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 Objections
Claims 1, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9 – 11 should read “a control module, connected to the self-propelled unit (10) and to the detection sensor (30), which is set up to control a safety maneuver of the self-propelled unit (10) in the presence of a detecting signal of the detection sensor (30);”
Claim 8, line 1 – 2 should read “comprising a stabilizer (40) …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, line 9 – 11, “a control module, connected to the self-propelled unit (10) and to the detection sensor (30), which is set up to control a safety manoeuvre of the self-propelled unit (10) in the presence of a detecting signal of the detection sensor (30);”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “control module” is described as one or more processor. (specification of publication, par. [0024], “The units can further rely on one or more processors for the execution of the instructions contained in the memory modules.”)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ichinose et al. (Publication No. US 20170285644 A1; hereinafter Ichinose).
Regarding to claim 1, Ichinose teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
374
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An operating vehicle, comprising:
a self-propelled unit (10), ([Par. 017], “As shown in FIG. 1, the forklift 10 is an unmanned forklift, and comprises a vehicle body 12, a mast 20, a fork 22, a lift chain 24, a sensor 26, and a controller 30 (shown in FIG. 3).”) structured to move on a movement surface along a given path advancing along a main direction (X); ([Par. 0018], “By the controller 30 controlling the drive wheel motor and the steering device, the vehicle body 12 is allowed to run on a mad and change its running direction.”)
a fork (20), associated with an operating part (11) of the self-propelled unit (10) and movable vertically between a lower position and an upper position; ([Par. 0020], “The fork 22 is attached to the mast 20 movably in the upward-and-downward direction.”)
a detection sensor (30), provided with a detecting field (R) and set up to emit a detecting signal if an object is inside the detecting field (R), said detecting field (R) facing the space occupied by the fork (20); ([Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22. A position to which the sensor 26 is attached is between the tine 22a and the tine 22b, and on a backward side (on a vehicle body 12 side) relative to a backrest surface of the fork 22. The sensor 26 is a one-dimensional scanning-type sensor that scans laser light in one direction (a horizontal direction in the present embodiment). The sensor 26 radiates laser light, and measures a distance to a peripheral object based on reflected light of the radiated laser light. The sensor 26 radiates the laser light to a region 50 having a predetermined angular range and set forward of the forklift 10 (see FIG. 1).”)
a control module, connected to the self-propelled unit (10) and to the detection sensor (30), which is set up to control a safety maneuver of the self-propelled unit (10) in the presence of a detecting signal of the detection sensor (30); ([Par. 0023], “The controller 30 is mounted in the vehicle body 12. The controller 30 is connected to the sensor 26, the drive wheel motor that drives the one of the rear wheels 29, the steering device that adjusts a steering angle of the rear wheel 29 connected to the drive wheel motor, the fork lifting and lowering device 40 that lifts and lowers the fork 22, and the like, and controls their operations.”; [Par. 0024], “Moreover, the controller 30 performs, by executing a program stored in a memory, processing of coordinate-converting the distance data acquired by the sensor 26, processing of identifying a position and a direction of a pallet 100 based on a group of coordinate-converted observed points, and the like.”)
wherein:
the detection sensor (30) is vertically movable between a lower position and an upper position; ([Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22.”)
in said lower position of the detection sensor (30), the detecting field (30) faces the space occupied by the fork (20), when the fork (20) is in its lower position; ([Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22… Moreover, as the fork 22 is lifted and lowered, the sensor 26 is also lifted and lowered, and hence as shown in FIG. 2, a position, in a height direction, of the laser light radiated from the sensor 26 is changeable.”) and
in said upper position of the detection sensor (30), the detecting field (30) faces the space occupied by the fork (20), when the fork (20) is in its upper position. ([Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22… Moreover, as the fork 22 is lifted and lowered, the sensor 26 is also lifted and lowered, and hence as shown in FIG. 2, a position, in a height direction, of the laser light radiated from the sensor 26 is changeable.”)
Regarding to claim 2, Ichinose teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Ichinose further teaches wherein the detection sensor (30) is vertically movable between its lower and upper positions in a manner integral with the fork (20). ([Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22… Moreover, as the fork 22 is lifted and lowered, the sensor 26 is also lifted and lowered, and hence as shown in FIG. 2, a position, in a height direction, of the laser light radiated from the sensor 26 is changeable.”)
Regarding to claim 3, Ichinose teaches the vehicle of claim 2.
Ichinose further teaches wherein the detection sensor (30) is associated with the fork (20) or with a structure integral with the fork (20). ([Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22… Moreover, as the fork 22 is lifted and lowered, the sensor 26 is also lifted and lowered, and hence as shown in FIG. 2, a position, in a height direction, of the laser light radiated from the sensor 26 is changeable.”)
Regarding to claim 4, Ichinose teaches the vehicle of claim 3.
Ichinose further teaches wherein the detection sensor (30) is associated with a support (31) connected to the fork (20). ([Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22… Moreover, as the fork 22 is lifted and lowered, the sensor 26 is also lifted and lowered, and hence as shown in FIG. 2, a position, in a height direction, of the laser light radiated from the sensor 26 is changeable.”; wherein any part that supports connection between the sensor 26 and fork 22 corresponds to the “support” as claimed.)
Regarding to claim 7, Ichinose teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Ichinose further teaches wherein the fork (20) comprises a pair of arms (21) that are parallel to one another and substantially horizontal, which protrude from the vehicle away from the operating part (11), and wherein the detection sensor (30) is located in a substantially median position with respect to the arms (21) of the fork (20). (see fig. 1, pair of arms 22a and 22b are part of the fork 22. The sensor 26 is at median position with the arms of the fork. [Par. 0020], “The fork 22 is attached to the mast 20 movably in the upward-and-downward direction. The fork 22 comprises a pair of tines 22a and 22b. The tines 22a and 22b are disposed at positions spaced apart from each other in a right-and-left direction of the vehicle body 12, and extend forward of the vehicle body 12 from a mast 20 side. It should be noted that the fork 22 may be swingable relative to the mast 20 by a tilting mechanism (not shown).”; [Par. 0022], “The sensor 26 is attached to the fork 22, and is lifted and lowered in the upward-and-downward direction together with the fork 22. A position to which the sensor 26 is attached is between the tine 22a and the tine 22b, and on a backward side (on a vehicle body 12 side) relative to a backrest surface of the fork 22.”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinose in view of Bell et al. (Publication No. US 20110218670 A1; hereinafter Bell).
Regarding to claim 5, Ichinose teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Ichinose teaches the sensor to move upward and downward direction together with the fork as described in par. [0022], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection sensor (30) is vertically movable between its lower and upper positions independently of the fork (20).
However, Bell teaches wherein the detection sensor (30) is vertically movable between its lower and upper positions independently of the fork (20). ([Par. 0037], “The scanner array 321 may be mounted to the lift carriage 300 and retrofit object load sensing to the forklift 200. Because the presence of objects on the forks 302 may obscure the devices, the camera 306 and laser 304 may form a moveable sensor head 320 according to one embodiment. When the moveable sensor head 320 is moved into a retracted position, the camera 306 and the laser sensor 304 are positioned above the forks 302. The sensor head 320 is attached to a pair of guide rails 308, which are attached to the mounting plate 310 through two guide bushings 312.”; [Par. 0041], “A drive motor 314 connected to a gear, which engages a rack in a rack and pinion arrangement and moves the sensor head 320 to a location above the forks 302. The drive motor 314, alternatively, positions the sensor head 320 to a location below the forks 302. The laser scanner 304, the camera 306 and the drive motor 314 are coupled to a mobile computer (e.g., the mobile computer 104 of FIG. 1). In one or more alternative embodiments, the driver motor 314 rotates the sensor head 320 when capturing the sensor array data in order to identify objects or object loads that are not directly aligned with the forks 302.”
This implies that the sensor head is moved independently via the drive motor 314 and the guide rails 308 allowing the sensor head to move to a location above or below the fork.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Ichinose to incorporate the teaching of Bell. The modification would have been obvious because configuring the sensor to move independently of the fork allows the sensor to be positioned above or below the fork, thereby enabling an unobstructed view of the object and improving operation of the automated forklift.
Regarding to claim 6, the combination of Ichinose and Bell teaches the vehicle of claim 5,
Bell further teaches wherein the detection sensor (30) is associated with a guide system and with motor means connected to said control module and controlled by said control module independently of motor means arranged for the movements of the fork (20). ([Par. 0037], “The scanner array 321 may be mounted to the lift carriage 300 and retrofit object load sensing to the forklift 200. Because the presence of objects on the forks 302 may obscure the devices, the camera 306 and laser 304 may form a moveable sensor head 320 according to one embodiment. When the moveable sensor head 320 is moved into a retracted position, the camera 306 and the laser sensor 304 are positioned above the forks 302. The sensor head 320 is attached to a pair of guide rails 308, which are attached to the mounting plate 310 through two guide bushings 312.”; [Par. 0041], “A drive motor 314 connected to a gear, which engages a rack in a rack and pinion arrangement and moves the sensor head 320 to a location above the forks 302. The drive motor 314, alternatively, positions the sensor head 320 to a location below the forks 302. The laser scanner 304, the camera 306 and the drive motor 314 are coupled to a mobile computer (e.g., the mobile computer 104 of FIG. 1). In one or more alternative embodiments, the driver motor 314 rotates the sensor head 320 when capturing the sensor array data in order to identify objects or object loads that are not directly aligned with the forks 302.”
This implies that the sensor head is moved independently via the drive motor 314 and the guide rails 308 allowing the sensor head to move to a location above or below the fork.)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinose in view of Dutra, Jr; Joseph (Patent No. US 3773202 A; hereinafter Dutra).
Regarding to claim 8, Ichinose teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Ichinose teaches the unmanned forklift as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose a stabilizer (40), overlapping the fork (20) and spaced away from the latter by a variable amount that is movable vertically towards and away from the fork (20).
However, Dutra teaches a stabilizer (40), overlapping the fork (20) and spaced away from the latter by a variable amount that is movable vertically towards and away from the fork (20).
PNG
media_image2.png
323
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([Col. 3, line 5 – 10, “The adjustable load stabilizer of the present invention can be mounted to almost any forklift truck. As may be seen in FIG. 1, a forklift truck, generally designated 21, will usually be provided with an upright lift frame 22 to which a movable carriage 23 is mounted for vertical reciprocation. Carriage 23 is further provided with fork means 24, usually a pair of fork elements, for support and lifting of loads.”; [Col. 3, line 26 – 35], “load stabilizer means, generally designated 31, is mounted on a stabilizer frame means 30 in vertically spaced and substantially superimposed relation to fork means 24 for vertical reciprocation thereover. Stabilizer frame means 30 includes an upper movable frame portion 32 which is connected, in a manner which will be more fully set forth hereinafter, to a lower frame guiding structure 47.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Ichinose to incorporate the teaching of Dutra. The modification would have been obvious because providing a load stabilizer reduces movement and misalignment of the package or item engaged by the fork, thereby improving load stability and enhancing the safety of forklift operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights