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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 17/737,154 filed on 05/05/2022 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 03/06/2024.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 06/26/2024. Claims 1, 9, 12, 15 and 16 were amended, claims 21 and 22 were newly added and claims 7 and 14 were cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 10/09/2024.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 01/07/2025. Claims 16, 17 and 20 were amended. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 were examined. Examiner filed a final rejection on 01/29/2025.
Applicant filed an RCE on 03/28/2025. Claims 15, 19 and 21 were cancelled, claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 20 were amended and claims 23-25 were newly added. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 16-18, 20, and 22-25 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 08/13/2025.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 10/09/2025. Claims 4, 9, and 16 were amended. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 16-18, 20, and 22-25 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 with respect to Velde et al. (US 20210372083 A1) in view of Mizuochi et al. (US 9348327 B2) and in further view of Callaway et al. (US20160289916A1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1: Applicant argues that, the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the claimed control system including a roading detection module configured to receive signals indicative of track speed or pitch noise to determine if the machine is in a roading mode (corresponding to the implement being elevated from a ground surface, with a non-roading mode corresponding to the implement being engaged with the ground surface), and to deactivate the stabilization factor when in roading mode. Specifically, Velde discloses implement control based on pitch velocity, pitch angle, and lift position but lacks the roading detection module and its functions. Mizuochi, directed to an excavator, focuses on overall machine stability to prevent tipping during sudden stops, not on deactivating a stabilization factor for the implement relative to the chassis based on roading mode detection. Callaway teaches an instability detection module that adjusts controller gain based on desired cylinder velocity and operating mode but does not disclose using track speed or pitch noise signals for roading mode determination or stabilization factor deactivation.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained. Applicant argues that the references, alone or in combination, fail to teach the roading detection module configured to receive signals indicative of track speed or pitch noise to determine a roading mode and deactivate the stabilization factor. However, this argument attacks the references individually rather than the combination as applied in the rejection. One cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Velde teaches a control system for a machine (e.g., dozer) with an implement (blade) attached to the chassis, sensors coupled to the chassis or implement, and a controller that receives signals from sensors to determine factors for controlling the implement’s position based on stabilization-related parameters: “a first set of one or more chassis-mounted sensors is implemented to detect an actual pitch velocity of the chassis and an actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and a second set of one or more sensors is implemented to detect an actual lift position of the work implement relative to the chassis” (Velde, [0005]); “the position of the blade is automatically controlled as a function of each of the actual pitch velocity of the chassis, the actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and the actual lift position of the work implement relative to the chassis, corresponding to the desired profile with respect to the ground surface” (Velde, [0005]); “the sensor 144 may be comprised of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) mounted on the chassis and configured to provide at least a chassis pitch angle signal and an angular velocity signal to the controller 138 as inputs for the control method” (Velde, [0035]). Velde’s pitch signals from the IMU inherently include variations or “noise” in the pitch data indicative of machine oscillations during movement, which aligns with “pitch noise” under a broad but reasonable interpretation as signal variations in pitch due to terrain or travel.
Mizuochi teaches stabilization control in a tracked machine (excavator with travel base) that predicts and adjusts stability factors during motion, including using velocity and position signals to limit or deactivate controls to prevent instability: “the stabilization control calculation unit predicts a change in stability until each movable portion in the work machine completely stops and calculates a motion limit needed to keep the work machine stable at any time instant until each movable portion in the work machine completely stops, and the command value generating unit corrects command information to the actuator based on a result of the calculation” (Mizuochi, Col. 3, lines 35-42, Solution to Problem section); “the stabilization control calculation unit calculates, as the motion limit, at least one of a slow stop command value for limiting deceleration of the movable portion to stop the movable portion slowly and a motion velocity upper limit for limiting a motion velocity of the actuator” (Mizuochi, Col. 22, lines 11-15); “the sudden stop behavior predicting unit 60 c predicts the behavior of the work machine 1 when a sudden stop command is issued. The loci of the position, the velocity and the acceleration until reaching the complete stop after the control lever is released are calculated from information about current posture, a velocity estimation result of the velocity estimating unit 60 b , and a sudden stop model” (Mizuochi, Col. 12, lines 49-54, Sudden Stop Behavior Prediction subsection). Mizuochi’s focus on travel base (tracked) stability during motion teaches adjusting or deactivating factors (e.g., limiting velocity or deceleration) based on predicted instability, which would have been obvious to combine with Velde’s pitch-based control to handle high-speed travel scenarios. Applicant’s distinction between excavator and dozer is not persuasive, as both are tracked machines with implements, and the teachings are analogous for stability control during movement; the claims do not preclude application to excavators or tipping prevention as part of stabilization.
