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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/240,142 filed on 06/17/2025.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/062,432, filed 08/06/2020, is acknowledged and accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026, 05/28/2026, 04/30/2026, 04/20/2026, 01/29/2026,10/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [00132] should be amended to recite "I/O 580" instead of "I/O 680", and paragraph [00133] should be amended to recite "storage 560, removable media storage 570" instead of "storage 550, removable media storage 560".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 16 and 20:
Wellman teaches:
A control system for a materials handling vehicle, comprising: a display configured for mounting on the materials handling vehicle, (Wellman, Fig. 6 and para [17], “control system of a mobile asset”, and para [45], “a display 41”)
the display having physical controls, (Wellman, Fig. 5B depicts a display screen having physical control buttons.)
a processor in data communication with the display, the processor operatively programmed such that: (Wellman, para [49], “a display control module 44 for controlling the display 41 (shown in Figs. 5 A, 5B) and an input/output control module 45 that is associated with the controls 42 (also shown in Figs. 5A, 5B).”, and para [51], “Information detected by the monitoring input/output module 48 may be temporarily stored, collected, maintained, manipulated and/or otherwise processed, e.g., by a processor and corresponding memory”)
upon receipt of a first electronic message (Wellman, claim 20, “ receiving a message”)
and/or upon receipt of a second electronic message (Wellman, claim 20, “ receiving a message”)
the processor communicates at least one command across a vehicle network of the materials handling vehicle to modify a parameter associated with a vehicle controller, (Wellman, para[00203],” communicating commands to the appropriate vehicle control modules over the vehicle network bus”, and claim 25, “obtaining customized settings selected by an operator for at least one of a specific materials handling vehicle”)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Patterson teaches:
a touchscreen display mounted on the materials handling vehicle, (Patterson, para [46],” touch screen display”)
the display operative to output: a first widget that displays indicia identifying a set of performance tuning profiles; (Patterson, Fig.7-8 and para [0039], “The buttons and underlying control program is configurable to control secondary sub-systems”, and para[0038], “A 4-button matrix is illustrated to allow the operator to select the desired mode. The buttons are created with dual icons representing the primary components being controlled. As shown the chopper speed is shown in columns, high and low, and represented by a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon”) Examiner note: Patterson depicts a first widget in Fig.7 that displays indicia identifying a set of performance tuning profiles such as spread distribution, rotor distribution, spreader speed, etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
838
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a second widget that displays indicia associated with a throttle control; (Patterson, Fig.7 and para[0038], “As shown the chopper speed is shown in columns, high and low, and represented by a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon”) Examiner note: Patterson depicts a second widget in Fig.7 that displays indicia associated with a throttle control of chopper speed using a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon.
the operator interacted with the second widget to adjust the throttle control: ( Patterson, Fig.7-8 and para[0038], “A 4-button matrix is illustrated to allow the operator to select the desired mode. The buttons are created with dual icons representing the primary components being controlled. As shown the chopper speed is shown in columns, high and low, and represented by a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Patterson in order to include a touchscreen display mounted on the materials handling vehicle, the display operative to output: a first widget that displays indicia identifying a set of performance tuning profiles; and a second widget that displays indicia associated with a throttle control. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Patterson’s graphical user interface as “allows the operator to select the desired operating mode without multiple buttons and switches.”( Patterson, Description)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Heffington teaches:
an operator of the materials handling vehicle selected a specific performance tuning profile from the set of performance tuning profiles associated with the first widget, (Heffington, Fig.5 and para[0124],” Selection of the “make changes” button 805 in FIG. 5 causes a return to the “performance tuning main menu 802 to enable selection of the option that the user may wish to modify”, and Fig.3-4 and para[0122], “FIG. 4 shows an exemplary “performance tuning main screen 802, also referred to as menu 802, as displayed on the touch screen 12 of the device 10 in response to selection of the performance tuning button 800 shown in FIG. 3. As seen in FIG. 4, the menu 802 displays a plurality of user selectable buttons.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
414
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
modify a parameter associated with a vehicle controller, (Heffington, Fig.5 and para[0124],” Selection of the “make changes” button 805 in FIG. 5 causes a return to the “performance tuning main menu 802 to enable selection of the option … to modify”)
within limits defined by the selected electronic performance tuning profile and throttle control. (Heffington, Fig.5 and para [0125], “FIG. 8 shows an exemplary “RPM rev limiter” menu 809 displayed on the touch screen 12 of the device 10 in response to selection of the “adjust RPM rev limiter button 812 in FIG. 4. Up arrow 813 and down arrow 814 are provided on menu 809 to enable increase or decrease of the RPM rev limiter setting”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Heffington in order to include an operator of the materials handling vehicle selected a specific performance tuning profile from the set of performance tuning profiles associated with the first widget, modify a parameter associated with a vehicle controller, within limits defined by the selected electronic performance tuning profile and throttle control. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Heffington’s graphical user interface in order to make profile selection, adjustment, and communication of the active settings easier and more understandable.
Regarding Claim 2:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Patterson teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the first widget displays indicia identifying the set of performance tuning profiles as a list of performance tuning profiles, each performance tuning profile in the list associated with a designated application. (Patterson, Fig.7-8 and para [0039], “The buttons and underlying control program is configurable to control secondary sub-systems”, and para[0038], “A 4-button matrix is illustrated to allow the operator to select the desired mode. The buttons are created with dual icons representing the primary components being controlled. As shown the chopper speed is shown in columns, high and low, and represented by a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon”) Examiner note: Patterson depicts a first widget in Fig.7 that displays indicia identifying a set of performance tuning profiles such as spread distribution, rotor distribution, spreader speed, and each performance tuning profile in the list associated with a designated application.
PNG
media_image1.png
838
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Patterson in order to include wherein: the first widget displays indicia identifying the set of performance tuning profiles as a list of performance tuning profiles, each performance tuning profile in the list associated with a designated application. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Patterson’s graphical user interface as “allows the operator to select the desired operating mode without multiple buttons and switches.”( Patterson, Description)
Regarding Claim 3:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Patterson teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the second widget displays indicia associated with the throttle control as a user- selectable value that ranges between a turtle icon and a rabbit icon. (Patterson, Fig.7 and para[0038], “As shown the chopper speed is shown in columns, high and low, and represented by a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon”) Examiner note: Patterson depicts a second widget in Fig.7 that displays indicia associated with a throttle control of chopper speed using a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Patterson in order to include wherein: the second widget displays indicia associated with the throttle control as a user- selectable value that ranges between a turtle icon and a rabbit icon. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Patterson’s graphical user interface as “allows the operator to select the desired operating mode without multiple buttons and switches.”( Patterson, Description)
Regarding Claim 4:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Heffington teaches:
The control system of claim 1 further comprising: an operator performance tuning profile that defines limits for a specific operator of the materials handling vehicle that augment the operator-selected performance tuning profile selected in the first widget. (Heffington, Fig.5 and para[0124],” Selection of the “make changes” button 805 in FIG. 5 causes a return to the “performance tuning main menu 802 to enable selection of the option that the user may wish to modify”, and para [0125], “FIG. 8 shows an exemplary “RPM rev limiter” menu 809 displayed on the touch screen 12 of the device 10 in response to selection of the “adjust RPM rev limiter button 812 in FIG. 4. Up arrow 813 and down arrow 814 are provided on menu 809 to enable increase or decrease of the RPM rev limiter setting”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Heffington in order to include an operator performance tuning profile that defines limits for a specific operator of the materials handling vehicle that augment the operator-selected performance tuning profile selected in the first widget. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Heffington’s graphical user interface in order to make profile selection, adjustment, and communication of the active settings easier and more understandable.
Regarding Claim 5:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: upon receipt of the second electronic message (Wellman, claim 20, “ receiving a message”)
at least one command is issued across the vehicle network of the materials handling vehicle to orchestrate a response of the materials handing vehicle according to the operator-selected specific performance tuning profile identified by the first message. (Wellman, para[00203],” communicating commands to the appropriate vehicle control modules over the vehicle network bus”, and claim 25, “obtaining customized settings selected by an operator for at least one of a specific materials handling vehicle or a specific type of materials handling vehicle for a fleet having a plurality of materials handling vehicles… wirelessly communicating information between the server computer and the materials handling vehicle via the transceiver”)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Patterson teaches:
the operator adjusted the throttle control, (Patterson, Fig.7 and para[0038], “As shown the chopper speed is shown in columns, high and low, and represented by a rabbit and a turtle inside a chopper icon”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Patterson in order to include a message indicating the operator adjusted the throttle control. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Patterson’s graphical user interface as “allows the operator to select the desired operating mode without multiple buttons and switches.”( Patterson, Description)
Regarding Claim 7:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the processor is operatively configured to enable the operator to select the electronic performance tuning profile from the set of electronic performance tuning profiles based upon at least one of a new task, a new application, an encountered geolocation, or a new operating condition, of the materials handling vehicle. (Wellman, para [0004], “The method still further comprises detecting a predetermined event associated with the materials handling vehicle”, para[00203],” communicating commands to the appropriate vehicle control modules over the vehicle network bus”, and claim 25, “obtaining customized settings selected by an operator for at least one of a specific materials handling vehicle or a specific type of materials handling vehicle for a fleet having a plurality of materials handling vehicles… wirelessly communicating information between the server computer and the materials handling vehicle via the transceiver”, para [165],” forklift truck 12D may implement an evasive maneuver or otherwise perform a remediation action, such as by automatically steering around the area and/or avoiding the area that has been geofenced, or by reducing the speed of the forklift truck 12D, or performing other appropriate actions”) Examiner note: The broadest reasonable interpretation determines that automatically steering around the area is a new operating condition of the materials handling vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the processor communicates the at least one command across the vehicle network of the materials handling vehicle to modify at least one of: maximum speed; maximum acceleration; maximum braking; maximum lift height; maximum lift speed; maximum lift acceleration; maximum lift deceleration; maximum load weight; use of blending; or use of an automation feature of the materials handling vehicle. (Wellman, para [159], “Correspondingly, the mobile asset 12 may disable advanced features, limit capabilities, alter performance capabilities, etc., for relatively lower ranked/skilled operators. For example, an experienced Pl operator may be able to drive a mobile asset 12 at higher rates of speed, perform certain functions simultaneously, etc., relative to a corresponding novice P3 operator. Any other number of ranking systems may be provided to implement such performance tuning.”)
Regarding Claim 10:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: a remote processor monitors activity of the materials handling vehicle to detect a triggering event, (Wellman, para [0004], “The method still further comprises detecting a predetermined event associated with the materials handling vehicle”)
wherein, upon detecting the triggering event, the remote processor wirelessly transmits a command to change at least one of the specific performance tuning profile previously selected by the operator, or a parameter of the specific performance tuning profile previously selected by the operator. (Wellman, para [0004], “The method still further comprises detecting a predetermined event associated with the materials handling vehicle”, para[00203],” communicating commands to the appropriate vehicle control modules over the vehicle network bus”, and claim 25, “obtaining customized settings selected by an operator for at least one of a specific materials handling vehicle or a specific type of materials handling vehicle for a fleet having a plurality of materials handling vehicles… wirelessly communicating information between the server computer and the materials handling vehicle via the transceiver”, para [165],” forklift truck 12D may implement an evasive maneuver or otherwise perform a remediation action, such as by automatically steering around the area and/or avoiding the area that has been geofenced, or by reducing the speed of the forklift truck 12D, or performing other appropriate actions”)
Regarding Claim 13:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the materials handling vehicle travels into a speed restricted zone, whereupon the processor issues a command across a vehicle network bus to alter at least one of a set point affecting a maximum allowed speed, or a travel speed to comply with the speed restricted zone and the selected performance profile. (Wellman, para [108], “the interface controller 50 on a materials handling vehicle may also communicate with vehicle components across the vehicle network system 68 to reduce functionality of the vehicle, e.g., limit or restrict travel speed, forks operation, etc.”)
Regarding Claim 14:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the materials handling vehicle engages a maximum lift height restricted zone, whereupon the processor issues a command across a vehicle network bus to alter at least one of a set point affecting a maximum allowed lift height, or a travel speed to comply with the speed restricted zone and the selected performance profile. (Wellman, para [187], “ the maximum allowable height of the forks may be limited”)
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1) and Ballesteros (US20200079333A1), Peron (US20080259621A1).
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: upon receipt of the first electronic message, (Wellman, claim 20, “ receiving a message”)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Ballesteros teaches:
the processor communicates at least one command to a communication system on the materials handling vehicle… information about at least one of: the operator, the selected specific performance tuning profile, or the throttle control setting. ( Ballesteros, para [0018], “an automatic train operation ( ATO ) system , able to communicate remotely with an automatic train supervision ( ATS ) system”, and para [0061], “Each ATO system and the ATS system for example at least partially assume the form of computers , each computer being provided with a memory and a processor able to execute software stored in this memory”, and para [0037], “the optimized driving profiles are sent to the vehicles by wireless signals”,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Ballesteros in order to include the processor communicates at least one command to a communication system on the materials handling vehicle to indicate to an observer in the vicinity of the materials handling vehicle, information about at least one of: the operator, the selected specific performance tuning profile, or the throttle control setting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Ballesteros’s electric energy consumption optimization method of a plurality of vehicles, as “adopt new schedules quickly”( Ballesteros, Description)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Peron teaches:
to indicate to an observer in the vicinity of the … vehicle, (Peron, para [03], “alert nearby vehicles and observers”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Peron in order to include the processor communicates at least one command to a communication system on the materials handling vehicle to indicate to an observer in the vicinity of the materials handling vehicle, information about at least one of: the operator, the selected specific performance tuning profile, or the throttle control setting. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Peron’s signal system, as “improved safety measures for large vehicles, specifically to alert other vehicles or observers”( Peron, Description)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1) and Choi (US20180237010A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Heffington teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the processor is operatively configured to enable the operator to adjust down one or more performance settings of the selected specific performance tuning profile; (Heffington, para [0125], “Up arrow 813 and down arrow 814 are provided on menu 809 to enable increase or decrease of the RPM rev limiter setting”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Heffington in order to include wherein: the processor is operatively configured to enable the operator to adjust down one or more performance settings of the selected specific performance tuning profile. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Heffington’s graphical user interface in order to make profile selection, adjustment, and communication of the active settings easier and more understandable.
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Choi teaches:
and the processor is operatively configured to prevent the operator from adjusting up any displayed performance settings past a maximum setting defined by the selected specific performance tuning profile.(Choi, claim 1, “Automotive Control System for controlling vehicle's maximum allowable speed limit. Comprising: A driver activated switch means such as, but not limited to, a button, switch, knob, or voice for initiating operation of said maximum speed limiter when said switch means is turned on. Setting means for setting the maximum speed limit of the vehicle. And control means for preventing vehicle velocity past the point of the maximum limit.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Choi in order to include the processor is operatively configured to prevent the operator from adjusting up any displayed performance settings past a maximum setting defined by the selected specific performance tuning profile. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Choi’s Motor Vehicle Maximum speed setter limiter as “can improve safety”( Choi, Description)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1) and Keogh (US 20150103566 A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Wellman teaches:
remote processor (Wellman, para [217], “a remote third party server for remote service diagnostics”)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Keogh teaches:
The control system of claim 10, wherein: the processor is configured to output to the display, an attribution that shows the operator of the materials handling vehicle at least one parameter change associated with the command issued by the…processor. ( Keogh, para[0054], “and a graphical user interface (GUI) to adjust these gain factors on the fly to tune the performance to match the particular power stage”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Keogh in order to include the processor is configured to output to the display, an attribution that shows the operator of the materials handling vehicle at least one parameter change associated with the command issued by the processor. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Keogh’s graphical user interface as “improve efficiency”( Keogh, Description)
Claim 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1) and Surti (US 20190392357 A1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10 and 16. Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Surti teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the display further outputs a message requiring the operator to accept or reject a change to an operator-selected performance tuning profile from the set of performance tuning profiles. ( Surti, para[0056], “a user interface that includes a prompt to accept or decline request optimization”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Surti in order to include the display further outputs a message requiring the operator to accept or reject a change to an operator-selected performance tuning profile from the set of performance tuning profiles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Surti’s graphical user interface as “improve the efficiency of the network system”( Surti, Description)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1) and Ballesteros (US20200079333A1) and Stratton (US20070219693A1).
Regarding Claim 15:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Ballesteros teaches:
The control system of claim 1, wherein: the set of performance tuning profile includes at least a first performance tuning profile configured such that when selected, causes the processor to modify controllers of the materials handling vehicle to be optimized for energy usage,( Ballesteros, claim 1, “acquiring an optimized driving profile generated by the ATS system …in order to minimize the electric energy consumption in said electric section;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Ballesteros in order to include wherein: the set of performance tuning profile includes at least a first performance tuning profile configured such that when selected, causes the processor to modify controllers of the materials handling vehicle to be optimized for energy usage. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Ballesteros’s electric energy consumption optimization method of a plurality of vehicles, as “adopt new schedules quickly”( Ballesteros, Description)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Stratton teaches:
and a second performance tuning profile configured such that when selected, causes the processor to modify controllers of the materials handling vehicle to be optimized for productivity.( Stratton, para [09], “adjusting control gains based on these parameters in order to achieve maximum productivity”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Stratton in order to include a second performance tuning profile configured such that when selected, causes the processor to modify controllers of the materials handling vehicle to be optimized for productivity. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Stratton’s method for automatically adjusting control gains on an earthmoving machine in order to “achieve maximum productivity”( Stratton, Description)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1) and Ballesteros (US20200079333A1).
Regarding Claim 17:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Ballesteros teaches:
The control system of claim 16, wherein: the list of performance tuning profiles includes at least one performance tuning profile directed to energy, productivity, pick operation, freezer operation, or loading dock operation. ( Ballesteros, claim 1, “acquiring an optimized driving profile generated by the ATS system …in order to minimize the electric energy consumption in said electric section;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Ballesteros in order to include wherein: the list of performance tuning profiles includes at least one performance tuning profile directed to energy, productivity, pick operation, freezer operation, or loading dock operation. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Ballesteros’s electric energy consumption optimization method of a plurality of vehicles, as “adopt new schedules quickly”( Ballesteros, Description)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (WO2008074008A2) in view of Patterson (US 2014/0325953 A1), and in further view of Heffington (US20070088465A1) and Morrison (US20200398992A1).
Regarding Claim 17:
Wellman in view of Patterson, Heffington, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Wellman teaches:
The control system of claim 16, wherein: a remote processor monitors activity of the materials handling vehicle to detect a triggering event, (Wellman, para [0004], “The method still further comprises detecting a predetermined event associated with the materials handling vehicle”)
wherein, upon detecting the triggering event, the remote processor wirelessly transmits a command to change at least one of the specific performance tuning profile previously selected by the operator, or a parameter of the specific performance tuning profile previously selected by the operator; (Wellman, para [0004], “The method still further comprises detecting a predetermined event associated with the materials handling vehicle”, para[00203],” communicating commands to the appropriate vehicle control modules over the vehicle network bus”, and claim 25, “obtaining customized settings selected by an operator for at least one of a specific materials handling vehicle or a specific type of materials handling vehicle for a fleet having a plurality of materials handling vehicles… wirelessly communicating information between the server computer and the materials handling vehicle via the transceiver”, para [165],” forklift truck 12D may implement an evasive maneuver or otherwise perform a remediation action, such as by automatically steering around the area and/or avoiding the area that has been geofenced, or by reducing the speed of the forklift truck 12D, or performing other appropriate actions”)
Wellman does not explicitly teach, but Morrison teaches:
and the display is configured to update to output a message the change. ( Morrison, para[101], “If not , block 420 makes adjustments to the matrix of motor controller 24 commands and provides an indication to the Display to indicate that vehicle performance has been adjusted”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wellman with these above teachings from Morrison in order to include the display is configured to update to output a message the change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wellman’s fleet management system with Morrison’s display system as “improve aircraft function and efficiency”( Morrison, Description)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomson (US10429831B2) teaches a computer-executed process and system for evaluating industrial vehicle performance comprises identifying kinematic functions of an industrial vehicle, receiving constraints of an environment in which the industrial vehicle operates, and computing a cutback curve for a parameter of a select kinematic function of the industrial vehicle. A kinematic model of the industrial vehicle is generated based on the kinematic functions, the constraints of the environment, and the cutback curves. A workflow model is defined by defining tasks of the industrial vehicle within the environment, wherein the tasks are based upon the kinematic model. The kinematic model and workflow model is used to simulate a job specification, and the results of the simulation are used to evaluate an industrial vehicle.
Manci (US10625751B2) teaches a computer implemented process is carried out by identifying a metric that characterizes an event associated with the operation of an industrial vehicle. Information about the metric is transmitted to an industrial vehicle. Further, the process includes receiving event data that characterizes a response of the industrial vehicle to the event. The process also includes updating a score for the instance of the metric associated with the vehicle operator by deriving a raw score value based upon the received event data, aggregating the derived raw score value to previously derived raw scores for the metric, and computing a modified score by applying a filter to the aggregate of raw score values. The process also includes comparing the computed modified score with a predetermined modification criteria, and sending a command back to the industrial vehicle to modify the industrial vehicle based upon the comparison.
Kumar (US12046090B2) teaches a materials handling vehicle technology monitor receives wirelessly, from a fleet of materials handling vehicles, electronic vehicle records. Each electronic vehicle record includes technology feature data recorded by a controller on an associated materials handling vehicle. Typically, the electronic vehicle record is generated in response to a corresponding technology feature on the materials handling vehicle being operated in a work environment. Moreover, each electronic vehicle record includes an operator identification of an operator of the materials handling vehicle at the time the technology feature data is recorded. The monitor also generates for each operator, an electronic measurement based upon a comparison of expected technology feature usage, e.g., a threshold, compared to the technology feature data in the received electronic vehicle records, which are associated with the corresponding operator. The process further comprises outputting to a dashboard, a graphical representation of the generated measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights