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 § 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal US Pg. Pub. No. (2019/0137991) referred to hereinafter as Agarwal in view of Kemshall US Patent No. (5520258) referred to hereinafter as Kemshall.
As per claim 1, Agarwal teaches an industrial vehicle capable of manned travel and unmanned travel by automated operation, the industrial vehicle (see at least Abstract, summary) comprising: a vehicle body (see at least Abstract, summary); and an automated operation unit that is mounted on the vehicle body and in which a plurality of devices for the automated operation is integrated (see at least Abstract, summary, Para 42-43), wherein the plurality of devices includes: an automated operation controller that controls the automated operation (see at least Abstract, summary, Para 42-43); a display device on which information related to the automated operation is displayed (see at least Abstract, summary, Para 38, 42-43, ); an input device on which data related to the automated operation is input (see at least Abstract, summary, Para 33, 38, 42-43); and an emergency stop device that causes an emergency stop of the automated operation (see at least Abstract, summary, Para 33-34,42-43). Agarwal does not expressly teach an accommodation case that accommodates the automated operation controller, the display device, the input device, and the emergency stop device, and the accommodation case is positioned in the vehicle body at a height equal to or lower than a height that does not obstruct an operator's view during the manned travel. However Kemshall teaches an accommodation case that accommodates the automated operation controller, the display device, the input device, and the emergency stop device, and the accommodation case is positioned in the vehicle body at a height equal to or lower than a height that does not obstruct an operator's view during the manned travel (see at least Abstract, summary, col. 1 lines 55-col. 2line 14, col. 3 lines 25-51, col. 4 lines 60-col5 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kemshall into the disclosure of Agarwall in order to provide the user with ability of retrofitting automated-operation equipment to existing forklifts and making the systems applicable to different forklift models.
As per claim 2, Agarwal does not expressly teach the limitation of cliam2, however Kemshall teaches a main body; a driver's seat mounted on the main body; and a counterweight in a rear of the main body, and the accommodation case is mounted on the counterweight and behind the driver's seat (see at least Abstract, summary, col. 1 lines 55-col. 2line 14, col. 3 lines 25-51, col. 4 lines 60-col5 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kemshall into the disclosure of Agarwall in order to provide the user with ability of retrofitting automated-operation equipment to existing forklifts and making the systems applicable to different forklift models.
As per claim 3, Agarwal does not expressly teach the limitation of claim 3, However Kemshall teaches wherein the accommodation case is positioned at a height equal to or lower than the height of the driver's seat (see at least Abstract, summary, col. 1 lines 55-col. 2line 14, col. 3 lines 25-51, col. 4 lines 60-col5 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kemshall into the disclosure of Agarwall in order to provide the user with ability of retrofitting automated-operation equipment to existing forklifts and making the systems applicable to different forklift models.
As per claim 4, Agarwal does not expressly teach the limitations of claim 4, however Kemshall teaches wherein the accommodation case is positioned inside an outer edge of the counterweight in a plan view (see at least Abstract, summary, col. 1 lines 55-col. 2line 14, col. 3 lines 25-51, col. 4 lines 60-col5 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kemshall into the disclosure of Agarwall in order to provide the user with ability of retrofitting automated-operation equipment to existing forklifts and making the systems applicable to different forklift models.
As per claim 5, Agarwal does not expressly teach the limitation of claim 5, however Kemshall teaches wherein the counterweight has an obstacle detection sensor facing rearward, and the accommodation case is disposed inside the obstacle detection sensor in a plan view (see at least Abstract, summary, col. 1 lines 55-col. 2line 14, col. 3 lines 25-51, col. 4 lines 60-col5 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kemshall into the disclosure of Agarwall in order to provide the user with ability of retrofitting automated-operation equipment to existing forklifts and making the systems applicable to different forklift models.
As per claim 6, Agarwal does not expressly teach the limitation of claim 6, however Kemshall teaches a displacement mechanism that allows the accommodation case to be displaced relative to the vehicle body (see at least Abstract, summary, col. 1 lines 55-col. 2line 14, col. 3 lines 25-51, col. 4 lines 60-col5 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kemshall into the disclosure of Agarwall in order to provide the user with ability of retrofitting automated-operation equipment to existing forklifts and making the systems applicable to different forklift models.
As per claim 7, Agarwal teaches wherein the emergency stop device includes an emergency stop button protruding from a surface of the accommodation case (see at least Para 33-34, 42-43).
As per claim 8, Agarwal does not expressly teach the limitation of claim 8, however Kemshall teaches wherein the accommodation case includes a multilayer indication light that indicates a state of the industrial vehicle (see at least Abstract, summary, col. 1 lines 55-col. 2line 14, col. 3 lines 25-51, col. 4 lines 60-col5 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kemshall into the disclosure of Agarwall in order to provide the user with ability of retrofitting automated-operation equipment to existing forklifts and making the systems applicable to different forklift models.
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights