held by the holding tool 3 and is moved downwards by means of the driving means 9, the pressure will exhibit a unexpected pressure drop if the object 5 touches an underneath surface … the control unit 11 stops the movement of the driving means 9.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Pappas’s device with the load sensing controls disclosed in Nygren with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety of unsupervised work, see Nygren [0009].
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Pappas does not explicitly disclose predetermined lift heights. However, Nygren teaches the following limitations dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 15:
wherein the specifying is specifying the second height as a position higher than the first height by a predetermined value. See at least [0051], “This predetermined scheme thereby uses four positions URP, UPP, LRP, LPP of importance for retrieving or placing an object 5 from or at two positions.” Note: The upper positions correlate with second height and lower positions correlate with the first position depending on the sequence in use.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Pappas’s device with the predetermined heights disclosed in Nygren with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety of unsupervised work, see Nygren [0009].
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pappas in view of Mita et al, JP 2021004113 A (Hereinafter “Mita”).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, Pappas does not explicitly disclose pallet heights. However, Mita teaches the following limitations dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 15:
discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the loading portion is a carrying portion for carrying the object, the object includes cargo loading pallet including a frame forming a space in which the carrying portion is inserted from a horizontal direction, and the first height is a height obtained by adding a height of a lower frame of the cargo loading pallet to a height of a surface of a target to which the object is moved with respect to the carrying portion. See at least [0016], “pallet P is placed on the fork 19 as a load. The pallet P includes a square box-shaped accommodating portion S for accommodating the transported object.” And [0031] “FIG. 7 … loading surface M … the initial position … fork 19 starts to rise … a value obtained by adding a correction value to the thickness of the bottom BW… to the first position A1 and the time when the transfer work is started.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Pappas’s device with the height measurement limitations disclosed in Mita with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve forklift accuracy, see Mita [0007].
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Pappas does not explicitly disclose lift control using height sensor. However, Mita teaches the following limitations dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 15:
wherein the acquiring information is acquiring a measurement value obtained by measuring a height of a surface of a target for moving the object with the loading portion as the information regarding the first height. See at least [0036], “The value measured by the rangefinder 30 … the height at which the laser is irradiated above the bottom BW, and is on the loading surface M …. functions as a loading surface determination unit.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Pappas’s device with the height measurement limitations disclosed in Mita with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve forklift accuracy, see Mita [0007].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20170038779 A1 FORKLIFT OPERATION ASSIST SYSTEM.
US Publication US 20200377351 A1 VEHICLE-MOUNTED DEVICE, CARGO HANDLING MACHINE, CONTROL CIRCUIT, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM THEREOF.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669