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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, figures 2a, and claims 1-4, 10-20 in the reply filed on 08/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “a narrow-aisle truck”. The term narrow renders the claim indefinite at it is a relative term of degree and it is not clear how narrow something needs to be to be considered narrow. The specification does not provide an explicit definition for this, nor is this a well known term of art. Thus it is not possible to ascertain the scope of this term. As best understood, any truck could be considered a narrow-aisle truck.
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) 1-4, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmalz et al. (USP 10800641) in view of Schotttke et al. (USpgpub 20210395059).
Regarding claim 1, Schmalz et al. discloses an industrial truck, comprising:
a truck body (6) having a longitudinal direction (along direction G) and a width direction (into the page);
a mast (8) extending vertically from the truck body;
at least one support element (9c) extending between a first attachment point on the truck body (9a) and a second attachment point (9b) on the mast; and
a support element adjustment system (9e, 9d, 9f) adapted to adjust a length of the support element when the mast moves relative to the truck body to compensate for a resulting relative displacement of the second attachment point relative to the first attachment point (it’s a passive vibration dampening system which compensates for relative movement with spring force).
Schmalz et al. fails to disclose the use of an active position control system adapted to effect a relative movement of the mast relative to the truck body.
Schottke et al. teaches the concept of utilizing an active position control system (fig.3, for instance actuators 130a, 130b, and/or 132) adapted to effect a relative movement of the mast relative to the truck body for the purpose of helping suppress vibrations in the mast (see background of the invention).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the truck disclosed in Schmalz et al. to include the use of an active position control system, as taught by Schottke et al. in order to provide the predictable result of providing further suppression of vibrations during use of the truck. As is known in the prior art and mechanical arts in general, it is often possible to combine both active and passive systems designed to suppress vibrations in a system. Both systems could therefore be implemented without conflict as would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art1.
It is also important to note that the claims do not specifically tie both systems together and only fairly broadly set forth each system separately and how it is associated with the truck. Whereas, the specification requires the two systems to be interlinked in specific manners to achieve the inventive results.
Regarding claim 2, Schottke et al. further teaches the industrial truck according to claim 1, wherein the position control system is adapted to pivot the mast about an axis parallel to the longitudinal direction of the truck body (evident from the figures showing actuators 130a, 130b).
Regarding claim 3, Schmalz et al. discloses the industrial truck according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one support element comprises a rigid first section (9c) and a second section (section with 9e), wherein the second section is length-adjustable with respect to the first attachment point (the section 9e can move and be adjusted in length via the compression or expansion of the spring); and the support element adjustment system comprises a mechanical coupling between the mast and the second section (9a and bracket connected to 6).
Regarding claim 4, Schmalz et al. discloses the industrial truck according to claim 3, wherein the mechanical coupling of the support element adjustment system comprises a linkage attached to the mast via a pivotable element (seen in fig.2, there is a pivotable connection between the bracket and portion 9a; 9a reading on the linkage and the bracket reading on the mechanical coupling), wherein the linkage causes the second section of the support element to pivot in order to change the length of the support element (evident in fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, Schmalz et al. discloses the industrial truck according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of support elements (seen in figure 4) each having a respective second attachment point on the mast, wherein each of the respective second attachment points are spaced apart from one another in the width direction of the industrial truck (seen in fig.4).
Regarding claim 11, Schmalz et al. discloses the industrial truck according to claim 1, wherein the industrial truck comprises a narrow-aisle truck (as best understood, the prior art reads on this; in addition this does not appear to be a patentable feature as trucks come in many known sizes and configurations), and wherein the mast further comprises a vertically displaceable operator station (12).
Regarding claim 12, Schmalz et al. discloses a method of operating an industrial truck comprising:
wherein the mast vertically extends from a truck body of the industrial truck (seen in figures), wherein at least one support element (9) extends between a first attachment point (9a) on the truck body and a second attachment point on the mast (9b);
responsive to causing the movement of the mast, adjusting a length of the at least one support element to thereby compensate for a resulting relative displacement of the second attachment point relative to the first attachment point of the at least one support element (the support element in Schmalz et al. is already designed to compensate for relative displacement of the mast and truck body by allowing adjustment of the length of the support element via the spring located in section 9d).
