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 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) 1-7 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakatani et al. (US 2016/0272475 A1) in view of Boylu et al. (US 11167969 B2). Sakatani discloses a mast (fig. 2) for a material handling vehicle, the mast comprising:
Re claim 1, two outer rails (15), each extending in a vertical direction between lower and upper ends (fig. 2); a pair of inner rail (16), wherein: each of the pair(s) of inner rails is: disposed between the outer rails (fig. 1 shows 16 is between 15); and configured to translate in the vertical direction relative to the outer rails (par [0024]); and the pairs of inner rails include: a first pair of inner rails (16); a horizontal brace (22) coupled to and extending between the outer rails, the horizontal brace disposed closer to the upper end of each of the outer rails than to the lower end of each of the outer rails (fig. 2); two auxiliary braces (23), wherein: each of the auxiliary braces is coupled to a respective one of the outer rails and is disposed below the horizontal brace (fig. 2); and a minimum distance, measured in a horizontal direction that is substantially perpendicular to the vertical direction, between the auxiliary braces is at least 90% of a minimum distance, measured in the horizontal direction, between the inner rails of at least one of the pairs of inner rails (figs 1-2 show the minimum distance between 23s is at least 90% of the minimum distance between 16); for each of the auxiliary braces, one or more vertical braces (24), each coupled to and extending between an upper surface of the auxiliary brace and the horizontal brace (fig. 2).
Re claim 2, wherein: the horizontal brace includes an offset segment (fig. 2: horizontal segment of 22 extending towards the rearward direction) extending in the horizontal direction.
Re claim 3, wherein: the horizontal brace includes two outer segments (arm segment of 22 at both ends), each extending between the offset segment and a respective one of the outer rails such that the outer segment is coupled to an outer surface of the outer rail that faces away from the other of the outer rails (fig. 2); and the offset segments extends between the outer segments (fig. 2).
Re claim 4, wherein: each of the auxiliary braces has an edge (side vertical surface of 23) that connects the upper surface of the auxiliary brace to a lower surface of the auxiliary brace.
Re claim 5, comprising: a carriage (17,18) configured to translate vertically relative to the outer rails and each of the pair(s) of inner rails.
Re claim 7, wherein each of the auxiliary braces has an edge (side vertical surface of 23) that connects the upper surface of the auxiliary brace to a lower surface of the auxiliary brace, wherein, taken in the depthwise direction, a portion of the edge that is disposed furthest from the outer rail to which the auxiliary brace is coupled is disposed closer to the outer rail to which the auxiliary brace is coupled than is the offset segment of the horizontal brace (fig. 2: middle of the offset segment of 22 is shown to be further away than the furthest depthwise edge of 23).
Sakatani does not disclose:
Re claim 1, two or more pairs of inner rails, wherein: each of the pair(s) of inner rails is: disposed between the outer rails; and configured to translate in the vertical direction relative to the outer rails; and the pairs of inner rails include: a first pair of inner rails; and a second pair of inner rails that is disposed between the first pair of inner rails and is movable to a position at which an upper end of each of the inner rails of the second pair is disposed higher than an upper end of each of the inner rails of the first pair; and for the second pair of inner rails, two chains that each are disposed at least partially around one or more pulleys coupled to the first pair of inner rails and have a first end coupled to a respective one of the auxiliary braces and a second end coupled to the second pair of inner rails such that when the first pair of inner rails is lifted vertically, the second pair of inner rails is lifted vertically relative to the first pair of inner rails.
Re claim 2, and a minimum distance, measured in a depthwise direction that is substantially perpendicular to each of the vertical and horizontal directions, between the offset segment of the horizontal brace and each of the outer rails is at least 20% of a minimum distance, measured in the horizontal direction, between the outer rails.
Re claim 4, and a width, measured in the horizontal direction, of the horizontal brace and a maximum distance, measured in the horizontal direction, between the edge of a first one of the auxiliary braces and the edge of a second one of the auxiliary braces are each between 20% and 40% larger than a distance, measured in the horizontal direction, between the outer surface of a first one of the outer rails and the outer surface of a second one of the outer rails.
Re claim 5, wherein a width of the carriage, measured in the horizontal direction, is within 13% of each of: the width of the horizontal brace; and the maximum distance, measured in the horizontal direction, between the edge of the first auxiliary brace and the edge of the second auxiliary brace.
Re claim 6, wherein the width of the horizontal brace and the maximum distance, measured in the horizontal direction, between the edge of the first auxiliary brace and the edge of the second auxiliary brace are each between 70.0 and 90.0 centimeters.
Re claim 18, wherein a thickness of the horizontal brace is less than or equal to 7.0 centimeters.
Re claim 19, wherein: the pairs of inner rails further comprise a third pair of inner rails; the third pair of inner rails is disposed between the second pair of inner rails and is movable to a position at which the upper end of each of the inner rails of the third pair is disposed higher than the upper end of each of the inner rails of the first pair and the upper end of each of the inner rails of the second pair.
Re claim 20, comprising: one or more hydraulic lift cylinders configured to lift the first pair of inner rails vertically relative to the outer rails; and for the third pair of inner rails, one or more chains that each are disposed at least partially around one or more pulleys coupled to the second pair of inner rails and have a first end coupled to the first pair of inner rails and a second end coupled to the third pair of inner rails such that when the hydraulic lift cylinder(s) lift the first pair of inner rails vertically, the third pair of inner rails is lifted vertically relative to the second pair of inner rails.
However, Boylu teaches:
Re claim 1, two or more pairs of inner rails (11,16), wherein: each of the pair(s) of inner rails is: disposed between the outer rails (1); and configured to translate in the vertical direction relative to the outer rails; and the pairs of inner rails include: a first pair of inner rails (11); and a second pair of inner rails (16) that is disposed between the first pair of inner rails and is movable to a position at which an upper end of each of the inner rails of the second pair is disposed higher than an upper end of each of the inner rails of the first pair (fig. 5); and for the second pair of inner rails, two chains (3, one on each side) that each are disposed at least partially around one or more pulleys (13) coupled to the first pair of inner rails and have a first end coupled to a respective one of the auxiliary braces (5) and a second end coupled to the second pair of inner rails such that when the first pair of inner rails is lifted vertically, the second pair of inner rails is lifted vertically relative to the first pair of inner rails (col 3 ln 60 - col 4 ln 3).
Re claim 19, wherein: the pairs of inner rails further comprise a third pair of inner rails (27); the third pair of inner rails is disposed between the second pair of inner rails and is movable to a position at which the upper end of each of the inner rails of the third pair is disposed higher than the upper end of each of the inner rails of the first pair and the upper end of each of the inner rails of the second pair (fig. 5).
Re claim 20, comprising: one or more hydraulic lift cylinders (21) configured to lift the first pair of inner rails vertically relative to the outer rails; and for the third pair of inner rails, one or more chains (18) that each are disposed at least partially around one or more pulleys (20) coupled to the second pair of inner rails and have a first end coupled to the first pair of inner rails (via 19) and a second end coupled to the third pair of inner rails (via 25) such that when the hydraulic lift cylinder(s) lift the first pair of inner rails vertically, the third pair of inner rails is lifted vertically relative to the second pair of inner rails (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ two or more pairs of inner rails along with the two chains, as taught by Boylu, to be able to lift the carriage to a higher position.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed depth distance of the offset segment to ensure sufficient clearance is provided for other lift components, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed width distance between the auxiliary braces to ensure sufficient clearance is provided for other lift components, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed width of the carriage to reduce loading away from the centerline for improved balance as the carriage is being raised higher, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed width distances to ensure sufficient clearance is provided for other lift components, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed thickness to ensure sufficient structural strength while not increase the weight of the system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 2-5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Sakatani dos not disclose “two auxiliary braces, wherein…a minimum distance, measured in a horizontal direction that is substantially perpendicular to the vertical direction, between the auxiliary braces is a least 90% of a minimum distance, measured in the horizontal direction, between the inner rails of a least on of the pairs of inner rails” of claim 1. Applicant alleged that Sakatani anchors 23 extend well into the opening viewing space between inner mast 16.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sakatani fig. 2 shows the auxiliary brace 23 extending inward as far as the rear wall portion 21 of the outer rail 15. Fig. 1 shows a portion of the inner rail 16 nested within the walls 19,20,21 of outer rail 15 but would be protruding inward further past the rear wall portion 21. This feature is also widely known in the art. This protrusion of the inner rail 16 would therefore extend inward beyond the inner end of auxiliary brace 23. As such, a distance between the auxiliary braces 23 would be greater than a distance between the inner rails 16, which meets the claimed language of “at least 90%”.
Boylu fig. 7 also shows a distance between auxiliary braces 5 is greater than a distance between inner rails 11/16, which meets the claimed language of “at least 90%”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights