DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 2/20/2025, wherein claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in Japan. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-073935, filed on 4/30/2024 (effective filing date).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/4/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to for the following informalities:
(i) The recitation "wherein the battery holding arm is a pair of arms facing each other" is grammatically inconsistent with the singular element introduced in claim 1. Correction to "wherein the battery holding arm comprises a pair of arms" is suggested.
(ii) Claim 1 recites "a battery" twice, once in the preamble and once in the body. While the two recitations are understood under the broadest reasonable interpretation to refer to the same battery, amendment of the body recitation to "the battery" would remove any ambiguity in claim 2's later reference to "the battery."
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to as containing an apparent error in the passage describing movable pulley mechanism part 143. The text states that the part "only needs to be configured to move arm unit 130 by a distance greater than the movement distance of arm unit 130 in the up-down direction," which is self-referential and inconsistent with both the immediately preceding sentence and claim 5, in which the comparison is to the movement distance of the movable pulley mechanism part. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation "wherein the pair of arms includes a locking claw configured to lock the battery, and wherein the locking claw is formed on opposite surfaces of the pair of arms facing each other" is indefinite. The locking claw is introduced in the singular and is then required to be formed on two mutually facing surfaces of two separate arms. It cannot be determined whether the claim requires (i) a single locking structure spanning or opposed across both facing surfaces, (ii) at least one locking claw on each facing surface, or (iii) the plurality disclosed in the specification, which discloses four, namely locking claws 131a and 131b on arm 131, and locking claws 132a and 132b on arm 132, with mounting surfaces 131c and 132c formed between them. Because the number and distribution of the recited locking claw cannot be determined, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are not reasonably ascertainable. Ambiguity of this kind is properly resolved while the claims remain amendable. MPEP §2173.02.
Construction for examination on the merits (MPEP §2173.06). For purposes of applying prior art, claim 2 is construed as requiring at least one locking claw formed on each of the two mutually facing surfaces of the pair of arms. The specification supports this construction as a bounded issue.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation "wherein an arm width is smaller than a wheel width, the arm width being a distance between the pair of arms, the wheel width being a distance between the pair of front wheels" is indefinite. The claim uses the identical phrase "a distance between" for both quantities and specifies no reference surfaces for either. The specification does not cure the ambiguity but confirms it: arm width d1 is measured from the outer side of arm 131 to the outer side of arm 132, while wheel width d2 is measured from the inner side of front wheel 101 to the inner side of front wheel 102. The identically worded claim phrases must therefore carry opposite measurement conventions in order for the recited inequality to have the meaning the specification ascribes to it, and the claim supplies no basis for selecting between conventions. The scope of the claim is thereby rendered indeterminate.
Construction for examination on the merits (MPEP §2173.06). For purposes of applying prior art, claim 3 is construed as requiring that the pair of arms be laterally receivable between the pair of front wheels, that is, that the maximum lateral extent of the pair of arms be less than the distance between the mutually facing inner surfaces of the pair of front wheels. The specification supports this construction as a bounded issue, explaining that where d1 is smaller than d2 the arms enter the space between the front wheels and the bottom frame and may be lowered to the battery mounting surface without interference from front wheels 101 and 102 (FIG. 5). Applicant is invited to amend claim 3 to recite the intended reference surfaces expressly.
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;
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Keeffe (US 2005/0036864 A1). O'Keeffe embodiment relied upon: the forklift truck of FIGS. 1-9, element series 1 through 71. FIGS. 6-9 depict the same mast as FIGS. 2-5 with the same reference numerals, the chains now shown, as the reference states at Par. [0036].
Regarding Claim 1, O'Keeffe discloses:
A battery exchange cart used for exchanging a battery — (a forklift truck (1) having a wheeled chassis and an upright mast (FIG. 1; Par. [0031])),
the battery exchange cart comprising:
wheels including at least a rear wheel and a front wheel; — (a front wheel (9) mounted towards the free end of each side bar (7), and a steerable rear wheel located centrally on the crossbar (5) (FIG. 1; Par. [0031]));
a frame part including: a bottom frame configured to connect between the wheels, — (u-shaped chassis (3) comprising crossbar (5) and the pair of forwardly extending side bars (7), the crossbar carrying the rear wheel and the side bars carrying the front wheels (9) (FIG. 1; Par. [0031]));
and a vertical frame provided upright in a vertical direction from the bottom frame; — (vertical multi-lift mast (17) mounted on chassis (3), comprising outer mast section (19a), middle mast section (19b) and inner mast section (19c) (FIG. 1; Par. [0031])); and
an arm unit including a battery holding arm protruding forward from the vertical frame and configured to hold a battery — (O'Keeffe discloses a forwardly projecting load-engaging member, namely forks (23) carried on fork carrier (21), slidably mounted on inner mast section (19c) (FIG. 1; Par. [0031]));
wherein the arm unit is supported by the vertical frame in a movable manner in an up-down direction — (fixed carriage portion (43) of fork carrier (21), mounted by rollers (47) retained in tracks (49) on inner mast section (19c) and slidable up and down those tracks (FIG. 2; Par. [0035], Par. [0041]));
and in a horizontal direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the battery exchange cart — (moveable carriage portion (45), which carries the forks, slidably mounted with respect to fixed carriage portion (43) "in a transverse direction with respect to the main longitudinal axis" of the truck and displaced by side shift ram (51) (Par. [0035], Par. [0041]));
Additionally, Examiner notes that the battery is the article worked upon. A recitation of the material or article worked upon does not patentably distinguish an apparatus claim from a prior-art apparatus otherwise meeting the claim, and forks (23) are load-supporting members structurally capable of supporting a battery of the mass and dimensions described. MPEP §2115. The preamble recitation "used for exchanging a battery" states an intended use and imparts no structural limitation. MPEP §2111.02.
Regarding Claim 3, O'Keeffe discloses:
The battery exchange cart according to claim 1, as set forth above.
O'Keeffe further discloses:
wherein the battery holding arm includes a pair of arms — (O'Keeffe discloses a forwardly projecting load-engaging member, namely forks (23) carried on fork carrier (21) (FIG. 1; Par. [0031]));
wherein the front wheel includes a pair of front wheels — (a front wheel (9) mounted towards the free end of each of the two side bars (7) (O'Keeffe, FIG. 1; Par. [0031])); and
wherein an arm width is smaller than a wheel width, the arm width being a distance between the pair of arms, the wheel width being a distance between the pair of front wheels — (Construed, per the §112(b) paragraph above, as requiring the pair of arms to be laterally receivable between the pair of front wheels; O'Keeffe recites that the vertical multi-lift mast is "mounted on the chassis between the side bars" (A1, claim 1), and that a front wheel (9) is located adjacent the free end of each side bar (7) (FIG. 1; Par. [0031]). Fork carrier (21) and forks (23) are carried on that mast and are therefore laterally located between the two side bars, and hence between the two front wheels (9).
Regarding Claim 4, O'Keeffe discloses:
The battery exchange cart according to claim 1, as set forth above.
O'Keeffe further discloses:
the cart further comprising a movable pulley mechanism part configured to move the arm unit in the up-down direction — (Pulley (35) mounted on piston rod (37) of fluid actuated ram (29), with pulley purchase chain (53) connected at one end to carriage (21), led over pulley (35), and secured at its other end to inner mast section (19c), extension of the piston rod raising the carriage (FIGS. 6-9; Par. [0035], Par. [0036])).
Regarding Claim 5, O'Keeffe discloses:
The battery exchange cart according to claim 4, as set forth above.
O'Keeffe further discloses:
wherein the movable pulley mechanism part is attached to the vertical frame in a movable manner in the up-down direction — (fluid actuated ram (29) is mounted on lower cross member (38) of the substantially rectangular frame of inner mast section (19c), and pulley (35) is carried on the extensible piston rod (37) of that ram, so that the pulley is attached to the mast and travels vertically relative to it (FIGS. 2-5; Par. [0034], Par. [0035]));
and is configured to move the arm unit by a distance greater than a movement distance of the movable pulley mechanism part in the up-down direction — (Pulley purchase chain (53) is anchored to inner mast section (19c) at its far end and passes over pulley (35), and O'Keeffe states that extension of piston rod (37) causes carriage (21) to rise by an amount "twice that of the distance travelled by the piston rod 37" (Par. [0036])).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over O'Keeffe (US 2005/0036864 A1) in view of Schwarz et al. (US 2019/0359459 A1), hereinafter “Schwarz.”
Regarding Claim 2, O'Keeffe discloses:
The battery exchange cart according to claim 1, as set forth above.
O'Keeffe further discloses:
wherein the battery holding arm is a pair of arms facing each other in the horizontal direction — (fork carrier (21) carrying forks (23), slidably mounted on inner mast section (19c) and projecting forwardly therefrom (FIG. 1; Par. [0031])).
However, O'Keeffe does not appear to disclose:
wherein the pair of arms includes a locking claw configured to lock the battery, and wherein the locking claw is formed on opposite surfaces of the pair of arms facing each other (construed, per the §112(b) paragraph above, as requiring at least one locking claw formed on each of the two mutually facing surfaces of the pair of arms).
In the field of endeavor, Schwarz discloses:
wherein the pair of arms includes a locking claw configured to lock the battery, and wherein the locking claw is formed on opposite surfaces of the pair of arms facing each other – (a pair of load-supporting forks (18A, 18B) having respective load-retaining members integrated into the mutually facing sides of the forks. In particular, first and second operating devices (22A, 22B) are located within respective forks (18A, 18B), and respective punch members (26A, 26B), including punch plates (62A, 62B), extend through the inner lateral sides (36A, 36B) of the respective forks toward one another to engage opposing sides of a load structure positioned between the forks (FIGS. 2, 5A–5B; Pars. [0048]–[0051], [0057], [0059]–[0060]); (“The operating devices 22A, 22B actuate clamp structures comprising punch members 26A, 26B into engagement with respective adjacent surfaces on the pallet, as illustrated in FIG. 2 by the punch members 26A, 26B on either side of the stringer S.” (Par. [0049]). Schwarz expressly teaches that the opposed punch plates apply engagement force sufficient to retain the load against shifting and/or tilting relative to the forks.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opposed battery-holding arms of O'Keeffe to include Schwarz's opposed load-retaining locking claws on the mutually facing surfaces of the arms, in order to positively retain the battery against shifting or tilting relative to the arms during lifting and transportation, as expressly taught by Schwarz. Such modification would have constituted the application of a known load-retaining technique to a known load-supporting structure to obtain the predictable result of improved load retention, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP §2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 20190023297 A1 relates to motorized lifting devices, and particularly to a motorized lifter for lifting stacked trays, such as bread trays. US 20140319438 A1 is directed to a cart, dolly or hand truck for transporting an item. More particularly, this application is directed to a cart, dolly or hand truck for transporting and lifting an item such that it can raise and lower the item by engaging its sidewalls. The lifting system includes an item engagement feature and a position adjustment system. US 20220355768 A1 relates to a lifting tool to be used when replacing a battery pack in an electric vehicle. By using the lifting tool, a battery pack can be removed from and inserted to confined spaces from the side of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights