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 .
Contents of this Office Action:
35 U.S.C. 101 analysis
Allowable Subject Matter
35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 101
The present claims are compliant with 35 U.S.C. 101 because any potential mental steps are integrated into a practical application. The industrial park is inserted into a pallet, and according to P47 of the Specification, the truck uses lasers to determine multiple measurement values. These could not be practically performed by a human mentally.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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: any measurement means in claims 11-14.
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. P47-48 disclose specific structure.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 11 and 13 for the same reasons as below), as well as all dependent claims) is 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. Specifically, the claim recites that the first distance measuring means is “preferably” directed towards a fork gap, but it is not known what preferably means. It is not clear if this direction is required.
Further, the measuring means is said to be arranged in “the region” of a fork tip, but it is not clear whether this is supposed to be a specific region of the fork tip, as there is lack of antecedent basis, or what the particular region is supposed to be. The Examiner will interpret this as simply on the fork tip.
Further, for claim 13, the last limitation recites to take measurements “into account” when calculating the degree of offset, but it is not clear what take into account means. Are these part of the calculation? The claim needs to be amended to describe how the measurements are taken into account.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not disclose the limitations discussed below:
The three closest pieces of prior art are:
US10048398B2 which teaches:
a forklift with two arms, distance sensors that tip of one of the form arms, inserting the tines into pallet pockets, receiving measurements, and adjusting orientation of the tine relative to the pocket based on the measurement information.
However, this reference does not teach:
wherein the pallet has an outer block, outer web, center block, or web such that the measurement values are determined to the outer block, outer web, center block, or web of the pallet during insertion.
CN112830428A which teaches:
Forklift with two fork tines, multiple distance sensors on the fork, measuring distances to the pallet while the fork enters the pallet, determining an offset and using them to determine misalignment, and lasers, as well as that the degree of offset is measured base on at least two first measurement values
However, this reference does not teach:
wherein the pallet has an outer block, outer web, center block, or web such that the measurement values are determined to the outer block, outer web, center block, or web of the pallet during insertion, as well as that the degree of offset is measured base on at least two first measurement values.
US20150239720A1, which teaches:
An industrial truck that has a center block, outer edges, and web, as well as the forks being inserted into a pallet.
However, this reference does not teach:
any distance measuring means. The only mention of sensors is a sensing device to detect the presence of a fully picked-up load carrier on the load fork.
The reason these three references are important is that reference 3 shows that it would be improper to simply combine it with references 1 and 2 just because it discloses the center block and web. This would be impermissible hindsight bias because there would be no reason to combine a different pallet structure with the specific measurement and calculation techniques but for Applicant’s disclosure. The two references are doing completely different things, and the references must be considered as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Oritz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights