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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/2025 and 5/07/2026 have considered by the examiner.
It is noted that on the IDS of 5/7/2026, an application 18/386143 has been lined through, as the application has since published as 2024/0151822. This reference has been cited on the notice of references cited by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0095105A1 (Yutzy) in view of US 6991067B2 (Dube).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Yutzy discloses a lift device, comprising: a frame assembly (12); a platform (platform 16) configured to support an operator; a lift assembly (14) coupling the platform to the frame assembly and configured to raise or lower the platform, wherein the platform includes: a deck (deck 70) coupled to the lift assembly ;an extendable deck (78) movable relative to the deck in a longitudinal direction; and a sensor (lidar sensors 114, ultrasonic sensors 104, object detection system 100) configured to detect an obstacle below the platform; and a controller (1500) operatively coupled to the sensor, the controller configured to: limit operation of the lift device to lower the platform in response to the sensor detecting the obstacle within a stop zone, the stop zone extending a predetermined distance beneath the platform (controller restricts lowering if obstacle detected in stop zone beneath platform; see paragraphs 0037, 0043, 0044, etc.). Yutzy’s sensors detect objects below the platform, and the controller determines whether an object is present within a stop zone and, when an obstruction is detected during lowering, restricts further lowering of the platform. The reference further teaches that the stop zone may be adjusted based on the configuration/extension of the lift assembly. However, Yutzy does not explicitly discloses that it permits operation to lower the platform towards the obstacle when the sensor detects the obstacle beneath the stop zone.
Dube further teaches an obstruction-sensing system with a programmable detection distance, such that the controller restricts lowering when an obstacle is detected within a set distance from the platform, and permits lowering when no obstacle is detected within that distance.
From Dube: “For example, presume the system is programmed to trigger if an obstruction is detected 20’’ (about 51 cm) or less from the platform. (This value is programmable.) If the system sees any obstructions within 20’’ (about 51 cm) of the platform (regardless of symmetry or which transducer detects it) and it does not detect a profile that it has been programmed to ignore, it will stop the platform. If the platform is elevated to 10’ (about 3 m) and an attempt is made to lower the platform over a flat shelf, which is symmetrical in reference to the sensor system, once within 20’’ (about 51 cm) of the shelf, the system will think there is a problem. It will then determine whether what it sees matches any of the preprogrammed profiles. If not, it will stop the platform. It would also perform this way if the obstruction were not symmetrical.”
“When an operator moves the controls to initiate a lift down signal via 36, the microprocessor 30 polls the ultrasonic transducers 32 to determine if there is an obstruction beneath the platform. If there is no obstruction, the microprocessor 30 activates the lift down function via a lift down switch 38, and an activate signal via 40 is sent to the vehicle components that effect lowering of the platform, such as a lift down solenoid or the like.”
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yutzy to incorporate the programmable distance threshold of Dube, thereby configuring the controller to restrict lowering only when an obstacle is detected within the predetermined stop distance, and permit lowering otherwise. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to prevent unnecessary restriction of platform operation when obstacles are at a safe distance, while ensuring automatic cessation of lowering when the platform approaches an obstacle within the safety threshold.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 18, Yutzy teaches a lift device having a platform with sensors mounted to the platform for detecting obstacles beneath the platform ([0036], [0037], [0044], [0088], [0119]). While Yutzy describes the detection zone as covering the area beneath the platform, Dube explicitly teaches that sensors are configured to sense “substantially all of the area on the sensor side of the platform” (Fig. 1A, numerals 24, 24A, 24B, 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the stop zone to have a longitudinal and lateral width equal to or greater than the platform’s dimensions, as this is a routine safety practice to ensure that any part of the platform does not collide with objects beneath it.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Yutzy teaches an adjustable stop zone based on platform configuration ([0088]), and Dube teaches a programmable detection distance and profile adjustment based on platform position. It would have been obvious to further adjust the stop zone longitudinally based on the direction of travel of the lift device. Extending the stop zone in the direction of travel is a routine safety enhancement, as it reduces the risk of collision with objects in the path of movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of dynamically extending the stop zone in the direction of travel for improved safety and collision avoidance.
Regarding claim 4, Yutzy discloses the stop zone is a first portion of a scan area of the sensor, wherein the scan area further comprises at least one of a first warning zone extending from a longitudinal end of the platform to detect an obstacle adjacent to the platform or a second warning zone extending a greater distance beneath the platform than the predetermined distance. See paragraph 0088 where Yutzy describes a scan area, stop zone, and possible warning zones. (“The controller may define a scan area… a stop zone and a warning zone…”). See also Paragraph 0119: “…scan area includes a stop zone and a warning zone.”
Regarding claim 5, Yutzy discloses wherein responsive to the sensor detecting the obstacle within the first warning zone or the second warning zone, the controller is configured to operate an alert device to provide an alert to the operator indicating a presence of an obstacle within the first warning zone or the second warning zone. See paragraph [0119]: “…controller may activate an alert (e.g., visual or audible) if an obstacle is detected in the warning zone…”; Paragraph [0120]: “…alert device may be operated to indicate presence of obstacle in warning zone.”
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 19, Yutzy discloses responsive to detecting the obstacle within the stop zone, the controller is configured to: restrict the lift device from transporting in a direction towards the obstacle; or restrict the lift assembly from lowering the platform. Paragraph [0044], [0119], [0120]: “…controller restricts lowering… may also restrict driving toward detected obstacle…”. Paragraph [0120]: “…controller may inhibit drive function toward obstacle…”
Regarding claim 7, Yutzy discusses deck extension and platform configuration ([0088]), and Dube teaches programmable restriction logic based on platform position. It is conventional in aerial lift design to restrict driving when the extendable deck is not fully retracted, due to stability and collision risks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement such a restriction to prevent accidents or unsafe operation. The Examiner takes Official Notice that restricting driving with an extended deck is a standard safety feature in the art.
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 20, Yutzy discloses wherein responsive to the extendable deck moving relative to the deck in the longitudinal direction, the controller is configured to adjust a longitudinal width of the stop zone such that the longitudinal width of the stop zone is greater than or substantially equal to a longitudinal width extending from a first longitudinal end of the platform to a second longitudinal end of the platform. Paragraph [0088]: “…controller may adjust the stop zone based on platform extension…”; “…stop zone may be extended or retracted based on deck position…”.
Regarding claim 9, Yutzy teaches permitting operation when no obstacle is detected within the stop zone ([0119], [0120]), and Dube teaches permitting lowering if an object is outside the programmed detection distance. The concept of a “free space” below the predetermined distance is inherent in the operation of the system, as the controller permits operation when the obstacle is outside the stop zone. Permitting operation to access the surface of the obstacle is merely the result of lowering the deck when the obstacle is outside the stop zone, which is taught by the combination of Yutzy and Dube.
Regarding claim 10, Yutzy discloses wherein the controller is configured to switch between a normal operating configuration and an override configuration, wherein under the normal operating configuration, a size of the stop zone is selected by the controller, and wherein under the override configuration, the controller is configured to adjust a size of the stop zone responsive to a user input. Paragraph [0120]: “…controller may include override mode… operator input may adjust stop zone size…”.
Regarding claim 11, Dube teaches that the detection distance is programmable and provides an example of a trigger distance of 20 inches. The selection of a specific value, such as 18 inches, is a routine design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, based on safety requirements and operational needs. It would have been obvious to select any suitable value for the predetermined distance, including 18 inches, as taught by Dube.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights