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 .
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh Saleh (US 8,306,703 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Saleh discloses: providing a payload truck (forklift truck 50) having a loading frame (shown in Fig. 3); the payload truck traveling in a travel direction to a pick-up location having a load oriented in parallel with the loading frame; a load engagement portion (attachment 20; Fig. 1) of the loading frame extending in a direction transverse to the travel direction to engage the load; and the load engagement portion retracting to carry the load (Fig. 1). Additionally, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be met by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 3, Saleh discloses wherein the loading frame (shown in Fig. 3) includes at least one loading frame wheel (rollers 27) supporting the loading frame while the payload truck travels in the travel direction. Additionally, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be met by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 4, Saleh discloses wherein the load engagement portion comprises a carriage (carriage 50B) having a plurality of forks (forks 40) and the method includes: extending the plurality of forks from a first position to a second position to engage the load; and retracting the plurality of forks from the second position back to the first position while supporting the load for vehicle travel (forks 40 extend and retract as described in Col. 3, Lns. 13-67 through Col. 4, Lns. 1-13). Additionally, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be met by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 5, Saleh extending and retracting the plurality of forks by a carriage drive system operatively coupled to the carriage (see Abstract generally; Fig. 1). Additionally, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be met by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 6, Saleh discloses extending and retracting the plurality of forks using an electromechanical, pneumatic, and/or hydraulic apparatus of the carriage drive system (Col. 4, Lns. 10-13). Additionally, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be met by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 7, Saleh discloses transferring power from the payload truck to the loading frame and sensing and controlling movement of the plurality of forks via a power and control interface (remote control 54/control unit 51; Fig. 3; Col. 4, Lns. 37-65). Additionally, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be met by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh in view of McCabe et al. (US 2012/0239224 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Saleh discloses the method of claim 1. Saleh differs from the invention as disclosed because Saleh does not disclose wherein the payload truck is an autonomous navigation vehicle. However, payload trucks with autonomous navigation are well known in the industrial vehicle arts in order to transport goods and materials from one place to another in a constrained environment such as a factory or warehouse.
McCabe et al., teaches an autonomous navigation payload truck (Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included autonomous navigation as taught by McCabe et al. on the payload truck of Saleh for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to navigate a warehouse while unmanned (Para. 0010).
Additionally, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be met by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 8 is 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 indication of allowable subject matter: claim 8 further defines the loading frame components wherein a wheel-end arm, a truck-end arm, and a side member connecting the wheel-end arm to the truck-end arm, and the carriage is coupled to the side member. A prior art search did not uncover a references that teaches the claimed subject matter. Claims 9-10 depend from claim 8.
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.”
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303 297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights