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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 2 “at least one side shift” should be --at least one side shift actuator--.
Claim 8 line 18 “actuator coupled coupled to” should be --actuator coupled to--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-16 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.
The claims are rejected for new matter. The claims recite, in part, “wherein the locking coupling mechanism comprises a mechanical stop or hydraulic lock configured to selectively inhibit pitch and tilt movement while permitting articulation about a yaw axis” (emphasis added here).
While the locking coupling mechanism and its function is supported (i.e. to selectively inhibit pitch and tilt movement while permitting articulation about a yaw axis), the specification is silent as to the specifics of the locking coupling mechanism, that is, wherein it comprises a mechanical stop or hydraulic lock.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,3-8,10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds et al. (US 20030136568 A1 ) in view of Marquardt (US 20040079541 A1), Ryerson et al. (US 20110035109 A1), and Martel et al. (US 20220258799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McReynolds discloses a road grader attachment (10) for a skid steer work machine (12), the attachment comprising:
a chassis (14);
a plurality of traction devices positioned to support the chassis and including at least one front traction device (20);
a grader blade (T) positioned between the front traction device and the work machine;
an articulation joint (45) coupled to the chassis at a rear end of chassis, permitting pivotal articulation of the chassis about the articulation joint at the rearward end relative to a skid steer frame (Fig. 9);
wherein a first articulation actuator (46) on a left side of the articulation joint and a second articulation actuator (other of 46) on a right side of the articulation joint actively assist in changing a direction (Fig. 6, para. [0036]); and
an attachment hydraulic control circuit for operating a plurality of hydraulic actuators of the attachment (para. [0031]), wherein the plurality of actuators includes the first articulation actuator and the second articulation actuator.
McReynolds does not disclose wherein the road grader attachment comprises a motor grade circle coupled to the blade and a steering actuator coupled to the front traction device, and does not explicitly detail the specifics of the hydraulic control circuit.
In the same filed of endeavor, Marquardt discloses a similar grader attachment for a skid steer, wherein the grader blade (28) is coupled to a motor grade circle (circular member coupled to A-frame 26, shown in Figs. 1 and 3) for rotation about a blade axis (para. [0025]), wherein the attachment further comprises a steering actuator (80) coupled to and enabling steerability of a front traction device (18, para. [0026]), wherein an attachment hydraulic control valve (82) is coupled to the chassis for metering a flow of hydraulic fluid from an auxiliary port located on the skid steer to control the plurality of actuators on the attachment (para. [0020,0025] ports 36,44,46 supply and route fluid from the “auxiliary hydraulics” of the skid steer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar motor grader circle, steering actuator, and control valve in the grader attachment of McReynolds, as taught by Marquardt, in order to further improve precise control over blade positioning for fine grading (Marquardt at para. [0004]).
The combination does not explicitly detail wherein the first and second articulation actuators are configured to operate in coordination with the steering actuator to enable compound directional control of the road grader attachment relative to the skid steer frame.
However, such compound direction control is well known in the art of grading. Ryerson discloses a steering system for a grader comprising automated articulation control, wherein a steering actuator (120) coupled to front traction device (58,60) and first and second articulation actuators (64,66) are configured to operate in coordination to enable compound directional control of the front frame (12) relative to the rear frame (14) (para. [0032] control signals to steering actuators 120 and articulation actuators 64,66 maneuver the grader accordingly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar compound direction control system in the combination of McReynolds and Marquardt, as taught by Ryerson, to reduce operator work by enabling automatic and properly controlled machine articulation (Ryerson at para. [0004]).
McReynolds does not explicitly detail wherein the articulation joint comprises a ball joint.
Martel discloses an articulated vehicle (104) comprising a primary unit (100) configured for pushing a secondary unit (102) in the forward direction (para. [0036]), wherein the units comprise a steerable articulation joint (106) arranged therebetween for articulation about a vertical yaw axis (142) of a ball joint (166) (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a ball joint for the steerable articulation joint of McReynolds, as Martel teaches that such a joint may be used to facilitate steerable articulation of an attachment, and it would have been obvious as a design choice to consider and try for the purpose of efficiency and design configuration, a ball joint as a mere simple substitution of one steerable articulation joint for another.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of McReynolds discloses the attachment of claim 1. McReynolds further discloses wherein the plurality of actuators comprises at least one lift actuator (51,55), the lift actuator coupled to the blade (T), enabling a lift of the blade (para. [0038-0039]).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of McReynolds discloses the attachment of claim 1. Marquardt further discloses at least one side shift actuator coupled to the blade enabling side shifting of the blade (para. [0025] blade adjustment assemblies include “cylinders which allow the blade to be...shifted side to side across the surface of the ground”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar side shift actuator in the road grader attachment of the combination, as taught by Marquardt, to provide increased precision positioning of the blade for fine grading operations.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of McReynolds discloses the attachment of claim 1. Marquardt further discloses at least one blade pitch actuator, coupled to the blade, enabling pitching of the blade (para. [0025] blade adjustment assemblies include “cylinders which allow the blade to be tilted forward and back”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar blade pitch actuator in the road grader attachment of the combination, as taught by Marquardt, to provide increased precision positioning of the blade for fine grading operations.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of McReynolds discloses the attachment of claim 1. Marquardt further discloses at least one circle rotate actuator (88) enabling the motor grade circle to turn about a motor grade circle axis (para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar circle rotate actuator in the road grader attachment of the combination, as taught by Marquardt, to provide increased precision positioning of the blade for fine grading operations.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of McReynolds discloses the attachment of claim 1. Ryerson further discloses at least one wheel lean actuator (92) enabling the front traction device (58,60) to lean (para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar wheel lean actuator in the road grader attachment of the combination, as taught by Ryerson, in order to counter-act lateral forces caused by blade angle.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of McReynolds discloses the road grader attachment claim 1. Martel further discloses
a coupling mechanism (194,380) to prevent movement in a pitch (140) and tilt (144) direction of the attachment at the articulation joint (166) (para. [0059] pitch limiter arrangement 194 is provided a locking mechanism to selectively hold the pitch angle at a neutral or other position, and para. [0083] roll locking arrangement 380 is activated to prevent the roll motion/lock the angular position about the roll axis 144),
wherein the locking coupling mechanism comprises a mechanical stop or hydraulic lock configured to selectively inhibit pitch and tilt movement while permitting articulation about a yaw axis (142) (bottom of para. [0048] steerable coupling linkage 106 is permitted to articulate about yaw axis 142 for steering while pitch and tilt axes 140, 144 are locked).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar coupling locking mechanism for the ball joint of the combination, as taught by Martel, in order to selectively prevent uncontrolled forward or lateral tilting as desired.
Regarding independent claim 8, the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, wherein McReynolds further discloses wherein the skid steer (12) comprises a boom assembly (37).
Regarding claims 10-14 and 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 3-7 and 15, respectively, and it has been determined that the do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 3-7 and 15; therefore claims 10-14 and 16 are also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1,3-7 and 8, 10-14, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 15-16, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Martel discloses a locking coupling mechanism in the context of a trailer hitching system, specifically designed to stabilize a trailer’s steering linkage. The locking mechanism in Martel is intended to prevent pitch and roll movement of a trailer relative to a towing vehicle, typically in agricultural or construction hauling applications. This context is materially different from the claimed invention, which involves a compact road grader attachment for a skid steer” (Applicant’s Remarks Page 11).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Martel in para. [0036] states that the front/rear position referring to the normal forward travel direction of the articulated vehicle 104 is only for the sake of simplicity, but many other configurations and arrangements are possible. For instance, the primary unit 100 can be configured to push the secondary unit 102 when travelling in the forward direction, therefore the primary unit 100 can be located behind secondary unit 102, similar to the context of Applicant’s invention which involves a forward road grader attachment connected to a rearward skid steer work machine via an articulation joint. Martel further teaches that secondary unit 102 can be a nonautomotive or automotive apparatus.
Applicant further argues:
“Applicant’s claimed locking mechanism…is integrated into the articulation joint of the attachment and works in conjunction with the articulation actuators to allow controlled yaw movement while inhibiting pitch and tilt. This selective constraint is not taught or suggested by Martel, which focuses on trailer stability rather than grading performance” (Applicant’s Remarks Page 11).
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Martel at para. [0048] does teach such selective restraint, wherein “the steerable coupling linkage 106 can have less than three degrees of freedom. It minimally has the or one yaw axis 142 for steering but one or more of the other axes 140, 144 can be absent and/or be locked.” Thus, such locking mechanisms are integrated into the articulation joint 106 and work in conjunction with the articulation actuator 200 to allow controlled yaw movement about yaw axis 142 (para. [0060]) while inhibiting pitch and tilt about respective axes 140, 144.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671