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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR10-20020078964), hereon referred to as LeeKR, in view of Cormack (US 20140103277).
Regarding claim 1, LeeKR teaches,
A lift unit (9) comprising:
a lower housing (1);
a horizontally moveable structure (37 – pneumatic cylinder) seated on a top surface of the lower housing;
a vertically moveable structure (15) fastened to the horizontally moveable structure and moveable in a vertical direction when the horizontally moveable structure is operated (shaft housing (15) moves vertically);
and an upper housing (3 – lift table) positioned on the vertically moveable structure,
and a pair of inclination modules (27/29) positioned at ends of the pair of actuators,
respectively, wherein the vertically moveable structure includes an inclination roller (23) moveable along an inclined surface (33) of each inclination module.
Regarding claim 2, LeeKR teaches, the lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the pair of inclination modules (27/29) include the inclined surfaces (33) directed in opposite directions,
respectively, wherein the lift unit includes a slide roller (inclined surfaces (33) slide along guide rail connected to bottom surface) in contact with the lower housing.
Regarding claim 3, LeeKR teaches, the lift unit of claim 2,
wherein the vertically moveable structure further includes a roller bracket (21) protruding toward the inclined surface of each inclination module and having the inclination roller (23) coupled to an end thereof.
Regarding claim 11, LeeKR teaches, the lift unit of claim 1,
further comprising a bottom slide roller positioned on a bottom surface of each inclination module and in contact with the lower housing (fig. 1 – inclination module slides on guide rail positioned on bottom surface).
Regarding claim 12, LeeKR teaches, the lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the lower housing includes a horizontal guide rail (25) positioned on a lateral side relative to a movement direction of each inclination module,
wherein the lift unit includes a side slide roller positioned on the lateral side of each inclination module and in contact with the horizontal guide rail (fig. 1 – slide rollers shown in figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, LeeKR fails to teach,
wherein the horizontally moveable structure includes: a pair of actuators with lengths changing in opposite directions;
Regarding claim 1, Cormack teaches,
wherein the horizontally moveable structure includes: a pair of actuators (110) with lengths changing in opposite directions (fig. 14 – opposing jacks connected with two actuators facing away from each other);
Lee and Cormack are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load lifting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee’s lifting device to include the dual actuators taught by Cormack, doing so allows for more precise control of the lifting apparatus and raising of individual lifting platforms.
Claims 4 - 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR10-20020078964) in view of Cormack (US 20140103277) and further in view of Lee (US 20230191589 A1) hereon referred to as LeeUS. LeeKR and Cormack disclose all the limitations of the claims as discussed above
Regarding claim 4, LeeKR and Cormack fail to teach lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the vertically moveable structure includes a pair of vertical guide rollers rotatable about respective shafts thereof parallel to each other,
wherein the lift unit includes a vertical guide block coupled to the lower housing and positioned between the pair of vertical guide rollers.
Regarding claim 5, LeeKR and Cormack fail to teach, the lift unit of claim 4,
wherein the vertical guide block includes:
a first guide block fixed to the lower housing;
and a second guide block including a vertical guide rail engaged with each vertical guide roller and rotatably coupled to the first guide block.
Regarding claim 6, LeeKR and Cormack fail to teach, The lift unit of claim 5,
wherein the first guide block and the second guide block are coupled to each other to be rotatable about a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of each actuator.
Regarding claim 4, LeeUS, teaches the lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the vertically moveable structure includes a pair of vertical guide (432a/442a) rollers rotatable about respective shafts (433/443) thereof parallel to each other ([0130] – ball portions (432a/442a) are relatively rotatable with respect to shaft during lifting),
wherein the lift unit includes a vertical guide block (236/237) coupled to the lower housing and positioned between the pair of vertical guide rollers.
Regarding claim 5, LeeUS teaches, the lift unit of claim 4,
wherein the vertical guide block (236/237) includes:
a first guide block fixed to the lower housing (fig. 5 – guide blocks (245) are mounted to lower housing);
and a second guide block including a vertical guide rail (237) engaged with each vertical guide roller and rotatably coupled to the first guide block ([0092] [0087] – guide rail guides vertical movement of the guide block, and is rotatably coupled to support block through bearing).
Regarding claim 6, LeeUS teaches, The lift unit of claim 5,
wherein the first guide block (237) and the second guide block (235) are coupled to each other to be rotatable about a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of each actuator ([0087] – support block and guide block are rotatably coupled to each other).
Regarding claim 7, Cormack teaches, the lift unit of claim 5,
further comprising a controller (470) configured to operate the pair of actuators (fig. 14 – lifting apparatus with two opposed actuators),
wherein the controller is configured to independently control the length changes of the pair of actuators ([0077] – controller can be coupled to independently control actuators and lifting apparatuses).
LeeKR, Cormack and LeeUS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of load lifting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LeeKR’s lifting device to include rotatable linear guide blocks and guide rail taught by LeeUS and the controller taught by Cormack, the inclusion the linear guide blocks and rails allows for the lifting apparatus to raise guide blocks independently through independent actuator control, and the guide blocks maintain constant contact between the guide rail and the bottom housing to limit lifting failures.
Regarding claim 13, LeeKR teaches,
and a lift unit (9) positioned on top of the body and having a height adjustable in a vertical direction,
wherein the lift unit includes: a lower housing (1) coupled to an upper portion of the body;
a horizontally moveable structure (37 – pneumatic cylinder) seated on a top surface of the lower housing;
a vertically moveable structure (15) fastened to the horizontally moveable structure and moveable in a vertical direction when the horizontally moveable structure is operated (shaft housing (15) moves vertically);
and an upper housing (3- lift table) positioned on the vertically moveable structure,
and a pair of inclination modules (33) positioned at ends of the pair of actuators, respectively,
Regarding claim 13, LeeKR fails to teach,
wherein the horizontally moveable structure includes: a pair of actuators with lengths changing in opposite directions;
Regarding claim 13, Cormack teaches,
wherein the horizontally moveable structure includes: a pair of actuators (110) with lengths changing in opposite directions (fig. 14 – shows two combined horizontally moveable structures with a pair of actuators);
Regarding claim 13, LeeKR and Cormack fail to teach,
a body including a driving unit;
Regarding claim 13, LeeUS teaches,
a body (1/2) including a driving unit (333/334);
LeeKR, Cormack and LeeUS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of load lifting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LeeKR’s lifting device to include the body with a driving unit taught by LeeUS and the dual actuators taught by Cormack, the inclusion of two actuators allows for independent raising of the inclination modules, and the body with a driving unit allows the lifting apparatus to become mobile within the work area.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR10-20020078964) in view of Cormack (US 20140103277 A1) further in view of Lee (US 20230191589 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Takai (US 20210155410 A1). LeeKR, Cormack and LeeUS disclose all the limitations of the claims as discussed above
Regarding claim 8, Cormack teaches, the lift unit of claim 7,
wherein the controller (470) is configured to control the pair of actuators such that the upper housing is inclined with respect to the lower housing in a direction opposite to a direction of the lower housing inclined with respect to a gravitational direction (Lifting actuators work independently, and control of system would be achieved if jacks are placed on non-level surface).
LeeKR, Cormack and LeeUS fail to teach, the lift unit of claim 7,
further comprising a posture sensor configured to sense an inclination of the lower housing
However, Takai teaches, the lift unit of claim 7,
further comprising a posture sensor (231) configured to sense an inclination of the lower housing ([0057] – posture sensor detects inclination of the conveyance robot),
LeeKR, Cormack, LeeUS, and Takai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention
Because they are both in the field load lifting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LeeKR’s lifting apparatus to include the dual actuators and controller taught by Cormack, guide blocks taught by LeeUS and posture sensor taught by Takai. Implementation of a posture sensor allows for control of the payload lifting system through uneven terrain by maintaining the loading surface level with the surface being traveled on or being supported.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR10-20020078964) in view of Cormack (US 20140103277 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mountz (US 20060210382 A1). LeeKR and Cormack disclose all the limitations of the claims as discussed above
Regarding claim 9, Lee (KR) and Cormack fail to teach, The lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the upper housing further includes a docking guide pin positioned on a top surface thereof.
However, Mountz teaches, The lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the upper housing (110) further includes a docking guide pin (410) positioned on a top surface thereof.
Lee (KR), Cormack and Mountz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention
Because they are both in the field load lifting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LeeKR’s lifting mechanism to include the docking guide pin taught by Mountz. Doing so allows for secure couple of the vertically moveably structure with the load being handled as shown by Mountz in figure 4A.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR10-20020078964) in view of Cormack (US 20140103277 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondo (US 20230294968 A1). Lee (KR) and Cormack disclose all the limitations of the claims as discussed above,
Regarding claim 10, Lee (KR) and Cormack fail to teach, The lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the upper housing further includes a docking guide roller protruding from a corner thereof.
However, Kondo teaches, The lift unit of claim 1,
wherein the upper housing further includes a docking guide roller (16) protruding from a corner thereof (fig. 1 – shows corner rollers (16) on body of AGV).
Lee (KR), Cormack and Kondo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention
Because they are both in the field load lifting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LeeKR’s lifting apparatus to include the corner docking rollers taught by Kondo. Doing so precise docking by sliding the corner rollers along guiding surfaces for accurate load placement as disclosed by Kondo [0054].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure
Nagel (US 20220371424 A1) – discloses an AGV with a lifting mechanism
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights