DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “integrated hydraulic cylinder capable of adjusting a fork length” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NL 2 018 218 B1 (MEIJER HOLDING B V [NL]) 1 August 2018 (2018-08-01).
This reference discloses a telescoping weigh fork unit (18) comprising a fork having a base fork (26) having an integrated hydraulic cylinder (74) and an outer shoe (28) slidably parallel to the base fork, at least two load cells (42 - page 7, lines 6) supported by the outer shoe (see the elements 42 located at the end of element 28), where the outer shoe has a load surface and is configured to permit contact between a subject load and the outer shoe, wherein the load cells provide a subject load weight, which subject load weight is adjusted by a telescoping factor (see page 2, line 35 to page 3, line 6 - the bending information provided by the load cell is adjusted by combining with the fork telescopic distance in order to determine a possible unsafe condition), which factor is dependent on a telescoping distance, a telescoping time, and hydraulic displacement measured at two or more points in time.
With respect to claim 4, data is transmitted wirelessly to a remote source (Fig. 3; element 48).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2 018 218 B1 (MEIJER HOLDING B V [NL]) 1 August 2018 (2018-08-01) in view of Nakane et al (US # 4,511,974). it was known in the art to calculate the center of gravity of a cargo being transported on a forklift, based on the location of the cargo and its weight, as shown by the example of Nakane (Abs.), so as to provide an overturn alarm; it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the aforementioned fork-lift to include an overturn warning device (i.e.: "safety module"), for safety reasons.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2 018 218 B1 (MEIJER HOLDING B V [NL]) 1 August 2018 (2018-08-01) in view of Hutchings et al (US # 3,913,690). The use of audible signals to alert an user to a potentially dangerous situation was known as shown by the example of Hutchings (Col. 8, ll. 3-6), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the control circuitry of the aforementioned fork-lift to include an audible alert signal to better catch the attention of the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2 018 218 B1 (MEIJER HOLDING B V [NL]) 1 August 2018 (2018-08-01) in view of Boubille (US # 4,899,840). It was well known in the art to place shock absorbers between the load cells and the weighing surface to isolate and protect the load cells from external forces not due to gravity, as shown by the example of Boubille (Col. 4, line 62 to col. 5, line 15), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the aforementioned fork-lift to include the same to protect the load cells from damage and external interference.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2 018 218 B1 (MEIJER HOLDING B V [NL]) 1 August 2018 (2018-08-01) in view of Kroll et al (US PG Pub # 2003/0234122). Arranging the load cell symmetrically was known as shown by Kroll (para. # 0032), and it would have been obvious to use a symmetrical arrangement of load cells to balance the load.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, this method of arranging the load cells and the weighing platform was a known alternative configuration as shown by Kroll (Fig. 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2 018 218 B1 (MEIJER HOLDING B V [NL]) 1 August 2018 (2018-08-01). It would have been obvious to store any information, such as industrial standards, in the memory of the fork-lift that would have been deemed useful to the user for the safe operation of the fork-lift.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2 018 218 B1 (MEIJER HOLDING B V [NL]) 1 August 2018 (2018-08-01). The dimensions of the weighing tines would have been obvious parameters to optimize through routine trial and error.
Conclusion
Claims 7,8, and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights