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, 3-5, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5256670 B2. JP’670 discloses a mast for a material handling vehicle (fig. 1), the mast comprising:
Re claim 1, two opposing mast rails (21,22), each extending in a first direction (vertical direction); a carriage (26) configured to translate relative to the mast rails in the first direction; and mast supports (31,32) configured to couple the mast to a material handling vehicle, each of the mast supports comprising a body (structural body of 31 shown in fig. 3) that is coupled to a respective one of the mast rails (fig. 3), the body including: a first portion (annotated fig. 3 below: 101) coupled to the mast rail and extending from the mast rail in a second direction (diagonal direction shown in figs. 2 and 5) that is perpendicular to the first direction and toward the other one of the mast rails; and a second portion (annotated fig. 3 below: 102) coupled to the first portion, the second portion: extending in a third direction (same direction as K in fig. 4) that is perpendicular to the first direction and is angularly disposed relative to the second direction (figs. 3 and 5); and including a portion of an axle mount (33).
Re claim 3, wherein, for each of the mast supports, the body is unitary (fig. 3).
Re claim 4, wherein, for each of the mast supports, each of the first and second portions has a thickness that is between 2.5 and 4.5 centimeters (cm).
Re claim 5, wherein, for each of the mast supports, a maximum thickness of the first portion is substantially the same as a maximum thickness of the second portion.
Re claim 9, wherein the third directions of the mast supports are parallel to one another (fig. 5).
Re claim 10, wherein a horizontal distance between outermost surfaces of the second portions of the mast supports is .95 or less times a horizontal distance between outermost surfaces of the mast rails (fig. 5).
Re claim 11, wherein, for each of the mast supports, the first portion is welded to the respective outer mast rail (pg 5 paragraph 6 of the English translation, the spec describes 32 is welded to 21).
Re claim 12, comprising: a brace (34) extending between the mast rails; wherein each of the mast supports is welded to the brace (pg 6 paragraph 4 of the English translation).
Re claim 13, comprising lift cylinder mounts (35), each coupled to a respective one of the mast supports along a top surface of the first portion of the mast support (fig. 4).
JP’670 does not disclose:
Re claim 1, wherein an angle between the second direction and the third direction is between 145 and 165 degrees.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to employ the claimed angle to reduce the outer profile of the mast support and to gradually position the axle mount to be inside of the outer mast, 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. The reduced outer profile of the mast support enables increased visibility for the driver beyond the mast support during operation. As such, the optimum angle would be modified based on the position of the driver seat inside of the cab to minimize the visible profile of the body of the mast support. Further, the reduced profile would be beneficial because it would take up less longitudinal space while ensure sufficient surface is provided for mounting the cylinder. The gradual positioning of the axle mount to be inside of the outer mast provides a more direct connection between the two without introducing additional structure. This enables a stronger linkage with fewer stress points.
Regarding claims 4-5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to employ the claimed thickness for ease of manufacturing the mast support, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6-8, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5256670 B2 in view of Matsuda (US 4,449,614). JP’670 discloses:
Re claim 14, a method of assembling a mast for a material handling vehicle (fig. 1), the method comprising: forming a mast support (31,32) such that a bent portion (annotated fig. 3 above: between 101 and 102) separates: a first portion (annotated fig. 3 above: 101) of the plate that extends in a second direction (diagonal direction shown in figs. 2 and 5); and a second portion (annotated fig. 3 above: 102) of the plate that extends in a third direction (same direction as K in fig. 4) that is angularly disposed relative to the second direction and includes a portion of an axle mount (33) and coupling the first portion of the plate to a mast rail (21), the mast rail extending in a first direction (vertical direction) that is perpendicular to the second and third directions.
Re claim 18, wherein coupling the first portion of the plate to the mast rail comprises welding the first portion to the mast rail (pg 5 paragraph 6 of the English translation, the spec describes 32 is welded to 21).
Re claim 20, comprising coupling the portion of the axle mount to an axle (13) of a material handling vehicle.
JP’670 does not disclose:
Re claim 6, wherein, for each of the mast supports, the body comprises a plate that defines: the first portion; the second portion; and a bent portion disposed between the first and second portions.
Re claims 7, 16, for each of the mast supports, a radius of the bent portion is between 2 and 4 cm.
Re claim 8, wherein, for each of the mast supports, a bend axis of the bent portion is parallel to the first direction (the bend axis is vertical in both JP’670 and Matsuda, which is parallel to the first direction).
Re claim 14, forming the mast support at least by bending a plate; wherein an angle between the second direction and the third direction is between 145 and 165 degrees.
Re claim 17, wherein the plate has a thickness that is between 2.5 and 4.5 cm.
However, Matsuda teaches a mast:
Re claim 6, wherein, for each of the mast supports (8), the body comprises a plate (8 is shown to be flat and plate-like) that defines: the first portion (portion of 8 directly above 5); the second portion (portion of 8 not directly above 5); and a bent portion (fig. 2 shows the bend between the first and second portions) disposed between the first and second portions.
Re claim 14, forming the mast support (8) at least by bending a plate (8 is shown to be flat and plate-like).
Regarding claims 6, 14, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a plate mast support, as taught by Matsuda, for ease of manufacturing and bending the mast support.
Regarding claims 7, 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to employ the claimed bend radius to ensure sufficient thickness remains at the bend and that the axle mount is properly positioned to receive the axle, 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 14, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to employ the claimed angle to reduce the outer profile of the mast support and to gradually position the axle mount to be inside of the outer mast, 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. The reduced outer profile of the mast support enables increased visibility for the driver beyond the mast support during operation. As such, the optimum angle would be modified based on the position of the driver seat inside of the cab to minimize the visible profile of the body of the mast support. Further, the reduced profile would be beneficial because it would take up less longitudinal space while ensure sufficient surface is provided for mounting the cylinder. The gradual positioning of the axle mount to be inside of the outer mast provides a more direct connection between the two without introducing additional structure. This enables a stronger linkage with fewer stress points.
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to employ the claimed thickness for ease of manufacturing the mast support, 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5256670 B2 in view of Matsuda (US 4,449,614) and Na (US 2019/0084815 A1). JP’670 as modified discloses the method (as cited above).
JP’670 as modified does not disclose:
Re claim 19, comprising welding a lift cylinder mount to an upper surface of the first portion of the plate.
However, Na teaches a mast assembly (fig. 1):
Re claim 19, comprising welding a lift cylinder mount (horizontal plate underneath and supporting 30) to an upper surface of the first portion of the plate (fig. 1; JP’670 discloses a welding means for attaching various components together. The welding limitation is treated as a product-by-process claim, see MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The parts are attached to each other and have the structural characteristics being welded together.).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a lift cylinder mount on a surface of the plate, as taught by Na, to reduce the amount of space being taken up at the sides.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the Office action does not have support to modify JP’670 cylinder support 320 to employ the claimed angle. There is no functional deficiency with JP’670 to be motivated to modify the angle as claimed. Applicant identified other benefit disclosed by JP’670 for the oblique angle to not interfere with the left and right sides of the mast. Modifying the angle would misalign the axle mount and could lead to spatial interference with the lift cylinders.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to employ the claimed angle to reduce the outer profile of the mast support and to gradually position the axle mount to be inside of the outer mast, 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. The reduced outer profile of the mast support enables increased visibility for the driver beyond the mast support during operation. As such, the optimum angle would be modified based on the position of the driver seat inside of the cab to minimize the visible profile of the body of the mast support. Further, the reduced profile would be beneficial because it would take up less longitudinal space while ensure sufficient surface is provided for mounting the cylinder. The gradual positioning of the axle mount to be inside of the outer mast provides a more direct connection between the two without introducing additional structure. This enables a stronger linkage with fewer stress points.
While Applicant may not have found any functional deficiency with JP’670, this does not preclude improvements from being made to the mast support. Employing the claimed angle does not destroy the JP’670 reference.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a modify teaching may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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