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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application 19/187,224 and is in response to a Request for Continued Examination filed 02/17/2026.
Claims 1-20 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, 17, and 20 have been amended, claims 7, 9, and 14 have been canceled, and new claims 21-23 have been added. All amendments have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-23 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 21-22 relate to a method for modifying an industrial vehicle, whereas the claims as originally presented relate to a battery system and an object detection system. The inventions are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, such as a process that already includes replacement battery.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “the first space being at least partially defined by an L-shaped first cutout portion … the second space being at least partially defined by an L-shaped second cutout portion”. However the specification as originally filed does not support the L-shaped cutout portions. Applicant points to Figures 2-4, 5A, and 5B for support. The cutout portions are taken to be feature 60 and 66. However, none of the figures or the specification clearly show or support for the cutout sections being “L-shaped” as claimed. Therefore this is new matter.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “L-shaped” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “L-shaped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The figures do not clearly show the L-shaped cutouts. Further the specification does not establish how close to L-shaped is required to meet the limitation, makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear, and therefore indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “running lines of the vehicle”. However, claim 11 is dependent upon claim 10 which recites an object detection assembly for an industrial vehicle. Therefore the claim relates to the object detection assembly, and the industrial vehicle is not actually an explicitly part of the claim. Therefore it is unclear what if any limitations the running lines of the vehicle has, as any vehicle is outside the scope of the claim. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear how it would further limit the claim.
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) 1-6, 8, 10-13, 15-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARD (US 2024/0136645 A1) in view of TRACY (US 2020/0317148 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 4. WARD teaches a battery assembly for a local use vehicle (paragraph 0009). Included is a housing assembly for mounting within a local use vehicle (paragraph 0009). The battery assembly may further include a ballast, or counterweight (paragraph 0014). The ballast may be located beneath the battery in the housing assembly (paragraph 0014). The housing assembly 102 is configured for mounting within local use vehicle (paragraph 0052). The housing assembly may be sized and configured with walls, connectors and securing structure, so as to be usable to retrofit in place of an OEM lead acid battery in a local use vehicle (paragraph 0052). Typically the battery cell portion such as the lead acid would be have a larger form factor than that of the replacement battery, such as a lithium ion battery (paragraph 0052). The battery 104 may then be located within the outer walls 112 of housing assembly 102 (paragraph 0052). The battery 103 may be slid in an out of the vehicle (paragraph 0053). The battery assembly 100 may include a ballast, so that when the battery is replacing a heavier OEM battery, the ballast may be located within the lower housing (paragraph 0059). Specifically the ballast element 138c may be located on the bottom of the battery (paragraph 0060 and Figure 12).
WARD does not explicitly teach a first sensor assembly positioned underneath the battery at one of the left or ride side of the battery compartment.
TRACY teaches a bumper assembly for a material handling vehicle (abstract). The bumper assembly 100 includes a main body 102, a pair of window plates 104, and a pair of lower sections 106 (paragraph 0018). The window plates 104 may correlate with a number of object sensors installed behind the bumper assembly 100 (paragraph 0018). The main body 102 is installed onto a material handling vehicle 110 (paragraph 0019). The main body may be attached to a power section 112 of the vehicle 110, the power section includes a battery (paragraph 0019). The object detection sensors 114 may include at least two in each corner of the pend of the vehicle (paragraph 0024). The sensors then are located vertically underneath the power section 112 which includes the battery (see Figure 1). The bumper assembly then provides a mounting arrangement for the sensors, that provide unobstructed field of views (paragraph 0020). The main body of the bumper assembly includes cutout 116 for each sensor 114 (paragraph 0021). The cutouts enable the installation of the object detection sensor and corresponds to the window plate which covers the cutout (paragraph 0021). The sensors being formed inside the cutouts is taken to mean that they are completely located within the bounds of the frame.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the sensor assembly of TRACY with the vehicle of WARD, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results. Specifically, WARD teaches a local use vehicle which uses the battery assembly, and then TRACY teaches that such a vehicle may include the object detection sensors that allow the vehicle to be semi or fully autonomous (paragraph 0020).
With respect to claims 2. WARD teaches the housing assembly is configured for an OEM battery and securing for a retrofit instead of the OEM battery (paragraph 0052). The battery assembly then includes a ballast for when the battery is replacing a heavier OEM battery (paragraph 0059). Therefore the ballast, or counterweight is in the extra space from the replacement battery. WARD does not explicitly teach the first sensor assembly is also in this extra space.
TRACY teaches the sensors are placed in cutouts (paragraph 0021). Further the number of the window plates and cutouts correlate to the number of sensors (paragraph 0018). The object sensors may be located in any location on the vehicle (paragraph 0020).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place one of the sensors of TRACY in the opening formed by the extra space of WARD, as TRACY teaches that the placement of the object detection sensors may be variable, and therefore placing them in this extra space would have been a matter of routine optimization.
With respect to claim 3. The rejection of claim 2 from above is repeated here. TRACY teaches the sensors are placed in cutouts and window plates so that the sensor may have a field of view (paragraph 0024). As noted, the placement of the sensors may be determined as a matter of routine optimization, and then they are placed in cutouts 116. Therefore the sensor assembly is taken to be formed in a cutout in order for it to function.
With respect to claim 5. TRACY teaches as seen in Figures 3-4 the cutout section 116 is taken to have a L-shaped portion. Then as noted above with respect to claims 2-3, the cutout portions may be formed as part of the counterweight assembly.
With respect to claim 6. TRACY teaches the cutout portions are arranged in corners, and include window plates 104 (paragraphs 0018 and 0021). These are placed to provide an unobstructed field of view (paragraph 0020).
With respect to claims 8. WARD teaches as seen in Figures 3-4 a height and surface area of an operator compartment floorboard above a surface is the same before and after a battery is installed.
With respect to claim 10. The rejection of claim 1 in view of WARD and TRACY from above is repeated here. WARD teaches the ballast element 138c which is taken to be part of the counterweight assembly. WARD teaches the housing assembly is configured for an OEM battery and securing for a retrofit instead of the OEM battery (paragraph 0052). The battery assembly then includes a ballast for when the battery is replacing a heavier OEM battery (paragraph 0059). Therefore the ballast, or counterweight is in the extra space from the replacement battery. WARD does not explicitly teach the first sensor assembly is also in this extra space.
TRACY teaches the sensors are placed in cutouts (paragraph 0021). Further the number of the window plates and cutouts correlate to the number of sensors (paragraph 0018). The number of sensors is at least two one on either side (See Figure 1). The object sensors may be located in any location on the vehicle (paragraph 0020).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place one of the sensors of TRACY in the opening formed by the extra space of WARD, as TRACY teaches that the placement of the object detection sensors may be variable, and therefore placing them in this extra space would have been a matter of routine optimization. TRACY teaches the sensors are placed in cutouts and window plates so that the sensor may have a field of view (paragraph 0024). As noted, the placement of the sensors may be determined as a matter of routine optimization, and then they are placed in cutouts 116. Therefore the sensor assembly is taken to be formed in a cutout in order for it to function.
With respect to claim 11. TRACY further teaches the material handling vehicle 110 may be semi or fully autonomous (paragraph 0020). The sensors then are arranged on the side, and therefore is taken to be in running lines of the vehicle (paragraph 0020 and Figure 1).
With respect to claim 12. TRACY teaches the sensors 114 are placed on the side of the bumper assembly, and are arranged for easy servicing and installation of the sensors (paragraph 0020-0021).
With respect to claim 13. TRACY teaches the first and second sensors cut outs are arranged on opposite sides of the bumper assembly 100 (Figure 1) and are taken to enlarge a field of view based on the additional sensors.
With respect to claim 15. TRACY teaches a number of the object detection sensors may be installed behind the bumper assembly (paragraph 0018). These are taken to include rear sensor assemblies as well as front sensor assemblies (figure 1).
With respect to claim 16. TRACY teaches the sensor assemblies are formed inside the window plates 104 and cutouts 116 (paragraphs 0018-0021 and Figure 1) and are therefore taken to be located within the bounds of the frame of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 17. TRACY teaches the bumper assembly provides the mounting arrangement for the object detection sensors that provides an unobstructed field of view to maximize sensing capabilities and enables selective viewing (paragraph 0020).
With respect to claim 18. TRACY teaches the object detection sensors one in each corner of the vehicle, and may be arranged in any location on the vehicle (paragraph 0020). Therefore having the sensors of TRACY cover 360 degrees would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
With respect to claim 19. TRACY places the object detection assembly may be placed at any location of the vehicle (paragraph 0020) and specifically may be behind the bumper assembly (paragraph 0018) and therefore it would have been obvious to have one at the front or behind the battery.
With respect to claim 20. WARD teaches as seen in Figures 3-4 a height and surface area of an operator compartment floorboard above a surface is the same before and after a battery is installed.
With respect to claim 23. WARD teaches the battery assembly including a counterweight located beneath the battery (paragraph 0014). The location of the counterweight then is taken to be the claimed first cutout. WARD does not explicitly teach the first sensor assembly is also in this extra space.
TRACY teaches the sensors are placed in cutouts (paragraph 0021). Further the number of the window plates and cutouts correlate to the number of sensors (paragraph 0018). The object sensors may be located in any location on the vehicle (paragraph 0020).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place one of the sensors of TRACY in the opening formed by the extra space of WARD, as TRACY teaches that the placement of the object detection sensors may be variable, and therefore placing them in this extra space would have been a matter of routine optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of WARD and WELLMAN have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WARD and TRACY (US 2020/0317148 A1).
On pages 9-11 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended been emphasize the location of the counterweight assembly and the location of the first sensor assembly. Applicant argues that WARD is silent about the sensor assembling that monitors the left or right side of the vehicle, an does not teach it being underneath the battery. Applicant argues that WELLMAN shows the location for the sensors but does not disclose the mounting of the sensors, such as being recessed. Therefore Applicant argues that WELLMAN would not teach the sensor is necessarily be “completely located within the front, back, left, and right bounds of the frame so as to not increase the vehicle contour”. Further Applicant argues that WELLMAN does not explicitly teach cutouts. Then Applicant notes that claim 1 recites that the sensor assembly is positioned vertically underneath the battery. These arguments are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are made in view of TRACY.
TRACY teaches a bumper assembly that includes window plates 104 and cutouts 116 for each sensor (paragraphs 0018-0021). The sensors are located vertically underneath the power section 112 which includes the battery (paragraphs 0019 and Figure 1). Therefore TRACY explicitly teaches sensors placed vertically underneath a battery on the left and right of the vehicle, and since it is formed in the cutouts, it is taken to be located within the bounds of the vehicle contour.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722