DETAILED ACTION
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert et al., US 2020/0269895, in view of Gault et al., US 2018/0229988.
Englert discloses a delivery system (10, 110, Figs. 1-21, [0031]-[0048]) comprising:
a base (12, Figs. 1-2);
a platform (14, Figs. 1-4) extending forward of the base (Figs. 1, 4), the platform having an upper support surface for supporting objects thereon ([0002], [0031]);
a plurality of wheels including load wheels supporting the platform (16, Figs. 1 -10) and a rear wheel (18, Fig. 1; 318, Figs. 15-16; 420, Figs. 17-18) supporting the base (Figs. 1,15-18);
at least one motor for powering at least one of the plurality of wheels (17, [0035]; 317, [0044]; 417, [0045]); and
a controller (510, Figs. 19-21, [0046]-[0047]).
Englert fails to teach a gravity sensor, a speed sensor, and a controller that controls the speed of at least one of the motors based upon the speed signal or gravity signal. Gault discloses a delivery system (10, Figs. 1-9, [0026]-[0075]; Note: While Gault does not specifically teach that the delivery system can be a pallet lift, Gault teaches that his invention is directed to many types of industrial vehicles, including “other machine for lifting, moving and transporting material, cargo or other loads” see [0028]) that includes a base (12, Fis. 1-2), a platform (14, 18) extending forward of the base and having an upper surface (14) for supporting objects (16) thereon (Figs. 1-2), a plurality of motorized wheels (20a, 20b), a gravity sensor (34, Fig. 3, [0036], [0038]; Note: The present application does not provide any examples of a “gravity sensor”; as such, since an accelerometer is a known synonym for a gravity sensor, Gault may be relied upon for disclosing the claimed “gravity sensor”), a speed sensor (36, Fig. 3, [0037]), and a controller (10, Figs. 3-9) that is configured to control a speed of the wheel motor based upon the speed signal from the speed sensor ([0071]-[0073], or the controller is configured to control a speed of the wheel motor based upon the gravity signal ([0038]-[0039], [0062]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify Englert to include a gravity sensor, a speed sensor, and a controller that controls the speed of the motorized wheel(s) based on either the speed signal or the gravity signal because it would prevent instability and/or tipping of the delivery system/device, as taught by Gault ([0006]-[0014], [0048]). Gault specifically teaches that the load moment capacity of the delivery system/vehicle can be affected by driving the vehicle up or down a slope ([0063]), and the automatic control/intervention such as cutting off the power to the wheels will prevent the instability and/or tipping over of the vehicle ([0006], [0048]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,873,020 (“US ‘020”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Both include claims that are directed to an apparatus-type structure that includes a base, a platform, a plurality of wheels including load wheels supporting the platform and a rear wheel, and at least one motor for powering one of the plurality of wheels. Specifically, the claimed features of the present application are taught by the following claims of the US ‘020 patent:
Claim in the present application
Claimed feature
Taught by Claim X of the US ‘020 patent
1
Base
1
1
Platform
1
1
Plurality of wheels including load wheels
1
1
Rear wheel
3
1
Gravity sensor
6
1
Speed sensor
7
1
At least one motor for powering at least one of the plurality of wheels
4, 7
1
Controller configured to control a speed of the at least one motor based on the speed signal
7
2
Controller configured to control a speed of the at least one motor based on the gravity signal
6
3
Backrest
1
4
Backrest pivotably secured to the base
1
5
Actuator to pivot platform
1
6
Platform pivotable about an axis parallel to axes of the load wheels
2
7
Controller configured to automatically cause the platform to pivot relative to the base based upon the gravity signal
6
8
Rear wheel pivotable to the base by a tiller arm
3
9
Load wheels secured to arms
9
One difference between the claims of the present application and the US ‘020 patent is that independent Claim 1 is directed to a “delivery system”, while the corresponding claims in the US ‘020 patent are directed to a “pallet lift”. However, as best understood from the disclosure, a “pallet lift” is a specific name for a “delivery system”, e.g., see the Background and Summary sections of the present application ([0001]-[0015]), and therefore this difference in the name of the claimed invention does not make the claims of the present application patently distinct.
Claims 9-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 22-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,873,020 (“US ‘020”) in view of Gault et al., US 2018/0229988.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Both include claims that are directed to a method: Claim 1 is directed to a method for “operating a delivery system” while Claim 22 of the US ‘020 patent is directed to a method of “ stabilizing a pallet”. Both method claims include a similar “supporting” step: Claim 1 of the present application recites “supporting a load on a platform”, while Claim 22 of the US ‘020 patent recites “supporting a pallet on a platform”. Both method claims also recite a similar “detecting a change in orientation” step; Claim 1 of the present application recites detecting this orientation change in the “delivery system” while Claim 22 of the US ‘020 patent recites detecting this orientation change in the platform. As such, Claim 1 of the present application is broader than Claim 22 of the US ‘020 patent, however, these broader terms, i.e., “load” and “delivery system” would encompass the narrower terms of Claim 22, i.e., “pallet” and “platform” (since Claim 1 of the present application defines the “delivery system” as including a “platform”.) The difference between these two sets of claims is in the third step; Claim 1 of the present application recites “controlling a speed of the delivery system based on step b” (which is the detecting step) while Claim 22 of the US ‘020 patent recites “pivoting the platform … to counteract the change in orientation”. None of the dependent method claims in the US ‘020 patent teach the “controlling the speed” step recited in Claim 10 nor the “controlling a motor powering at least one of the wheels” as recited in Claim 15 of the present application.
Gault discloses a delivery system and method for operating a delivery system (10, Figs. 1-9, [0026]-[0075]), the delivery system including a base (12, Fis. 1-2), a platform (14, 18) extending forward of the base and having an upper surface (14) for supporting objects (16) thereon (Figs. 1-2), a plurality of motorized wheels (20a, 20b), a gravity sensor (34, Fig. 3, [0036], [0038), a speed sensor (36, Fig. 3, [0037]), and a controller (10, Figs. 3-9) that is configured to control a speed of the wheel motor based upon the speed signal from the speed sensor ([0071]-[0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify the US ‘020 patent such that the controller controls the speed of the motorized wheel(s) based on the speed signal because it would prevent instability and/or tipping of the delivery system/device, as taught by Gault ([0006]-[0014], [0048]).
The remaining claimed features of the dependent method claims of the present application are taught by the following claims of the US ‘020 patent:
Claim in the present application
Claimed feature
Taught by Claim X of the US ‘020 patent
11
Change in orientation caused by wheels being on an inclined surface
22
12
Pivoting the platform
22, 23
13
Backrest
24
14
Moving the load while the platform is pivoted
25
16
Inclined surface greater than 10 degrees
27
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-9 and 21-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,448,017 (“US ‘017”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Both include claims that are directed to an apparatus-type structure that includes a base, a platform, a plurality of wheels including load wheels supporting the platform and a rear wheel, and at least one motor for powering one of the plurality of wheels. Specifically, the claimed features of the present application are taught by the following claims of the US ‘017 patent:
Claim in the present application
Claimed feature
Taught by Claim X of the US ‘017 patent
1
Base
1
1
Platform
1
1
Plurality of wheels including load wheels
1
1
Rear wheel
4
1
Gravity sensor
7, 28
1
Speed sensor
8, 28
1
At least one motor for powering at least one of the plurality of wheels
5, 8
1
Controller configured to control a speed of the at least one motor based on the speed signal
8, 28
2
Controller configured to control a speed of the at least one motor based on the gravity signal
7, 28
3
Backrest
2, 25
4
Backrest pivotably secured to the base
25
5
Actuator to pivot platform
1
6
Platform pivotable about an axis parallel to axes of the load wheels
3
7
Controller configured to automatically cause the platform to pivot relative to the base based upon the gravity signal
7
8
Rear wheel pivotable to the base by a tiller arm
4
9
Load wheels secured to arms
10
One difference between the claims of the present application and the US ‘017 patent is that independent Claim 1 is directed to a “delivery system”, while the corresponding claims in the US ‘020 patent are directed to either a “delivery device” or a “pallet lift”. However, as best understood from the disclosure, a “pallet lift” is a specific name for a “delivery device” or a “delivery system”, e.g., see the Background and Summary sections of the present application ([0001]-[0015]), and therefore this difference in the name of the claimed invention does not make the claims of the present application patently distinct.
Claims 9-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,448,017 (“US ‘017”) in view of Gault et al., US 2018/0229988.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Both include claims that are directed to a method: Claim 1 is directed to a method for “operating a delivery system” while Claim 15 of the US ‘017 patent is directed to a method of “stabilizing a platform”. Both method claims include a similar “supporting” step: Claim 1 of the present application recites “supporting a load on a platform”, while Claim 15 of the US ‘017 patent recites “supporting at least one object on a platform”. Both method claims also recite a similar “detecting a change in orientation” step; Claim 1 of the present application recites detecting this orientation change in the “delivery system” while Claim 15 of the US ‘017 patent recites detecting this orientation change while moving the deck onto a ramp. As such, Claim 1 of the present application is broader than Claim 15 of the US ‘017 patent, however, these broader terms, i.e., “load” and “delivery system” would encompass the narrower terms of Claim 15, i.e., “object” and “moving” (since “delivery” can include the step of “moving”.) The difference between these two sets of claims is in the third step; Claim 1 of the present application recites “controlling a speed of the delivery system based on step b” (which is the detecting step) while Claim 15 of the US ‘017 patent recites “pivoting the platform … to maintain the platform substantially perpendicular to gravity”. Claim 20 of the US ‘017 patent teaches “controlling the speed” step recited in Claim 10. However, none of the dependent method claims in the US ‘017 patent teach the nor the “controlling a motor powering at least one of the wheels” as recited in Claim 15 of the present application.
Gault discloses a delivery system and method for operating a delivery system (10, Figs. 1-9, [0026]-[0075]), the delivery system including a base (12, Fis. 1-2), a platform (14, 18) extending forward of the base and having an upper surface (14) for supporting objects (16) thereon (Figs. 1-2), a plurality of motorized wheels (20a, 20b), a gravity sensor (34, Fig. 3, [0036], [0038), a speed sensor (36, Fig. 3, [0037]), and a controller (10, Figs. 3-9) that is configured to control a speed of the wheel motor based upon the speed signal from the speed sensor ([0071]-[0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify the US ‘017 patent such that the controller controls the speed of the motorized wheel(s) based on the speed signal because it would prevent instability and/or tipping of the delivery system/device, as taught by Gault ([0006]-[0014], [0048]).
The remaining claimed features of the dependent method claims of the present application are taught by the following claims of the US ‘017 patent:
Claim in the present application
Claimed feature
Taught by Claim X of the US ‘020 patent
11
Change in orientation caused by wheels being on an inclined surface
15
12
Pivoting the platform
15, 16
13
Backrest
16
14
Moving the load while the platform is pivoted
17
16
Inclined surface greater than 10 degrees
19
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,216,024 discloses controlling the speed of an industrial truck to increase the stability of the truck..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652