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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka (US 2023/0227299 A1) hereinafter Akasuka, Chandrasekar (US 2020/0039353 A1) hereinafter Chandrasekar, and Allerding et al. (US 2004/0154871 A1) hereinafter Allerding.
Claim 1:
Akatsuka discloses an alert system [131], comprising: a vehicle control unit [81], controlling a traveling device [10] and a cargo handling device [22] of a cargo handling vehicle [10]; an alarm device [136], mounted on the cargo handling vehicle and outputting an alarm by sound and/or light [¶¶84, 94]; and an information processing device [134], mounted on the cargo handling vehicle and connected to the vehicle control unit [81] and the alarm device [136], wherein the information processing device [134] comprising an event detection unit [133; ¶87] which determines a plurality of hazardous events in a distinguishable manner based on vehicle information [10] regarding the cargo handling vehicle from the vehicle control unit [81], an alarm control unit [136] which activates the alarm device when the event detection unit detects any of the hazardous events, and causes the alarm device to output an alarm [¶98], and a restriction command unit [131] which transmits a restriction command to the vehicle control unit [81] to restrict operation of the cargo handling vehicle [10] when the event detection unit detects a part of specific hazardous events among the hazardous events [Fig. 6, S2, S3], wherein the vehicle control unit [81] restricts traveling operation of the traveling device [10] and/or cargo handling operation of the cargo handling device when receiving the restriction command from the information processing device [134].
Akatsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the hazardous events are determined based on the following: comparing preset thresholds and dynamic operational parameters of the cargo handling vehicle comprising at least one of a traveling speed, an acceleration, a turning speed; and a concurrent operation of the traveling device and the cargo handling device.
However, Chandrasekar does disclose wherein the hazardous events are determined based on the following: comparing preset thresholds and dynamic operational parameters of the cargo handling vehicle comprising at least one of a traveling speed, an acceleration, a turning speed [¶¶42-46].
Further, Allerding discloses a concurrent operation of the traveling device and the cargo handling device [¶¶11-12; Figs. 1-2 the limit is based on speed of the fork-truck relative to the operation of the forks. Figure 2 specifically shows that the change is made continuously meaning the hazardous event determination and action is made based on the cargo handling device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the alert system of Akatsuka with the speed governor of Chandrasekar to further increase the safety of the vehicle in additional scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the alert system of Akatsuka and Chandrasekar speed restriction of Allerding to further increase the safety of the vehicle in additional scenarios.
Claim 3:
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Akatsuka also discloses wherein restriction of the traveling operation is to set the maximum traveling speed of the cargo handling vehicle to a non-zero value that is lower than the maximum traveling speed before the restriction [¶¶112-121].
Claim 5:
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Akatsuka also discloses wherein the vehicle control unit removes the restriction when it is detected that an operation unit for operating the cargo handling vehicle has been operated in a predetermined manner during the restriction of the traveling operation and/or the cargo handling operation [¶¶118-121].
Claim 6:
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Akatsuka also discloses wherein the alarm control unit continues to output an alarm by sound and/or light until it is detected that an operation unit for operating the cargo handling vehicle has been operated in a predetermined manner based on the vehicle information after detection of the hazardous event [¶¶107-112; since the alarm is only active in specific states, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the alarm is not active in a normal operating state thus reading on the claimed limitation].
Claim 7:
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Akatsuka also discloses wherein the information processing device comprises a processing unit comprising the event detection unit and an additional processing unit comprising the alarm control unit and the restriction command unit [Fig. 2].
Claim 9:
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Akatsuka also discloses wherein the cargo handling vehicle is a forklift [Fig. 1, Item 10].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamagami (US 2009/0236182 A1) hereinafter Yamagami.
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Akatsuka also discloses wherein the specific hazardous events comprise a first specific hazardous event [133; ¶87] and the vehicle control unit restricts merely one of the traveling operation and the cargo handling operation when the event detection unit detects the first specific hazardous event [Fig. 6, S2, S3].
Akatsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose a second specific hazardous event different from the first specific hazardous event, and restricts both the traveling operation and the cargo handling operation when the event detection unit detects the second specific hazardous event.
However, Yamagami does disclose a second specific hazardous event different from the first specific hazardous event, and restricts both the traveling operation and the cargo handling operation when the event detection unit detects the second specific hazardous event. [¶21]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the alert system of Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding with the restriction means of Yamagami to prevent damage to an onboard battery.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 9,731,950 B2) hereinafter Yamada.
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Akatsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the cargo handling device is provided with forks for supporting cargo, and restriction of the cargo handling operation is to set the maximum lift speed of the forks to a non-zero value that is lower than the maximum lift speed before the restriction.
However, Yamada does disclose wherein the cargo handling device is provided with forks for supporting cargo, and restriction of the cargo handling operation is to set the maximum lift speed of the forks to a non-zero value that is lower than the maximum lift speed before the restriction. [Fig. 5; col. 7, lines 36-49]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the alert system of Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding with the restriction means of Yamada to increase safety without eliminating the ability of the device to function.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Iida (JP2021172464A) hereinafter Iida.
Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 7.
Akatsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit comprises a first event detection unit as the event detection unit, the additional processing unit further comprises a second event detection unit as the event detection unit, and the second event detection unit detects the hazardous event that is not detected by the first event detection unit.
However, Iida does disclose wherein the processing unit comprises a first event detection unit as the event detection unit, the additional processing unit further comprises a second event detection unit as the event detection unit, and the second event detection unit detects the hazardous event that is not detected by the first event detection unit. [Fig. 3, Items 23A, 23B]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the alert system of Akatsuka, Chandrasekar, and Allerding with the detection means of Iida to enable protection in multiple directions from different obstacles thus increasing safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cadou (US 2020/0172384 A1) discloses a material handling machine which measures parameters that relate to the tilting of a load and the risk of the machine falling over and implementing controls to mitigate said risk.
Le Du (US 2023/0271818 A1) discloses a material handling machine which compares vehicle speed and the angle of the material handling device to communicate a risk to an operator or limit aspects of the machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights