DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 21-23, 26, 27, 30 and 31 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.
The term “primarily,” “primary” and “additional precision” in claims 1, 31 and 31, respectively, are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The precise amount of control, actuation and movement, respectively, are rendered indefinite by these terms, since these terms have no clear scope.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 21-23, 26, 27 and 30 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 21-23, 26-28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evenson et al. (U.S. Patent 8,700,271) in view of Pinther, II et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0032564).
Evenson discloses an implement control system having actuators (51, 52, 54, 56) to selectively raise or lower a machine work implement (31) in a first mode and a joystick (21) configured for manipulation in first and second motions (column 1, lines 8-12, for example). The first motion is associated with controlling a first actuation of a first actuator (lift, for example) in a first mode (forward, for example) and a first actuation (pivot, for example) of a second actuator in a second mode (left, for example). A second motion is associated with controlling a second actuation (lower, for example) in a first mode (aft, for example) and a second actuation (tilt, for example) in a second mode (right, for example). A controller (60) is configured to receive a movement (left, right fore, aft) and selectively cause actuation (pivot, tilt, raise, lower) as claimed. Note that for purposes of the rejection to claim 1, additional modes on the joystick (via 24, 26, 27) are not relied upon, but further meet claim recitations. Regarding the selector input for selecting between first and second modes, Pinther teaches an input (98) for selecting between/among modes (92, 97, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a selector input as claimed with Evenson in order to switch between/among modes, as taught by Pinther.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the actuators are hydraulic cylinders.
Regarding claim 4, the work implement is a blade (Figure 1).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 25, there are user selector inputs/buttons (24, 26, 27).
The actuators are arranged in the manner of claim 7 (Figure 1).
Further regarding claim 9, as shown in Figure 3 of Evenson, the joystick accommodates buttons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the button (98) of Pinther on the joystick of Evenson in order to ease operator control.
Regarding claim 14, the machine is an earth mover, which is not patentably distinguishable from the recited machines. Because compact track loaders and skid steer loaders are known to include liftable, pivotable and tiltable blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the control system with a loader in order to control the blade, as is the purpose of Evenson.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known to remotely operate machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have remotely operated Evenson in order to, for example, reduce on-site labor.
Regarding claim 22, there is an operator station (16); however, Evenson is silent regarding a display. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use display devices in machines in order to convey information to a machine operator. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a display.
Regarding claim 24, because there are a plurality of actuations, claim recitations are met. There is no added meaning to the recitations of “primary” and “secondary.”
Regarding claims 26-29, because the actuators of Evenson are used to move the implement in the same motions as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the modes as claimed in order to easily perform the task(s), in accordance with the purposes of each of Evenson and Pinther.
Regarding claim 30, this is deemed to be inherent since the power to actuators manipulated by a joystick are proportional to the distance moved from a neutral position. Further, the examiner takes Official notice that such proportional movement is well known in joysticks in order to optimally control the actuators.
Regarding claim 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the switch (98) as a three position switch, in order to accommodate an additional mode. Given this reconfiguration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled a tandem operating mode in order to optimally manipulate the implement of Pinther.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. As discussed in the 112 rejection, the amendment presents indefinite issues. Regarding the substance of the arguments, the examiner maintains that the claims are within ordinary skill for the reasons previously stated.
The amendment to claim 9 is not patentable since, as discussed above, it is within ordinary skill to have positioned the button on the joystick.
Claim 15 and those which depend from it were withdrawn without traverse in the reply filed 12 February 2024. These claims will not be reinstated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached on 571272-6998. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights