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 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.
Claims 1-2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et. al. (US Patent Publication 2014/0324322) in view of Swetha et. al. ("Design, analysis and implementation of improved adaptive fault tolerant model for cruise control multiprocessor system." International Journal of computer applications 86.15 (2014))
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a material handling limitation device for a forklift, the forklift including an engine and a material handling device, the material handling limitation device comprising: (¶128)
an accelerator sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal; and (¶32, 60; although not explicit as to a pedal an accelerator pedal is considered inherent to the operator’s cab of the vehicle)
a processing circuitry configured to calculate the
the processing circuitry is configured to execute, in a case where an anomaly related to the
Yoshida appears to be silent as to a vehicle speed sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to a vehicle speed; a processing circuitry configured to calculate the vehicle speed based on the signal from the vehicle speed sensor, and execute a vehicle speed limiting process that limits the vehicle speed based on at least the vehicle speed.
Swetha however teaches a limitation device for a vehicle, including an engine comprising: (abstract)
a vehicle speed sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to a vehicle speed
an accelerator sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal; and (3.5.1 Basic tasks, Sensors … Accelerator; 3.5.2 Monitoring functions, Monitoring the accelerator using the accel sensor)
a processing circuitry configured to calculate the vehicle speed based on the signal from the vehicle speed sensor, and execute a vehicle speed limiting process that limits the vehicle speed based on at least the vehicle speed, wherein (3.5.3 Control functions, Comparing the current speed and desired speed, suitable control signal is generated either to increase or decrease the speed; 3.5.4 Actuating functions, Based on the control signal, throttle actuator is controlled to maintain the desired speed)
the processing circuitry is configured to execute, in a case where an anomaly related to the vehicle speed limiting process has occurred, a traveling process that controls a rotational speed of the engine based on the signal from the accelerator sensor
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshida with a vehicle speed sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to a vehicle speed; a processing circuitry configured to calculate the vehicle speed based on the signal from the vehicle speed sensor, and execute a vehicle speed limiting process that limits the vehicle speed based on at least the vehicle speed as taught by Swetha with a reasonable expectation of success because Yoshida discloses the use of an engine rotational speed sensor to control the forklift during an anomaly and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the engine rotational speed sensor is reading is directly related to the vehicle speed and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida further discloses wherein the material handling device includes at least a lift device configured to vertically move a fork using hydraulic pressure, the lift device includes: a lift cylinder configured to vertically move the fork; and a hydraulic actuator configured to control a flow rate of hydraulic oil supplied to and discharged from the lift cylinder, and the material handling limitation process includes a lowering non-limitation process that controls the hydraulic actuator so as not to limit discharge of the hydraulic oil from the lift cylinder when the fork is lowered. (¶10, 36-38, 128)
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida discloses a material handling limitation method for a forklift, the forklift including an engine and a material handling device, the material handling limitation method comprising: (¶128)
calculating
executing a vehicle speed limiting process that limits the
a traveling process that controls a rotational speed of the engine based on a signal corresponding to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal and a material handling limitation process that limits operation of the material handling device. (¶69-72)
Yoshida appears to be silent as to calculating a vehicle speed of the forklift based on a signal corresponding to the vehicle speed; executing a vehicle speed limiting process that limits the vehicle speed based on at least the vehicle speed.
Swetha however teaches a method for a vehicle
calculating a vehicle speed of the forklift based on a signal corresponding to the vehicle speed; executing a vehicle speed limiting process that limits the vehicle speed based on at least the vehicle speed; and (3.5.3 Control functions, Comparing the current speed and desired speed, suitable control signal is generated either to increase or decrease the speed; 3.5.4 Actuating functions, Based on the control signal, throttle actuator is controlled to maintain the desired speed)
executing, in a case where an anomaly related to the vehicle speed limiting process has occurred, a traveling process that controls a rotational speed of the engine based on a signal corresponding to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshida with calculating a vehicle speed of the forklift based on a signal corresponding to the vehicle speed; executing a vehicle speed limiting process that limits the vehicle speed based on at least the vehicle speed as taught by Swetha with a reasonable expectation of success because Yoshida discloses the use of an engine rotational speed sensor to control the forklift during an anomaly and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the engine rotational speed sensor is reading is directly related to the vehicle speed and further the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the material handling limitation process further includes: a raising permission process that raises the fork by controlling the hydraulic actuator such that supply of the hydraulic oil to the lift cylinder is permitted for a fixed period of time; and a raising prohibition process executed immediately after the raising permission process, wherein the raising prohibition process prohibits the fork from being raised by controlling the hydraulic actuator to stop supplying the hydraulic oil to the lift cylinder for a fixed period of time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669