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 § 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 1 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.
Claims 1 includes “determine whether the magnitude of the force would result in a jerk if the action is performed as requested.” This is indefinite as the term “jerk” is not defined nor are details of the force being determined. Without know the criteria for the determination it is impossible to determine the scope of the claims.
Prior art has been applied below as the claims are currently understood in light of the indefiniteness discussed above.
While no double patenting rejection is made at this time given the indefinite nature of claim 1 and the possible difference in scope to the previously allowed claims it is noted that such a rejection may be necessary in light of any amendments to overcome the 112 rejections set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0204891 to Biggerstaff.
Regarding claim 1 Biggerstaff discloses a system for preventing or reducing jerk during operation of a materials-handling vehicle, the system comprising: one or more user input devices (vehicle controls) configured to receive from an operator a request to perform an action; and a processor (602) within the materials-handling vehicle, wherein the processor is configured to: determine, before performing the action requested by the operator, a magnitude of a force that would result by performing the action requested by the operator (0041-42) wherein the force acts either on the materials-handling vehicle or on a load carried by the materials-handling vehicle; determine whether the magnitude of the force would result in a jerk if the action is performed as requested (0042); if it is determined that the magnitude of the force would result in a jerk, cause the materials-handling vehicle to perform the action modified so as to reduce the magnitude of the force and thereby prevent or reduce the jerk (0042 decreasing allowed acceleration); and if it is determined that the magnitude of the force would not result in a jerk, cause the materials-handling vehicle to perform the action as requested by the operator without modification to reduce the magnitude of the force (allowing acceleration below threshold).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights