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 .
Remarks
The Remarks regarding which claims are canceled and should not be examined states that claims 6-9 and 6-19 are canceled, while the amended claims list does not have claims 10-15 canceled. Examiner is interpreting the intended cancelation was 6-9 and 16-19 as is reflected in which claims have not been canceled in the amended claims list.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the wheels must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because the drawings feature multiple numbers for a single part which describe different descriptions of the invention. Each number should point at its own part in the drawing such that no ambiguity exists about which number refers to which part or vice versa. The numbers in question are:
2, Body
3, Upright
27, Fork Guides
28, Opposing First Elongate Members
32, Upright Lower Position
33, Upright Guides
34, Opposing Second Elongate Members
47, Base Forward Position
48, Base Rearward Position
49, Base Guide
50, Opposed Third Elongate Members
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the fork first driver or fork second driver as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The brief description of drawings uses directional descriptions for each drawing, such as front, rear, left, right, top, or bottom. However the meaning of these directional descriptions is not consistent. In the description for 1B, front view means the drawing shows the forklift facing out of the page, while in the description for 1D, left view shows the right side facing out of the page. It is advised to correct the descriptions for the drawings such that the directional descriptions are consistent between each drawing.
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 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: “Propulsion Mechanism” in claim 1.
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.
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.
The interpretation for Claim 1 that is being applied in the examination process is that the propulsion mechanism refers to the components which are in contact with the ground and apply forces to the ground to move the vehicle. The specification describes the propulsion mechanism can include either tracks or wheels.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 states that “… said prongs of said fork are laterally movable.” The specification does mention the inclusion of the prongs being laterally movable in page 9, lines 16-18. However, the specification and drawings do not have sufficient disclosure of how the prongs are made laterally movable such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of replicating that behavior without undue experimentation.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-15, 25-27, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Simpson et al (WO 9205101 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are:
A vehicle comprising: a propulsion mechanism operable to propel said vehicle for travel thereof; (Figure 1, Embodiment W of Simpson)
a base coupled to said propulsion mechanism; (Figure 1, Embodiment T & C of Simpson)
an upright movably coupled to said base, said upright movable upwardly and downwardly relative to said base; (Figure 1, Embodiment 12 of Simpson)
an engagement element movably coupled to said upright, said engagement element movable upwardly and downwardly relative to said upright. (Figure 1, Embodiment 28 & 30 of Simpson)
Regarding claim 2, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the additional limitation that “said vehicle is configured as a forklift” in Figure 1, Embodiment 30 of Simpson, which discloses the prongs, also known as forks, which are used by forklifts.
Regarding claim 3, Simpson discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, and the additional limitation that “said engagement element comprises a fork having one or more prongs suitable for engaging with a load” in Figure 1, Embodiment 30 of Simpson, which discloses a set of prongs used to carry the load.
Regarding claim 4, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 2, and the further limitation that “said forklift is configured for use with prefabricated buildings” in Figure 1, Embodiment B of Simpson, which discloses a boat, which could be considered a prefabricated building.
Regarding claim 11, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the further limitation that “said propulsion mechanism comprises one of more wheels” in Figure 1, Embodiment W of Simpson, which demonstrates the vehicle resting upon wheels.
Regarding claim 12, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 3, and the further limitation that “Said base comprises a base length disposed between a base front end and a base rear end” in Figure 1, Embodiment C of Simpson, which describes a chassis for the vehicle which has a front and rear end separated by a length.
Regarding claim 13, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 12, and the further limitation that “said fork disposes proximate said base front end” in Figure 1, Embodiment 30 of Simpson, which is the fork assembly that, when placed such that the prongs are along the ground, is located proximate the front end of the chassis of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 13, and the further limitation that “said upright disposes proximate said base front end” in Figure 1, Embodiment 12 of Simpson, being the upright assembly which is located at the front end of the chassis of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 14, and the further limitation that “said upright comprises a fork guide disposed along an upright length for translational movement of said fork along said upright” in Embodiment 44 of Simpson, which is a channel within which the fork assembly slides along as it translates up and down.
Regarding claim 25, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the further limitation that “when said upright disposes in an upright lower position, an upright bottom end of said upright contactingly engages with the ground such that said upright functions as a movable ground-engaging stabilizer capable of stabilizing said vehicle” in Figure 1, Embodiment 18 of Simpson, which discloses the second telescoping mast section which is capable of traveling below the surface that the vehicle rests upon. The operator could place the second telescoping mast section on the ground to assist in stabilizing the vehicle.
Regarding claim 26, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 25, and the further limitation that the vehicle “further comprising only one said movable ground-engaging stabilizer consisting of said upright” in Figure 1, Embodiment 12 of Simpson, which only has one upright assembly present to serve as a stabilizer.
Regarding claim 27, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 14, including the further limitation that “said upright comprises and upright guide disposed along an upright length for translational movement of said upright relative to said base” in Figure 3, embodiment 42 and 40 of Simpson, which is the intermediate rails (42) which telescope along the outer mast section rails (40) which are attached to the base and permit the second stage of the upright to translate relative to the base of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 32, Simpson discloses the limitations of claim 27, and the further limitation that “said upright is coupled to said base via a second pivot for rotational movement of said upright relative to said base about an upright first rotation axis” in Figure 5, embodiment 13 and 22 of Simpson, which teaches of pins (13) which connects the upright assembly to the base, and a pair of tilt cylinders (22) which lengthen or shorten to tilt the upright assembly.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jun Jong et al (KR 102623226 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Jun Jong teaches the limitations of claim 1, being that it teaches of a vehicle comprising:
a propulsion mechanism operable to propel said vehicle forward for travel thereof (210)
a base coupled to said propulsion mechanism (100)
an upright movably connected to said base, said upright movable upwardly and downwardly relative to said base (327)
an engagement element movably coupled to said upright, said engagement element movable upwardly and downwardly relative to said upright (330)
Regarding claim 2, Jun Jong further teaches of the limitations that the vehicle is configured as a forklift in embodiment 331, which describe the prongs of the fork used to lift cargo, as well as in the abstract where the vehicle is described as a forklift.
Regarding claim 5, Jun Jong teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches of “said forklift comprises an unmanned forklift” in figure 3, embodiments 400 and 410 of Jun Jong, which states that the forklift comprises a control unit (400) which communicates with an operator controlling the vehicle remotely using a controller (410), making the forklift unmanned.
Regarding claim 10, Jun Jong teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches of “said propulsion mechanism comprises one or more tracks” in embodiment 210 of Jun Jong, which discloses the vehicle utilizing a pair of tracks, referred to as a caterpillar (210), to move the vehicle.
Regarding claim 40, Jun Jong teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches of “said base is adjustably coupled to said tracks such that said base is positionable forwardly or backwardly relative to said tracks” in figure 5, embodiment 142 and 144 of Jun Jong, which describes the mechanism which allows the base (100) to be located further rearward on the vehicle, using a power cylinder (142) to extend contract the power rod (144), which is connected to the base and moves the base in the forward or backward direction relative to the tracks.
Regarding claim 41, Jun Jong teaches the limitations of claim 40, and further teaches of “said base is adjustably coupled to said tracks via a base guide” in figure 5, embodiment 145, which discloses of a moving guide which serves to guide the base as it is adjusted forward or backward.
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.
Claims 20 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson in view of Hummer (WO 03062126 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Simpson teaches the limitations of claim 15. However, Simpson does not teach of the limitation that “said fork is coupled to said upright via a first pivot for rotational movement of said fork relative to said upright”.
Hummer teaches of the missing limitation in Paragraph 31, Embodiment 38 and 40, which describes the forks of the forklift being capable of rotating at least 5° (38) about a central axis (40).
Simpson and Hummer are analogous art as they are within the same field of endeavor, both disclosing forklifts for the hauling of an object. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to modify the forklift of Simpson with the additional capability of tilting the forks of the forklift to improve the performance of the vehicle when carrying an object across uneven terrain by providing a level platform for the object to rest upon.
Regarding claim 36, Simpson teaches the limitations of claim 32. However, Simpson does not teach of the limitation that “said upright is coupled to said base via a third pivot for rotational movement of said upright relative to said base about an upright second rotation axis”.
Hummer teaches of the missing limitation in paragraph 31, embodiment 20 and 36, which discloses the mast (20) of the forklift is capable of yaw movement of at least 5° (36).
Simpson and Hummer are analogous art as they are within the same field of endeavor, both disclosing forklifts for the hauling of an object. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to incorporate the teachings of Hummer of an upright capable of rotating left or right to the forklift of Simpson to provide greater flexibility when carrying objects, such as in the direction of rotation when navigating a curve to provide greater clearance on the outward side when navigating a narrow space.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson in view of Cooper (WO 2007057675 A2).
Simpson teaches of the limitations of claim 13. However, Simpson does not teach of the prongs of the forklift being laterally movable.
Cooper does teach of the prongs of the forklift being laterally movable in figures 5 and 6, embodiment 41 and 43, which demonstrates that the lateral spacing between the first fork (41) and the second fork (43) can be adjusted.
Simpson and Cooper are analogous art as they both are within the same field of endeavor of devices used to haul objects. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to incorporate the laterally moving prongs as taught by Cooper to the forklift of Simpson to provide the forklift the capability of supporting the carried object with the most stable platform possible by adjusting the forks to engage with the object from the outermost contact points possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L DINKEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1743. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 PM.
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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.L.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