Schmalz et la. Fails to use an active vibration suppression system comprising detecting, using at least one sensor unit of a position control system, vibrations of a mast, and triggering at least one actuator of the position control system to suppress the detected vibrations, wherein suppressing the detected vibrations comprises compensating for the detected vibrations by causing a movement of the mast relative to the truck body.
Schottke teaches the use of an active vibration suppression system comprising detecting, using at least one sensor unit of a position control system, vibrations of a mast (¶ 0053: describes part of the sensor units), and triggering at least one actuator (130a, 130b) of the position control system to suppress the detected vibrations, wherein suppressing the detected vibrations comprises compensating for the detected vibrations by causing a movement of the mast relative to the truck body (as described at least in part in ¶ 0059-0061; these actuators can counteract vibrations by actively moving the mast in various directions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the truck disclosed in Schmalz et al. to include the use of an active position control system, as taught by Schottke et al. in order to provide the predictable result of providing further suppression of vibrations during use of the truck. As is known in the prior art and mechanical arts in general, it is often possible to combine both active and passive systems designed to suppress vibrations in a system. Both systems could therefore be implemented without conflict as would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art2.
It is also important to note that the claims do not specifically tie both systems together and only fairly broadly set forth each system separately and how it is associated with the truck. Whereas, the specification requires the two systems to be interlinked in specific manners to achieve the inventive results.
Regarding claim 13, Schottke teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: detecting, using the at least one sensor unit of the position control system, deflections of the mast (the sensor systems taught by Schottke are capable of detecting deflections, i.e. bending or inclination of the mast); suppressing the detected deflections by compensating for the detected deflections by causing a movement of the mast relative to the truck body (the active system is responsible for counteracting this via the movement of the actuators); and responsive to causing movement of the mast, adjusting the length of the at least one support element to thereby compensate for the resulting relative displacement (as understood, any movement of the mast would result in movement of the length of the support elements in the primary reference via its passive movement arrangement).
Regarding claim 14, The combination discloses the method of claim 13, wherein deflections of the mast are associated with a load being placed into or taken out of the industrial truck (it is well known and/or understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that a load could affect the mast position/inclination).
Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses/teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: predicting, using a prediction unit of the position control system, vibrations of the mast; suppressing the predicted vibrations by compensating for the predicted vibrations by causing a movement of the mast relative to the truck body (as described in ¶ 0011-0016; it is possible to predict said vibrations and/or disturbances in the mast and compensate for them via counteracting movement); and responsive to causing movement of the mast, adjusting the length of the at least one support element to thereby compensate for the resulting relative displacement (as understood, any movement of the mast would result in movement of the length of the support elements in the primary reference via its passive movement arrangement).
Regarding claim 16, Schottke teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the prediction unit of the position control system is adapted to predict vibrations of the mast based on a detected current spatial status, a detected current movement status of the industrial truck, and a knowledge of an environment of the industrial truck (described in part in ¶ 0014).
Regarding claim 17, Schottke discloses the method of claim 15, wherein suppressing the predicted vibrations comprises pre-compensating for the predicted vibrations via movement of the mast before the predicted vibrations occur (this is described throughout the summary section and in part ¶ 0014).
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the prediction unit is further adapted to predict future deflections of the mast, wherein the future deflections are associated with a load being placed into or taken out of the industrial truck, and wherein the method further comprises: suppressing the future deflections by compensating for the future deflections by causing a movement of the mast relative to the truck body (as described in part in ¶ 0014 of Schottke, the deflections aspect is encompassed in the detection of acceleration and/or movement of the mast); and responsive to causing movement of the mast, adjusting the length of the at least one support element to thereby compensate for the resulting relative displacement(as understood, any movement of the mast would result in movement of the length of the support elements in the primary reference via its passive movement arrangement).
Regarding claim 19, Schottke discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the position control system is adapted to pivot the mast about an axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the truck body (evident from fig.3b).
Regarding claim 20, Schmalz discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one support element comprises a rigid first section and a second section, wherein the second section is length- adjustable with respect to the first attachment point, and wherein second section is connected to the mast via a mechanical coupling (seen in fig.4 and described in previous apparatus claims).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art contains other examples of industrial trucks having vibration suppression systems in various capacities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
1 Bruns (EP 0427001 A1)- further evidence that an active and passive vibration isolation system could be utilized at the same time in a industrial truck environment.
2 Bruns (EP 0427001 A1)- further evidence that an active and passive vibration isolation system could be utilized at the same time in a industrial truck environment.
Prosecution Insights