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 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 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the position of the second actuator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ummenhofer et al. (US 2016/0312421)
Regarding claim 1, Ummenhofer discloses a method for automatically adjusting a pitch of a blade on a work machine, comprising:
determining, by a controller (including S), whether a wing portion (5) of the blade is at an inclined position relative to a main portion (4) of the blade (by identifying a wing angle of the wing portion with respect to the main portion, and where the identified wing angle is used in comparisons as described in para. 0025) using an input from at least one sensor (including 8, or including 7 and 8).
Claim 1 requires further steps being performed only under certain respective conditions (i.e., "if the wing portion is determined to be at the inclined position," and "as the angle of the blade is being adjusted by the operation of the first actuator,"). Since the claimed invention may be practiced without either condition happening, neither step is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.04(II). Further regarding Ummenhofer, the above method may be practiced without either condition happening (e.g., when the wing portion is held at a non-inclined position, and when the angle of the blade is not adjusted by the operation of the first actuator, particularly in automatic adjustment), thus neither further step is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and the method disclosed by Ummenhofer meets the claim.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-7 only further limit the final step of claim 1 (i.e., "operating a second actuator..."). Since the final step of claim 1 is not required as explained above, these further limitations are also not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and the method disclosed by Ummenhofer meets these claims.
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 9-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ummenhofer in view of Duppong et al. (US 10,494,790)
Regarding claim 9, Ummenhofer discloses a method for automatically adjusting a pitch of a blade on a work machine, comprising:
determining, by a controller (including S), if a wing portion (5) of the blade is inclined relative to a main portion (4) of the blade (by identifying a wing angle of the wing portion with respect to the main portion, and where the identified wing angle is used in comparisons as described in para. 0025).
Ummenhofer does not explicitly disclose "determining, by the controller, if a first actuator is being actuated to change an angle of the blade," where this limitation is interpreted to be a determination if movement of the first actuator and the blade is currently taking place or not. Duppong teaches a method for automatically adjusting a blade (including or of 152) on a work machine (including or of 100) comprising determining, by a controller (including 320), if a first actuator (120) is being actuated to change an angle (as an angle is changed when the blade is lifted) of a blade (see col. 13, lines 45-59).
Duppong is analogous because Duppong discloses a method for automatically adjusting (or automatically adjusting control of) a blade on a work machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Ummenhofer with determining as taught by Duppong in order to make decisions when to activate or deactivate control features. (See Duppong, col. 13, lines 45-59.)
Claim 9 requires a further step (i.e., "operating a second actuator...") being performed only under a certain condition (i.e., "if the wing portion is inclined relative to the main portion and as the angle of the blade is being changed by the actuation of the first actuator,"). Since the claimed invention may be practiced without this condition happening, this step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.04(II). Further regarding above combination, the method thereof may be practiced without this condition happening (e.g., when the wing portion is held at a non-inclined position, and/or when the angle of the blade is not adjusted by the operation of the first actuator, particularly in automatic adjustment), thus this step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and the method of the above combination meets the claim.
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 only further limit the final step of claim 9 (i.e., "operating a second actuator..."). Since the final step of claim 9 is not required as explained above, these further limitations are also not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and the method of the above combination meets these claims.
Claim 12 only requires a further limitation performed only under a certain condition (i.e., "as the angle of the blade is being changed,"). Since the claimed invention may be practiced without this condition happening, this limitation is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.04(II). Further regarding above combination, the method thereof may be practiced without this condition happening (e.g., when the angle of the blade is not adjusted, particularly in automatic adjustment), thus this limitation is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and the method of the above combination meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Ummenhofer discloses detecting with a sensor (including 8, or including 7 and 8) a position of the wing portion (5) relative to the main portion (4) and communicating the position to the controller (via 9).
Regarding claim 17, Ummenhofer discloses a work machine, comprising:
a chassis (including F);
a cab mounted to the chassis (see Fig. 1);
a blade (including 4 and 5) coupled to the chassis, the blade comprising at least a main portion (4) and a wing portion (5), the wing portion being pivotally coupled to the main portion;
a first actuator (first 15) coupled between the chassis and the blade, the first actuator being operably controlled to adjust an angle of the blade (see Fig. 1);
a second actuator (second 15) coupled between the chassis and the blade, the second actuator being operably controlled to adjust a pitch of the blade (see Fig. 1);
a third actuator (third 15) coupled between the chassis and the blade, the third actuator being operably controlled to adjust a tilt of the blade (see Fig. 1);
a controller (including S) disposed in communication with the first actuator, the second actuator, and the third actuator, the controller operably controlling each actuator based on user inputs and control logic stored in a memory unit of the controller (see para. 0025); and
at least one sensor (including 8, or including 7 and 8) disposed in electrical communication with the controller, the at least one sensor detecting a position of each actuator or a position of the blade (as set forth in para. 0025);
wherein, the controller executes the control logic to determine if the wing portion is inclined (as shown in Fig. 2) relative to the main portion (by identifying a wing angle of the wing portion with respect to the main portion, and where the identified wing angle is used in comparisons as described in para. 0025).
Ummenhofer does not explicitly disclose the controller executing the control logic to "determine if the first actuator is being actuated to change an angle of the blade," where this limitation is interpreted to be a determination if movement of the first actuator and the blade is currently taking place or not. Duppong teaches a work machine comprising a blade (including or of 152), a first actuator (120), and a controller (including 320), wherein the controller determines if the first actuator is being actuated to change an angle (as an angle is changed when the blade is lifted) of a blade (see col. 13, lines 45-59).
Duppong is analogous because Duppong discloses a work machine comprising a blade, an actuator, and a controller for controlling the actuator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the machine of Ummenhofer with determining as taught by Duppong in order to make decisions when to activate or deactivate control features. (See Duppong, col. 13, lines 45-59.)
Claim 17 requires a further functional limitation of the controller (i.e., "wherein, the controller executes the control logic to: ... control the position of the second actuator...") being performed only under a certain condition (i.e., "if the wing portion is inclined relative to the main portion and as the angle of the blade is being changed"). This functional limitation itself is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because the claimed invention may be practiced (i.e., used) without this condition happening. However, since claim 17 is an apparatus claim, the structure for performing the function is required. See MPEP § 2111.04(II). Further regarding above combination, the machine thereof may be used without this condition happening (e.g., when the wing portion is held at a non-inclined position), thus this functional limitation of the controller is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and the machine of the above combination meets the claim because it teaches the structure (i.e., the controller and actuator) for performing the function.
Regarding claim 18, Ummenhofer discloses a fourth actuator (6) coupled between the main portion and the wing portion of the blade (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the fourth actuator is operably controlled by the controller to control an angle of the wing portion relative to the main portion (see para. 0025).
Regarding claim 19, Ummenhofer discloses the work machine comprising:
a first pocket (within 5 which receives 4 as seen in Figs. 2 and 4) defined between the main portion and the wing portion of the blade, the first pocket being free of any structure to allow free pivotal movement of the wing portion relative to the main portion (as seen in Figs. 2 and 4); and
a second pocket (between structures to which 6 is attached) defined on a backside of the main portion (see Figs. 2 and 4), the second pocket being free of any structure to allow movement of the fourth actuator between an extended position and a retracted position (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ummenhofer in view of Duppong as applied to claim 17 above, and in view of Hendron et al. (US 2016/0230367)
Regarding claim 20, neither Ummenhofer nor Duppong explicitly discloses receiving a command to actuate the first actuator for adjusting the angle of the blade, wherein the command comprises a direction component and a magnitude component. Hendron teaches a work machine comprising a controller (including 138) and a blade (including 142), wherein the controller receives a command to actuate an actuator for adjusting an angle of the blade, the command comprising a direction component and a magnitude component, wherein the controller calculates a desired tilt based on the direction component and the magnitude component, and wherein the controller controls the position of the blade as the angle of the blade is being changed to maintain the desired pitch (see paras. 0057-0067).
Hendron is analogous because Hendron discloses adjusting tilt of a blade on a work machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the controlling means as taught by Hendron in order to differentiate between clockwise and counterclockwise tilt. (See Hendron, paras. 0057-0058.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant sets forth: "Nothing in this cited portion of Ummenhofer, or the cited figures, relates to adjusting an angle of a blade, let alone determining by a controller, if a wing portion is determined to be at the inclined position, whether an angle of the blade is being adjusted by an operation of a first actuator, as recited in claim 1." (See Remarks of 3/19/2025, labeled p. 10.) For this reason, Applicant argues that claim 1 is patentable over Ummenhofer. (See Remarks of 3/19/2025, labeled p. 11.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because, as explained in the rejection above, the step of "determining, by the controller if the wing portion is determined to be at the inclined position, whether an angle of the blade is being adjusted by an operation of a first actuator" is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition of "a wing portion ... determined to be at the inclined position" happening. See MPEP § 2111.04(II).
Applicant also sets forth: "In view of the foregoing, the Applicant also respectfully submits that the cited portion of Ummenhofer also neither teaches nor suggests features relating to operating a second actuator, as the angle of the blade is being adjusted by the operation of the first actuator, to correct a change to the pitch associated with the adjustment of the angle of the blade, as recited in amended independent claim 1." (See Remarks of 3/19/2025, labeled p. 10.) For this reason, Applicant argues that claim 1 is patentable over Ummenhofer. (See Remarks of 3/19/2025, labeled p. 11.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because, as explained in the rejection above, the step of "operating a second actuator, as the angle of the blade is being adjusted by the operation of the first actuator, to correct a change to the pitch associated with the adjustment of the angle of the blade" is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition of "the angle of the blade ... being adjusted by the operation of the first actuator" happening. Again, see MPEP § 2111.04(II).
Applicant argues: "For at least the reasons similar to those set forth above with respect to independent claim 1, independent claim 9 is submitted to be patentable over the cited references." (See Remarks of 3/19/2025, labeled p. 11.)
First, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the reasons argued for claim 1 being patentable were not persuasive. Second, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because claim 9 has not been amended to include all the limitations argued with respect to claim 1. In particular, claim 9 does not include any limitation of determining "if the wing portion is determined to be at the inclined position," as recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues: "For at least the reasons similar to those set forth above with respect to independent claim 1, independent claim 17 is also submitted to be patentable over the cited references." (See Remarks of 3/19/2025, labeled p. 12.)
First, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the reasons argued for claim 1 being patentable were not persuasive. Second, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because claim 17 has not been amended to include all the limitations argued with respect to claim 1. In particular, claim 17 does not include any limitation of determining "if the wing portion is determined to be at the inclined position," as recited in claim 1. Third, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because claim 17 is directed toward a device, while claim 1 is directed toward a method, and thus, claim 17 has a remarkably different scope than claim 1 and would not be allowable due to allowable method steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Lombardi (US 6,129,155) teaches a method for automatically adjusting a pitch of a blade on a work machine, comprising operating a second actuator (as in step/block 808), as an angle of a blade is being adjusted ("concurrently") by operation of a first actuator (as in step/block 806), to correct a change to the pitch associated with the adjustment of the angle of the blade (see col. 8, lines 41-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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 at (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.
/JFM/11/15/25
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671