Callaway teaches an instability detection module (readable as roading detection module) that receives signals indicative of machine speed (track speed, as the machine is tracked) and operating mode to determine modes like travel (roading) and adjust or deactivate a stabilization factor (controller gain): “The operating mode sensor 30 may also provide information about a speed at which the machine 10 is travelling on the surface of the worksite 16” (Callaway, [0017]); “The instability detection module receives the signal indicative of the desired cylinder velocity of the actuator from the controller and the signal indicative of the operating mode of the machine from the operating mode sensor. Thereafter, the instability detection module detects an instability condition based on the signal indicative of the desired cylinder velocity of the actuator and selectively adjusts a controller gain associated with the desired cylinder velocity based at least in part on the instability condition and the operating mode of the machine.” (Callaway, [0006]); “There may be some operating modes where the control system 32 is not applicable. For example, if the machine 10 is reversing, the control system 32 may not adjust the position of the machine implement 14 at all” (Callaway, [0030]); “if the operator has not provided a blade position change request for a prolonged period of time even though the machine 10 is moving forward, the operating mode sensor 30 would output the operating mode as ‘not grading’ and there may be no control actions taken afterwards” (Callaway, [0017]). Callaway’s “not grading” mode corresponds to roading (travel with blade elevated/not engaged), where controls are deactivated, and adjustment of gain (stabilization factor) is based on speed and mode signals. It would have been obvious to incorporate Callaway’s mode detection (including track speed) and gain adjustment/deactivation into Velde/Mizuochi’s system to optimize implement control during high-speed travel (roading), as all references address stability in earthmoving machines.
The combination teaches the claimed features, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 9: Applicant argues that, the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the amended method including receiving track speed and pitch noise signals at a roading detection module, resetting or deactivating the stabilization factor when both indicate roading mode (corresponding to the blade being elevated and not engaged with the ground), and controlling the implement based on the stabilization factor otherwise.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained. The amendments to claim 9 have been considered, but the combination still renders the claim obvious. Applicant argues the references fail to teach receiving both track speed and pitch noise signals at a roading detection module, resetting/deactivating the stabilization factor when both indicate roading mode (blade elevated/not engaged), and controlling based on the factor when not in roading. This argument improperly attacks the references individually.
Velde teaches receiving and analyzing signals to determine factors for implement control, including pitch-related signals: “detecting, via a first set of one or more chassis-mounted sensors 144, an actual pitch velocity of the chassis and an actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and further detecting, via a second set of one or more sensors 162, an actual lift position of the blade relative to the chassis” (Velde, [0067]); “the output signals in a preferred embodiment are calculated lift commands for a blade positioning system 200, the lift commands consisting of three specific terms. The first term is a function of a pitch velocity error, relative to a target pitch velocity, the second term is a function of a pitch angle error, relative to a target pitch angle, and the third term is a function of a lift position error, relative to a target lift position” (Velde, [0068]). Velde’s IMU provides pitch signals with inherent noise/variations indicative of machine pitch during travel.
Mizuochi teaches analyzing signals (position, velocity, acceleration) to determine stability and reset/limit factors when conditions indicate potential instability (e.g., high-speed motion leading to sudden stop), including when implement (bucket) is not engaged: “the stabilization control calculation unit stores a limit of deceleration of the movable portion in advance, and corrects the command information to the actuator so as to satisfy the limit of the deceleration” (Mizuochi, Col. 4, lines 56-59, Solution to Problem section); “the sudden stop behavior predicting unit 60 c predicts the behavior of the work machine 1 when a sudden stop command is issued. The loci of the position, the velocity and the acceleration until reaching the complete stop after the control lever is released are calculated from information about current posture, a velocity estimation result of the velocity estimating unit 60 b , and a sudden stop model” (Mizuochi, Col. 12, lines 49-54, Sudden Stop Behavior Prediction subsection); “when the ZMP is within the normal region J, stability evaluation based on the ZMP is performed. When the ZMP is out of the normal region J, evaluation based on the mechanical energy is performed. Determination is made as “instable” when the mechanical energy satisfies the Equation (3) and as “stable” when the mechanical energy does not satisfy the Equation (3)” (Mizuochi, Col. 14, lines 48-54, Stability Determining Unit subsection). Mizuochi’s resetting to limits (baseline) or limiting (deactivating full control) based on velocity and acceleration signals teaches conditional control, applicable when the implement is elevated (not engaged, as in travel).
Callaway teaches receiving speed and mode signals to determine operating mode (roading as high-speed/not grading with blade elevated), and adjusting/deactivating gain (stabilization factor) based on both: “The operating mode sensor 30 may provide information about a direction of travel of the machine 10 indicating if the machine 10 is travelling in a forward direction or a reverse direction. The operating mode sensor 30 may also provide information about a speed at which the machine 10 is travelling on the surface of the worksite 16” (Callaway, [0017]); “if the operator has not provided a blade position change request for a prolonged period of time even though the machine 10 is moving forward, the operating mode sensor 30 would output the operating mode as ‘not grading’ and there may be no control actions taken afterwards” (Callaway, [0017]); “The instability detection module 48 determines an adjustment required in the value of the controller gain based on the instability signal and the operating mode of the machine 10” (Callaway, [0031]); “There may be some operating modes where the control system 32 is not applicable. For example, if the machine 10 is reversing, the control system 32 may not adjust the position of the machine implement 14 at all” (Callaway, [0030]). Callaway’s use of speed (track speed) and mode signals (both) to deactivate controls when in “not grading” (blade elevated/not engaged, roading) and control normally otherwise teaches the conditional logic. It would have been obvious to combine with Velde/Mizuochi to use both speed and pitch signals (from Velde’s IMU) for mode determination and factor reset/deactivation during roading.
The combination teaches the amended features, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 16: Applicant argues that independent claim 16 is allowable for similar reasons as claims 1 and 9, as the references, alone or in combination, fail to teach a control system with specific sensors for track speed and pitch noise, a roading detection module receiving those signals to determine roading mode (blade elevated/not engaged), deactivating the stabilization factor in roading mode, and controlling the blade based on the factor otherwise.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained. Applicant argues the references fail to teach specific sensors for track speed and pitch noise, receiving signals at a roading module to determine mode (blade elevated/not engaged), and deactivating the stabilization factor in roading mode while controlling otherwise. This argument attacks the references individually.
Velde teaches a chassis, blade, sensors, and controller receiving/integrating signals to determine stabilization factors for blade control: “a first set of one or more chassis-mounted sensors 144, an actual pitch velocity of the chassis and an actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and further detecting, via a second set of one or more sensors 162, an actual lift position of the blade relative to the chassis” (Velde, [0067]); “a second set of one or more sensors 162 associated with a blade positioning unit 200 and configured to provide at least a signal indicative of a blade lift position” (Velde, [0033]); “error values corresponding at least to detected differences between the actual pitch angle, the actual lift position, and the respective first and second target values” (Velde, [0069]); “automatically controlling the position of the blade via control signals to the blade positioning unit 200, further as a function of the determined error values.” (Velde, [0076]). Velde’s IMU provides pitch signals (angle/velocity) with inherent noise.
Mizuochi teaches using track-related sensors (travel base) and signals (velocity/acceleration) to determine stability and deactivate/limit factors: “the stabilization control calculation unit predicts a change in stability until each movable portion in the travel base, the work machine body and the work front stops in accordance with a change in an operating velocity of a control lever for operating the drive of the movable portion when the control lever in an operating state is brought back to a stop command position, and which calculates a motion limit needed to keep the work machine stable until the movable portion stops” (Mizuochi, Col. 3, lines 35-40, Solution to Problem section); “the sudden stop behavior predicting unit 60 c predicts the behavior of the work machine 1 when a sudden stop command is issued” (Mizuochi, Col. 12, lines 49-51, Sudden Stop Behavior Prediction subsection). Mizuochi’s deactivation via motion limits during high-velocity travel teaches conditional deactivation.
Callaway teaches track speed sensor (operating mode sensor providing speed), pitch-related instability detection, and deactivation in roading mode (blade elevated/not engaged): “The operating mode sensor 30 may also provide information about a speed at which the machine 10 is travelling on the surface of the worksite 16” (Callaway, [0017]); “The instability detection module receives the signal indicative of the desired cylinder velocity of the actuator from the controller and the signal indicative of the operating mode of the machine from the operating mode sensor. Thereafter, the instability detection module detects an instability condition based on the signal indicative of the desired cylinder velocity of the actuator and selectively adjusts a controller gain associated with the desired cylinder velocity based at least in part on the instability condition and the operating mode of the machine.” (Callaway, [0006]); “if the operator has not provided a blade position change request for a prolonged period of time even though the machine 10 is moving forward, the operating mode sensor 30 would output the operating mode as ‘not grading’ and there may be no control actions taken afterwards” (Callaway, [0017]). Callaway’s deactivation of controls in “not grading” (roading, blade elevated) based on speed and mode signals teaches the features, combinable with Velde/Mizuochi for mode-specific deactivation.
The combination teaches the features, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 16-18, 20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velde et al. (US 20210372083 A1) in view of Mizuochi et al. (US 9348327 B2) and in further view of Callaway et al. (US20160289916A1), hereinafter referred to as Velde, Mizuochi and Callaway respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Velde discloses A control system for a machine, comprising: a chassis (“An operator's cab 136 may be located on the chassis 140. The operator's cab and the working implement 142 may both be mounted on the chassis so that the operator's cab faces in the working direction of the working implement.“ See at least[ 0029 ]);
an implement attached to the chassis (“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a work vehicle 100. In the illustrated embodiment, the work vehicle 100 is a crawler dozer, but may be any work vehicle with a ground-engaging blade 142 or work implement “ See at least[0028]);
at least one sensor coupled to the chassis or the implement (“A first set of one or more sensors is fixed with respect to the chassis and configured to generate output signals corresponding to an actual pitch velocity of the chassis and an actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground. “ See at least[0019]);
and a controller, wherein the controller includes a roading detection module, and wherein the controller is in communication with the at least one sensor and is configured to: receive one or more signals from the at least one sensor (“The controller 138 is configured to receive input signals from some or all of various sensors associated with the work vehicle 100, which in the present disclosure at least includes a first set of one or more sensors 144 affixed to the chassis 140 of the work vehicle 100 and configured to provide a signal indicative of the movement and orientation of the chassis, and a second set of one or more sensors 162 associated with a blade positioning unit 200 and configured to provide at least a signal indicative of a blade lift position.“ See at least[0033]);
determine a stabilization factor based on the one or more signals from the at least one sensor (“Generally stated, the following embodiments may utilize various sensor inputs to, for example, augment an operator's lift commands for a work implement such as a ground-engaging blade, and thereby improve the stability of grading operations“ See at least[0026]);
wherein when the roading detection module determines that the machine is in the roading mode the roading detection module deactivates the stabilization factor (“For example, the controller may be configured in steps 320 and 330, based upon input signals received in step 310 from the first set of sensors 144 and the second set of sensors 162, to generate predicted values for the respective characteristics at each of the one or more locations, as a function of at least each of the actual pitch velocity of the chassis, the actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and the actual lift position of the work implement relative to the chassis , and further to determine error values corresponding at least to calculated differences between the predicted values and the target values for the respective characteristics. With the error values having been determined, representing differences between a target grade profile (i.e., targeted positioning of the blade) and an actual grade profile (i.e., measured or projected positioning of the blade), the controller in step 340 automatically controlling the position of the blade via control signals to the blade positioning unit 200, further as a function of the determined error values.” [0076] and “The control system and method 300 as disclosed herein may alternatively be configured to determining a desired profile to be produced by the blade with respect to the ground surface by setting one or more target values corresponding to respective characteristics at each of one or more locations associated with the blade. While physical sensors in accordance with the present disclosure are not located on the blade itself, or at least are not relied upon for the input of actual measurements for control parameters, such an embodiment may implement one or more virtual sensors 164 projected upon respective locations associated with the blade.” [0075]).
VELDE does not explicitly teach and signal one or more actuators to control a movement and/or a position of the implement based at least in part on the stabilization factor
However, MIZUOCHI does teach and signal one or more actuators to control a movement and/or a position of the implement based at least in part on the stabilization factor (“According to this configuration, in the case where the control lever in the operating state is instantaneously brought back to the neutral position, the stabilization control calculation unit predicts a change in stability until each movable portion in the work machine completely stops and calculates a motion limit needed to keep the work machine stable at any time instant until each movable portion in the work machine completely stops, and the command value generating unit corrects command information to the actuator based on a result of the calculation.” See at least[Col.3 ln 33-42]). Both VELDE and MIZUOCHI teach methods for work machine stability control. However, MIZUOCHI explicitly teaches signal one or more actuators to control a movement and/or a position of the implement based at least in part on the stabilization factor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability control method of Velde to include a signal one or more actuators to control a movement and/or a position of the implement based at least in part on the stabilization factor, as in MIZUOCHI . Doing so improves safety and stability of operating work machines. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [MIZUOCHI , Col.3]).
VELDE does not explicitly teach wherein the roading detection module is configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a track speed or a pitch noise to determine whether the machine is in a roading mode, wherein the roading mode corresponds to the implement being elevated from a ground surface, wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the implement being engaged with the ground surface.
However, Callaway does teach wherein the roading detection module is configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a track speed or a pitch noise to determine whether the machine is in a roading mode, wherein the roading mode corresponds to the implement being elevated from a ground surface, wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the implement being engaged with the ground surface, (“The machine 10 may include other known components such as vehicular parts including tires, wheels, transmission, engine, motor, hydraulic systems, suspension systems, cooling systems, fuel systems, exhaust systems, chassis, ground engaging tools, imaging systems, and the like. The machine 10 also includes various sensors for sensing various parameters related to the machine 10. The machine 10 may be movable along different directions for the machine implement 14 to implement a predetermined grade on the terrain of the worksite 1” [0016] and “Example of such a situation may be an operating mode detected by the controller 34 as ‘not grading’ based on inputs provided by the operating mode sensor 30. In such a scenario, the control system 32 may not take any action at all and reject the data corresponding to such operating modes.” [0024]). Both VELDE and Callaway teach methods for work machine stability control. However, Callaway explicitly teaches wherein the roading detection module is configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a track speed or a pitch noise to determine whether the machine is in a roading mode, wherein the roading mode corresponds to the implement being elevated from a ground surface, wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the implement being engaged with the ground surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability control method of Velde to include wherein the roading detection module is configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a track speed or a pitch noise to determine whether the machine is in a roading mode, wherein the roading mode corresponds to the implement being elevated from a ground surface, wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the implement being engaged with the ground surface, as in Callaway. Doing so improves safety and stability of operating work machines. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Callaway, 002-005]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Velde discloses The control system of claim 1, wherein the controller includes an integrator module that receives the one or more signals from the at least one sensor (“The controller 138 is configured to receive input signals from some or all of various sensors associated with the work vehicle 100, which in the present disclosure at least includes a first set of one or more sensors 144 affixed to the chassis 140 of the work vehicle 100 and configured to provide a signal indicative of the movement and orientation of the chassis, and a second set of one or more sensors 162 associated with a blade positioning unit 200 and configured to provide at least a signal indicative of a blade lift position. In alternative embodiments, the first sensor 144 may not be affixed directly to the chassis, but may instead be connected to the chassis through intermediate components or structures, such as rubberized mounts. In these alternative embodiments, the sensor 144 is not directly affixed to the chassis but is still connected to the chassis at a fixed relative position so as to experience the same motion as the chassis.” See at least[0033]),
wherein the integrator module increases, decreases, or maintains the stabilization factor based on the one or more signals from the at least one sensor, and wherein the stabilization factor is provided to an implement mainfall angle cutoff frequency module to adjust an implement mainfall angle cutoff frequency that is used to determine a command signal to control the movement and/or position of the implement (“the controller may be configured in steps 320 and 330, based upon input signals received in step 310 from the first set of sensors 144 and the second set of sensors 162, to generate predicted values for the respective characteristics at each of the one or more locations, as a function of at least each of the actual pitch velocity of the chassis, the actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and the actual lift position of the work implement relative to the chassis, and further to determine error values corresponding at least to calculated differences between the predicted values and the target values for the respective characteristics. With the error values having been determined, representing differences between a target grade profile (i.e., targeted positioning of the blade) and an actual grade profile (i.e., measured or projected positioning of the blade), the controller in step 340 automatically controlling the position of the blade via control signals to the blade positioning unit 200, further as a function of the determined error values.“ See at least[0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Velde discloses The control system of claim 2, further including an operator control configured to generate a command signal indicative of a desired movement of the implement, wherein the integrator module is further configured to adjust the stabilization factor based on the command signal (“augment an operator's lift commands for a work implement such as a ground-engaging blade, and thereby improve the stability of grading operations by counteracting uncontrollable motion in the work vehicle chassis with controlled blade positioning.“ See at least[0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Velde discloses The control system of claim 1, wherein the controller adaptively adjusts the stabilization factor continuously during operation of the machine, and when one or more of the track speed signal or the pitch noise signal are not indicative of the roading mode, (Velde discloses continuous adjustment via dynamic targets; “dynamically setting a third target value corresponding to a pitch velocity of the chassis.” Velde, [0010];
VELDE does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to signal one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor.
Callaway teaches the controller is configured to signal one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor. Conditional control based on mode, controlling in grading/non-roading; “The instability detection module 48 determines an adjustment required in the value of the controller gain based on the instability signal and the operating mode of the machine 10” Callaway, [0031]). Both VELDE and Callaway teach methods for work machine stability control. However, Callaway explicitly teaches the controller is configured to signal one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability control method of Velde to include the controller is configured to signal one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor, as in Callaway. Doing so improves safety and stability of operating work machines. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Callaway, 0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Velde discloses The control system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor includes an inertial measurement unit coupled to the implement and an inertial measurement unit coupled to the chassis, wherein the controller is further configured to receive signals from the inertial measurement unit coupled to the implement and the inertial measurement unit coupled to the chassis and adjust the stabilization factor (“The sensor 144 may typically, e.g., be comprised of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) mounted on the chassis and configured to provide at least a chassis pitch angle signal and an angular velocity signal to the controller 138 as inputs for the control method as further disclosed below. Such an IMU may for example be in the form of a three-axis gyroscopic unit configured to detect changes in orientation of the sensor, and thus of the main frame to which it is fixed, relative to an initial orientation. In other embodiments, the one or more sensors may include a plurality of GPS sensing units fixed relative to the chassis and/or the blade positioning unit, which can detect the absolute position and orientation of the work vehicle within an external reference system, and can detect changes in such position and orientation, and/or a camera based system which can observe surrounding structural features via image processing, and can respond to the orientation of the working machine relative to those surrounding structural features.“ See at least[0035]).
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 18, Velde discloses The control system of claim 5, further comprising a ground surface sensor in communication with the controller, wherein the ground surface sensor is configured to determine one or more properties of a ground surface on which the machine is operating, and wherein the controller is further configured to receive one or more signals from the ground surface sensor and adjust the stabilization factor (“the controller may be configured in steps 320 and 330, based upon input signals received in step 310 from the first set of sensors 144 and the second set of sensors 162, to generate predicted values for the respective characteristics at each of the one or more locations, as a function of at least each of the actual pitch velocity of the chassis, the actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and the actual lift position of the work implement relative to the chassis, and further to determine error values corresponding at least to calculated differences between the predicted values and the target values for the respective characteristics. With the error values having been determined, representing differences between a target grade profile (i.e., targeted positioning of the blade) and an actual grade profile (i.e., measured or projected positioning of the blade), the controller in step 340 automatically controlling the position of the blade via control signals to the blade positioning unit 200, further as a function of the determined error values.“ See at least[0076]).
Regarding claims 8, 13 and 20, Velde discloses The control system of claim 1, wherein the implement is a blade coupled to the chassis via one or more hydraulic actuators (“The blade 142 is movably connected to the chassis 140 of the work vehicle 100 through a linkage 146 which supports and actuates the blade and is configured to allow the blade to be lifted (i.e., raised or lowered in the vertical direction 110) relative to the chassis. The linkage may include multiple structural members to carry forces between the blade and the remainder of the work vehicle, and may provide attachment points for hydraulic cylinders which may actuate the blade in the lift, tilt, and angle directions. A “blade positioning unit” 200 as referred to herein, and as further described below with respect to FIG. 2, may for example comprise the linkage, along with the hydraulic cylinders, and additional and/or equivalent structures associated with actuation of the blade in the lift, tilt, and angle directions.“ See at least[0049]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16: Velde discloses a method of controlling an implement of a machine (method for controlling blade; see [0005]), comprising:
receiving at a controller one or more signals indicative of one or more operating parameters of the machine (“A first set of one or more chassis-mounted sensors is implemented to detect an actual pitch velocity of the chassis and an actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and a second set of one or more sensors is implemented to detect an actual lift position of the blade relative to the chassis.” Velde, [0005]);
analyzing and/or integrating the one or more signals to determine a stabilization factor (error values from signals; “error values may be determined corresponding at least to detected differences between the actual pitch angle, the actual lift position, and the respective first and second target values.” Velde, [0007]);
controlling one or more portions of the machine to move or change a position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor (“The position of the blade may be automatically controlled, further as a function of the determined error values.” Velde, [0007]),
VELDE does not explicitly teach resetting the stabilization factor to a baseline stabilization factor or deactivating the stabilization factor.
However, Mizuochi teaches resetting the stabilization factor to a baseline stabilization factor or deactivating the stabilization factor. Resetting to baseline or deactivating when indicative of roading (“the stabilization control calculation unit stores a limit of deceleration of the movable portion in advance, and corrects the command information to the actuator so as to satisfy the limit of the deceleration.” Mizuochi, Col. 4, lines 56-59; “when the ZMP is within the normal region J, stability evaluation based on the ZMP is performed. When the ZMP is out of the normal region J, evaluation based on the mechanical energy is performed. Determination is made as “instable” when the mechanical energy satisfies the Equation (3) and as “stable” when the mechanical energy does not satisfy the Equation (3)” Mizuochi, Col. 14, lines 48-54). Both VELDE and MIZUOCHI teach methods for work machine stability control. However, MIZUOCHI explicitly teaches resetting to baseline or deactivating when indicative of roading.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability control method of Velde to include resetting to baseline or deactivating when indicative of roading, as in MIZUOCHI. Doing so improves safety and stability of operating work machines. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Mizuochi, Col. 4, lines 56-59 and Col. 14, lines 48-54]).
VELDE does not explicitly teach and when one or more of the track speed signal or the pitch noise signal are not indicative of the roading mode, controlling the one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor, wherein the implement is a blade, and wherein the roading mode corresponds to the blade being elevated from and not engaged with a ground surface.
and receiving a track speed signal and a pitch noise signal at a roading detection module, and when the track speed signal and the pitch noise signal are both indicative of a roading mode.
However, Callaway does teach and when one or more of the track speed signal or the pitch noise signal are not indicative of the roading mode, controlling the one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor, wherein the implement is a blade, and wherein the roading mode corresponds to the blade being elevated from and not engaged with a ground surface, (“The machine 10 may include other known components such as vehicular parts including tires, wheels, transmission, engine, motor, hydraulic systems, suspension systems, cooling systems, fuel systems, exhaust systems, chassis, ground engaging tools, imaging systems, and the like. The machine 10 also includes various sensors for sensing various parameters related to the machine 10. The machine 10 may be movable along different directions for the machine implement 14 to implement a predetermined grade on the terrain of the worksite 1” [0016] and “Example of such a situation may be an operating mode detected by the controller 34 as ‘not grading’ based on inputs provided by the operating mode sensor 30. In such a scenario, the control system 32 may not take any action at all and reject the data corresponding to such operating modes.” [0024]).
and receiving a track speed signal and a pitch noise signal at a roading detection module, and when the track speed signal and the pitch noise signal are both indicative of a roading mode. Receiving track speed and pitch noise, resetting/deactivating when both indicate roading, controlling otherwise (“The operating mode sensor 30 may provide information about a direction of travel of the machine 10 indicating if the machine 10 is travelling in a forward direction or a reverse direction. The operating mode sensor 30 may also provide information about a speed at which the machine 10 is travelling on the surface of the worksite 16” Callaway, [0017]; “The instability detection module 48 determines an adjustment required in the value of the controller gain based on the instability signal and the operating mode of the machine 10” Callaway, [0031]; “if the operator has not provided a blade position change request for a prolonged period of time even though the machine 10 is moving forward, the operating mode sensor 30 would output the operating mode as ‘not grading’ and there may be no control actions taken afterwards” Callaway, [0017]). Both VELDE and Callaway teach methods for work machine stability control. However, Callaway explicitly teaches when one or more of the track speed signal or the pitch noise signal are not indicative of the roading mode, controlling the one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor, wherein the implement is a blade, and wherein the roading mode corresponds to the blade being elevated from and not engaged with a ground surface and receiving a track speed signal and a pitch noise signal at a roading detection module, and when the track speed signal and the pitch noise signal are both indicative of a roading mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability control method of Velde to include when one or more of the track speed signal or the pitch noise signal are not indicative of the roading mode, controlling the one or more portions of the machine to move or change the position of the implement based on the one or more signals and the determined stabilization factor, wherein the implement is a blade, and wherein the roading mode corresponds to the blade being elevated from and not engaged with a ground surface and receiving a track speed signal and a pitch noise signal at a roading detection module, and when the track speed signal and the pitch noise signal are both indicative of a roading mode, as in Callaway. Doing so improves safety and stability of operating work machines. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Callaway, 0017-0031]).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Velde discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more signals include an implement pitch signal indicative of an angle of the implement with respect to a chassis, a chassis pitch signal indicative of an angle of the chassis with respect to gravity (“The sensor 144 is configured to provide a signal indicative of the inclination of the chassis 140 relative to the direction of gravity, an angular measurement in the direction of pitch 108. This signal may be referred to as a chassis pitch angle signal. The sensor 144 may also be configured to provide a signal or signals indicative of other positions or velocities of the chassis, including its angular position, velocity, or acceleration in a direction such as the direction of roll 104, pitch 108, yaw 112, or its linear acceleration in a longitudinal 102, latitudinal 106, and/or vertical 110 direction. The sensor 144 may be configured to directly measure inclination, measure angular velocity and integrate to arrive at inclination, or measure inclination and derive to arrive at angular velocity.” See at least[0034]), and a speed signal indicative of a speed of the machine (“The controller 138 is configured to receive input signals from some or all of various sensors associated with the work vehicle 100, which in the present disclosure at least includes a first set of one or more sensors 144 affixed to the chassis 140 of the work vehicle 100 and configured to provide a signal indicative of the movement and orientation of the chassis, and a second set of one or more sensors 162 associated with a blade positioning unit 200 and configured to provide at least a signal indicative of a blade lift position.” See at least[0033]).
Regarding claim 22, Velde discloses The control system of claim 1, wherein the roading detection module is further configured to receive one or more signals indicative of one or more inputs on an operator control, a position of the implement relative to the chassis of the machine, a speed of tracks of the machine, a load of an engine, or a pitch of the chassis of the machine (“In a particular illustrative embodiment as disclosed herein, a method is disclosed for controlling a blade relative to a chassis of a self-propelled work vehicle to produce a desired profile in a ground surface. A first set of one or more chassis-mounted sensors is implemented to detect an actual pitch velocity of the chassis and an actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and a second set of one or more sensors is implemented to detect an actual lift position of the blade relative to the chassis. A desired profile to be produced by the blade with respect to the ground surface is determined, and a position of the blade is automatically controlled as a function of each of the actual pitch velocity of the chassis, the actual pitch angle of the chassis relative to the ground, and the actual lift position of the work implement relative to the chassis, corresponding to the desired profile with respect to the ground surface.” [0005]).
Regarding claim 23, Velde discloses The control system of claim 8, wherein the blade is coupled to the chassis via a left side hydraulic actuator and a right side hydraulic actuator (“In alternative embodiments, the blade may be tilted by a different mechanism (e.g., an electrical or hydraulic motor) or the tilt cylinder may be configured differently, such as a configuration in which it is mounted vertically and positioned on the left or right side of the blade, or a configuration with two tilt cylinders.” [0053]).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Velde discloses The method of claim 9,
VELDE in view of MIZUOCHI does not explicitly teach wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the blade being engaged with the ground surface (“The machine 10 includes an operating mode sensor 30 which may provide information about an operating mode of the machine 10. The machine 10 may operate in different operating modes such as moving forward, moving reverse, the implement 14 in an engaged position, the implement 14 in a stowage position etc.” [0017]).
However, Callaway does teach wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the blade being engaged with the ground surface (“The machine 10 includes an operating mode sensor 30 which may provide information about an operating mode of the machine 10. The machine 10 may operate in different operating modes such as moving forward, moving reverse, the implement 14 in an engaged position, the implement 14 in a stowage position etc.” [0017]). Both VELDE in view of MIZUOCHI and Callaway teach methods for work machine stability control. However, MIZUOCHI explicitly teaches teach wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the blade being engaged with the ground surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability control method of Velde to include teach wherein a non-roading mode corresponds to the blade being engaged with the ground surface, as in Callaway. Doing so improves safety and stability of operating work machines. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Callaway, 002-005]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668