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.
Claim 32 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.
It is unclear how claim 32 further limits parent claim 1, since recitations added to claim 1 are narrower than the recitations of new claim 32.
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, 14-17, 21-23, 26-28, 30 and 32-33 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. Because a joystick can move at least fore, aft and side to side, there are at least three motions. 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). Looking to Figure 6, the left joystick (48) can be configured for functions as desired (“selectable”). Just in this example there are four options for this single joystick. 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. Further, because Pinther clearly teaches that the joystick is programmable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have programmed as claimed in order to operate in a desired manner.
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 is 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 is 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 33, note that angle of attack is taught. Regarding the rate, it is common practice to control actuator speed based upon the amount of movement in a particular direction; i.e., a shorter movement is related to a slower motion, and a greater movement is related to a quicker movement. This is deemed to be inherent. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the joystick as claimed in order to optimally control the actuators.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 June 2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. Again, Pinther clearly teaches that a joystick can be programmable as desired and can move in more than three directions; i.e., motions. The claims continue to be too broad to be patentable in view of the prior art.
Claims 15-17 have been treated on the merits.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached on 571 272-0547. 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