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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 08/30/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2023-139637 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yukako (WO 2022130847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yukako teaches, an industrial vehicle (10) including a load handling device including a pair of forks (26) and performing load handling by inserting the pair of forks into an insertion hole (95/96) of a pallet (90),
the industrial vehicle comprising:
a side shift mechanism (110) configured to side shift positions of the pair of forks in a horizontal direction (fig. 11 – forks (26R/L) shift side to side);
a distance sensor (71/72) provided on a side surface of at least one of the pair of forks in the horizontal direction and configured to detect a distance from the side surface to a detection object (abstract – rangefinders (71/72) detect distance from side of fork to pallet);
and a control unit (61) configured to control a side shift operation of the pair of forks by the side shift mechanism based on a detection result of the distance sensor (abstract – control device assesses position from the difference between a measurement value from the first rangefinder and a measurement value from the second rangefinder),
wherein the control unit stores an initial value of a distance between the side surface of the fork and an inner wall surface defining the insertion hole when the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism is started sensor (abstract – control device assesses position from the difference between a measurement value from the first rangefinder and a measurement value from the second rangefinder),
and stops the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism when the distance between the side surface of the fork and the inner wall surface has varied from the initial value during execution of the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism ([0077] -control device (61) stops the fork (26) when both the measured values become infinite).
Regarding claim 2, Yukako teaches, the industrial vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the distance sensors (51/52/71/72) are provided on respective side surfaces of the pair of forks in directions opposite to each other (fig. 7 – sensors mounted on opposite side surfaces).
Regarding claim 3, Yukako teaches, the industrial vehicle according to claim 2,
wherein the control unit (61) stops the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism when a distance detected by a distance sensor of one fork becomes larger than the initial value and a distance detected by a distance sensor of the other fork becomes smaller than the initial value ([0043] – control unit (61) stops operation when both distance sensors read infinity, which is larger and smaller than the initial value, Fig. 8 – shows movement of forks via side shift mechanism increase distance for sensor (71) and decreases for (72) during alignment.
Regarding claim 4, The industrial vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the distance sensor includes a first distance sensor located on a basal end side of the fork (sensor (52) mounted on basal end side of the fork)
and a second distance sensor located on a distal end side of the fork (second sensor (72) mounted on distal end side of fork).
Regarding claim 5, Yukako teaches, the industrial vehicle according to claim 4,
wherein the control unit stops the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism when one of distances detected by the first distance sensor and the second distance sensor has varied from the initial value ([0043] – control unit (61) stops operation if distance sensors read infinity (parallel), which differs from original initial value).
Regarding claim 6, Yukako teaches, the industrial vehicle according to claim 4,
wherein the control unit stops the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism when both of distances detected by the first distance sensor and the second distance sensor have varied from the initial value ([0043] – control unit (61) stops operation if distance sensors read infinity (parallel), which differs from original initial value).
Regarding claim 8, Yukako teaches, the industrial vehicle according to claim 4,
wherein the control unit stops the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism when a distance detected by the first distance sensor and a distance detected by the second distance sensor become equal after one of the distances detected by the first distance sensor and the second distance sensor has varied from the initial value ([0046] – control device stops operation when distance meters measured value is equal to or greater than a threshold value after insertion/adjustment).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukako (WO 2022130847 A1) in view of Hideki (JP 2002029697 A).
Regarding claim 7, Yukako fails to teach, the industrial vehicle according to claim 4,
wherein the control unit stops the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism when a predetermined time has elapsed after one of distances detected by the first distance sensor and the second distance sensor has varied from the initial value ([0005] – teaches side shift control of a forklift using time-based metrics).
However, Hideki teaches, the industrial vehicle according to claim 4,
wherein the control unit stops the side shift operation by the side shift mechanism when a predetermined time has elapsed after one of distances detected by the first distance sensor and the second distance sensor has varied from the initial value ([0005] – Hideki teaches complete side shift control of a forklift using time-based metrics).
Both Yukako and Hideki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because
they are both in the field of forklifts and industrial vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to have modified Yukako’s forklift to include the time-based control taught by Hideki. Doing so would allow the forklift to function autonomously and, on a schedule, allowing for lower cost operations with limited operator interaction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukako (WO 2022130847 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yukako does not explicitly teach, the industrial vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the distance sensor is provided on a side surface of the pair of forks facing a counterpart fork.
Yukako teaches, distance sensors (51/52/71/72) provided on a side surface of the pair of forks, but does not explicitly teach them facing each other. Yukako discloses the claimed invention except for the sensors facing each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the location of the sensors from the outside of the forks to the inside having their sides facing each other, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so shrinks the footprint of the forks and places sensors in a safer location to protect delicate electronics, allowing for transport of a greater size of pallets while protecting sensor from damage.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukako (WO 2022130847 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yukako teaches that the industrial vehicle according to claim 1,
Has laser distance sensors mounted on the side surface of the forks. Yukako is silent on the
sensors being mounted using brackets, and containing a window for the distance sensors.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known to mount sensors using brackets/housings and that laser sensors require lenses (windows) for the laser rangefinder to function properly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mounted the sensors using brackets and that the laser sensors would require lenses/windows to protect the delicate electronic components and to function properly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon in the application is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure
Yamanouchi (US 7,219,769 B2) – forklift with control apparatus with detection sensors
Onoda (US 20220375206 A1) – forklift with chassis mounted distance and position sensors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights