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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2025-0021741, filed on
02/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2025 and 02/20/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim refers to an inching pedal and to a pedal angle sensor for a brake pedal. Paragraph 0054 of the description indicates that the pedal angle sensor is associated with the brake pedal. However, Paragraph 0055 appears to suggest that the same pedal angle sensor is also connected to the inching pedal. Furthermore, Figure 1 shows that the inching pedal provides a signal to the TCU, which, according to Paragraph 0055, corresponds to the signal from the pedal angle sensor; a component also linked to the brake pedal. This disclosure leaves ambiguity as to how a single pedal sensor can be functionally and structurally connected to both the inching pedal and brake pedal simultaneously. Therefore, there is a lack of written description for how a single pedal sensor can be functionally and structurally connected to both the inching pedal and brake pedal simultaneously.
Claims 2-8 and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim refers to an inching pedal and to a pedal angle sensor for a brake pedal. Paragraph 0054 of the description indicates that the pedal angle sensor is associated with the brake pedal. However, Paragraph 0055 appears to suggest that the same pedal angle sensor is also connected to the inching pedal. Furthermore, Figure 1 shows that the inching pedal provides a signal to the TCU, which, according to Paragraph 0055, corresponds to the signal from the pedal angle sensor; a component also linked to the brake pedal. This disclosure leaves ambiguity as to how a single pedal sensor can be functionally and structurally connected to both the inching pedal and brake pedal simultaneously. Therefore, there is a lack of written description for how a single pedal sensor can be functionally and structurally connected to both the inching pedal and brake pedal simultaneously.
Claims 10-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending on claim 9.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the system comprises the following functions:
(i) determining a vehicle state as being either a work mode or a travelling mode, and
(ii) when the vehicle state is in the work mode, generating engine control information and inching control information.
It is further defined in both claims that the vehicle control unit (10) receives at least one of the following signals:
a first signal output from a mast lever (100) in relation to lift,
a second signal output from the mast lever (100) in relation to tilt,
a third signal output from a forward/reverse neutral lever (200), and
a fourth signal output from a pedal angle sensor (300) for a brake pedal.
This wording allows an interpretation according to which only one of the four
signals may be received by the vehicle control unit to execute the claimed
sequence. However, based on the subsequent definitions in the claims, it
appears that step (i) requires either the third or fourth signal, while step (ii)
requires either the first or second signal. Therefore, in cases where only the first
or second signal is provided, step (i) cannot be performed, and conversely, in
cases where only the third or fourth signal is provided, step (ii) cannot be
executed.
Accordingly, the relationship between the input signals and the execution of
steps (i) and (ii) is ambiguous. As a result, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 9
is unclear.
Claims 2-8 and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the method comprises the following steps:
(i) determining a vehicle state as being either a work mode or a travelling mode, and
(ii) when the vehicle state is in the work mode, generating engine control information and inching control information.
It is further defined in both claims that the vehicle control unit (10) receives at least one of the following signals:
a first signal output from a mast lever (100) in relation to lift,
a second signal output from the mast lever (100) in relation to tilt,
a third signal output from a forward/reverse neutral lever (200), and
a fourth signal output from a pedal angle sensor (300) for a brake pedal.
This wording allows an interpretation according to which only one of the four
signals may be received by the vehicle control unit to execute the claimed
sequence. However, based on the subsequent definitions in the claims, it
appears that step (i) requires either the third or fourth signal, while step (ii)
requires either the first or second signal. Therefore, in cases where only the first
or second signal is provided, step (i) cannot be performed, and conversely, in
cases where only the third or fourth signal is provided, step (ii) cannot be
executed.
Accordingly, the relationship between the input signals and the execution of
steps (i) and (ii) is ambiguous. As a result, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 9
is not clear
Claims 10-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on claim 9.
Regarding claim 2, In particular, the portion of the claims reading "...wherein the vehicle control unit determines that the vehicle state is in the work mode when it is identified
that the forward and reverse neutral lever is in a neutral state based on
the third signal, the fourth signal, and the vehicle speed...” is unclear.
From the wording of the claim 2, it appears that the signal of the forward and
reverse neutral lever is derived from the third signal, the fourth signal, and
the vehicle speed. This interpretation, however, contradicts the wording of the
independent claim 1, which defines the signal of the forward and reverse
neutral lever as being the third signal output.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the neutral lever signal is (i) the third signal
itself or (ii) a state determined on the basis of the third and fourth signals and
the vehicle speed. This inconsistency renders the subject-matter of claim 2
ambiguous and therefore unclear.
Claims 3 and 8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, In particular, the portion of the claims reading "...wherein the vehicle control unit determines that the vehicle state is in the work mode when it is identified
that the forward and reverse neutral lever is in a neutral state based on
the third signal, the fourth signal, and the vehicle speed...” is unclear.
From the wording of the claim 10, it appears that the signal of the forward and
reverse neutral lever is derived from the third signal, the fourth signal, and
the vehicle speed. This interpretation, however, contradicts the wording of the
independent claim 9, which defines the signal of the forward and reverse
neutral lever as being the third signal output.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the neutral lever signal is (i) the third signal
itself or (ii) a state determined on the basis of the third and fourth signals and
the vehicle speed. This inconsistency renders the subject-matter of claim 10
ambiguous and therefore unclear.
Claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2007/0144163 A1 is directed determining whether a forklift is in travelling mode or working mode [see Paragraph 0013].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights