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
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 02/02/2026. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 16 and 19were amended. Claim 3 was cancelled. Claim 21 was newly added. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim Objections: applicant’s arguments filed 02/02/2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The previously given claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 with respect to Nackers et al. (US 10401176 B2) in view of Murphy (US 20110022267 A1) and in further view of SUGIYAMA (US20230415608A1), have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nackers et al. (US 10401176 B2) in view of Kroehnert et al. (WO2007024591A1) and in further view of Murphy (US 20110022267 A1) and further in view of Hirayama et al. (WO2022190881A1), hereinafter referred to as Nackers, Kroehnert, Murphy and Hirayama respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 19 and 20, Nackers disclose receiving, with at least one processor, from a plurality of sensors mounted on different elements or portions of the machine, a time series of signals indicative of positions or orientations for the elements or portions of the machine on which one or more of the plurality of sensors are mounted (“The method includes receiving, with at least one processor, from each of a plurality of Inertial Measurement Units (IMU’s) mounted on different components of the machine, a time series of signals indicative of acceleration and angular rate of motion measurements for each of the components of the machine on which one or more of the plurality of IMU’s are mounted.”[ Col. 2, lines 22-30]);
fusing a series of measurements made over time by the sensors on the machine (“ The method also includes fusing the signals received from each of the IMU's on a separate component of the machine “ See at least[Col.2 line 29-32], wherein the fusing of the signals from the plurality of sensors includes bringing together sensor inputs that include machine speed, identification of whether the machine is in a coasting mode, a lift height measurement for a payload carried by the machine, an articulation angle of the machine, a weight of the payload and an overall weight of the machine, a pitch angle of the machine, or a roll angle of the machine relative to a direction of gravity to form a model for estimating a stability of the machine (“solving a kinematic equation using the best estimates of current output joint angles for the components of the machine and structural design information characterizing the machine…” [Col.2 line 50-60]);
one or more of solving a physics-based equation or retrieving data from a lookup map or other database using estimates of current degree of stability of the machine and structural design information characterizing the machine (“solving a kinematic equation using the best estimates of current output joint angles for the components of the machine and structural design information characterizing the machine, and determining from the solution of the kinematic equation a real time value for at least one of position, velocity, and acceleration of each machine component of interest at successive timesteps of the series of timesteps.”[ Col.2 line 50-60]).
Nackers does not explicitly disclose A method of controlling movement of a machine when the machine is in a coasting condition during which the machine is not being driven by a power source of the machine, in order to maintain a degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at different potential machine states.
and whether the machine is in a coasting mode, the degree of stability of the machine;
automatically adjusting braking or other machine actions for retarding motion of the machine without any operator intervention in order to maintain the degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at the different potential machine states when the machine is in the coasting condition and is not being driven by a power source, wherein the automatic adjusting is based on the generated model for estimating a stability of the machine.
However, Kroehnert teaches A method of controlling movement of a machine when the machine is in a coasting condition during which the machine is not being driven by a power source of the machine, in order to maintain a degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at different potential machine states (“free rolling” “the vehicle 100 is coasting (e.g., the transmission is in neutral), there can be no control of the engine torque that is applied to the wheels.”[0058] see also [0057]),
and whether the machine is in a coasting mode, the degree of stability of the machine; (“free rolling” “the vehicle 100 is coasting (e.g., the transmission is in neutral), there can be no control of the engine torque that is applied to the wheels.”[0058] see also [0057]),
automatically adjusting braking or other machine actions for retarding motion of the machine without any operator intervention in order to maintain the degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at the different potential machine states when the machine is in the coasting condition and is not being driven by a power source (“free rolling” “the vehicle 100 is coasting (e.g., the transmission is in neutral), there can be no control of the engine torque that is applied to the wheels.”[0058] see also [0057]), wherein the automatic adjusting is based on the generated model for estimating a stability of the machine (“the driver's torque request may be supplemented or altered (i.e., modulated) in order to help attain a stable vehicle condition.” [0053]). Both Nackers and Kroehnert teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability. However, Kroehnert explicitly a method of controlling movement of a machine when the machine is in a coasting condition during which the machine is not being driven by a power source of the machine, in order to maintain a degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at different potential machine states. automatically adjusting braking or other machine actions for retarding motion of the machine without any operator intervention in order to maintain the degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at the different potential machine states when the machine is in the coasting condition and is not being driven by a power source, wherein the automatic adjusting is based on the generated model for estimating a stability of the machine.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include a method of controlling movement of a machine when the machine is in a coasting condition during which the machine is not being driven by a power source of the machine, in order to maintain a degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at different potential machine states. automatically adjusting braking or other machine actions for retarding motion of the machine without any operator intervention in order to maintain the degree of stability of the machine within an acceptable range at the different potential machine states when the machine is in the coasting condition and is not being driven by a power source, wherein the automatic adjusting is based on the generated model for estimating a stability of the machine, as in Kroehnert. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kroehnert, 0053, 0057-0058 ]).
Nackers does not explicitly disclose determining from the solution of the physics-based equation or other retrieved data and other machine operational parameters including speed.
However, Murphy does teach determining from the solution of the physics-based equation or other retrieved data and other machine operational parameters including speed (“S_dyn = [1 - V/V_c] × 100 Here V is the tractor’s tangential speed along a turn and V_c is Liljedahl’s critical speed for a tractor in a steady state circular turn.”[0067]). Both Nackers and Murphy teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability. However, Murphy explicitly disclose determining from the solution of the physics-based equation or other retrieved data and other machine operational parameters including speed.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include disclose determining from the solution of the physics-based equation or other retrieved data and other machine operational parameters including speed, as in Murphy. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Murphy, 0067]).
Nackers does not explicitly disclose generating the model for estimating the stability of the machine based at least in part on an estimate of a location of a center of gravity of a first portion of the machine in combination with the payload carried by the machine relative to a predetermined point, and a location of a center of gravity of a second portion of the machine relative to the predetermined point in a subsequent timestep.
However, Hirayama does teach generating the model for estimating the stability of the machine based at least in part on an estimate of a location of a center of gravity of a first portion of the machine in combination with the payload carried by the machine relative to a predetermined point, and a location of a center of gravity of a second portion of the machine relative to the predetermined point in a subsequent timestep (“The center-of gravity calculation unit 213 calculates the center-of-gravity position of the the weight of each part specified by the entire work machine 100 based on the center-of-gravity position of each part and position specifying unit 212 . Specifically, the center-of structure 110 , m sb of the gravity calculator 213 calculates the known weight m tb of the traveling swing structure 130 , m bm of the boom 151 , m am of the arm 152 , and m bk of the bucket 153 . , based on the measured value mpl of the payload meter 106, an affine matrix Tcomw ' is obtained by the following equation (6), and the center-of- gravity position Tcomw of the entire work machine 100 is calculated from the affine matrix Tcomw '.” [P.6]). Both Nackers and Hirayama teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability. However, Hirayama explicitly generating the model for estimating the stability of the machine based at least in part on an estimate of a location of a center of gravity of a first portion of the machine in combination with the payload carried by the machine relative to a predetermined point, and a location of a center of gravity of a second portion of the machine relative to the predetermined point in a subsequent timestep.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include generating the model for estimating the stability of the machine based at least in part on an estimate of a location of a center of gravity of a first portion of the machine in combination with the payload carried by the machine relative to a predetermined point, and a location of a center of gravity of a second portion of the machine relative to the predetermined point in a subsequent timestep, as in Hirayama. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Hirayama, P.6 ]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Nackers discloses wherein the plurality of sensors includes one or more of Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) configured to measure and report a body’s specific force, angular rate of momentum, and orientation, using a combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes; various perception sensors included as part of a vision system; position or velocity sensors; laser sensors; ultrasonic sensors; cylinder position sensors; hydraulic system sensors; electrical system sensors; braking system sensors; fuel system sensors; or other sensors configured to provide real time inputs to the at least one processor, and for monitoring a status of and controlling the operation of systems and subsystems of the machine (“from each of a plurality of Inertial Measurement Units (IMU’s) mounted on different components of the machine, a time series of signals indicative of acceleration and angular rate of motion measurements…” and “the non-IMU sensors 230 may include… braking system sensors…” [ Col. 2, lines 22-30 & Col. 5]).
Regarding claim 12, Nackers discloses wherein the fusing of a series of measurements made over time by the sensors on the machine is performed using a Kalman filter module of the at least one processor (“As shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 2, a Kalman filter of a sensor fusion system according to this disclosure may be configured to estimate bias of gyroscope information provided by the IMU's, such as the pitch rate, the yaw rate, and the roll rate of each of the components. “ See at least[Col.7 line 8-15]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13,
Nackers does not explicitly disclose wherein the fusing of the series of measurements includes combining a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with estimates of an accuracy of the a priori estimates and current measurement values received from the plurality of sensors to produce refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine.
However, Hirayama does teach wherein the fusing of the series of measurements includes combining a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with estimates of an accuracy of the a priori estimates and current measurement values received from the plurality of sensors to produce refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine(“The center-of gravity calculation unit 213 calculates the center-of-gravity position of the the weight of each part specified by the entire work machine 100 based on the center-of-gravity position of each part and position specifying unit 212 . Specifically, the center-of structure 110 , m sb of the gravity calculator 213 calculates the known weight m tb of the traveling swing structure 130 , m bm of the boom 151 , m am of the arm 152 , and m bk of the bucket 153 . , based on the measured value mpl of the payload meter 106, an affine matrix Tcomw ' is obtained by the following equation (6), and the center-of- gravity position Tcomw of the entire work machine 100 is calculated from the affine matrix Tcomw '.” [P.6]). Both Nackers and Hirayama teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability. However, Hirayama explicitly wherein the fusing of the series of measurements includes combining a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with estimates of an accuracy of the a priori estimates and current measurement values received from the plurality of sensors to produce refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include wherein the fusing of the series of measurements includes combining a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with estimates of an accuracy of the a priori estimates and current measurement values received from the plurality of sensors to produce refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine, as in Hirayama. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Hirayama, P.6 ]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14,
Nackers does not explicitly disclose further including fusing the refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with each other and in reference to a machine reference frame to determine estimates of the degree of stability of the machine.
However, Hirayama does teach further including fusing the refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with each other and in reference to a machine reference frame to determine estimates of the degree of stability of the machine (“The center-of gravity calculation unit 213 calculates the center-of-gravity position of the the weight of each part specified by the entire work machine 100 based on the center-of-gravity position of each part and position specifying unit 212 . Specifically, the center-of structure 110 , m sb of the gravity calculator 213 calculates the known weight m tb of the traveling swing structure 130 , m bm of the boom 151 , m am of the arm 152 , and m bk of the bucket 153 . , based on the measured value mpl of the payload meter 106, an affine matrix Tcomw ' is obtained by the following equation (6), and the center-of- gravity position Tcomw of the entire work machine 100 is calculated from the affine matrix Tcomw '.” [P.6]). Both Nackers and Hirayama teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability. However, Hirayama explicitly further including fusing the refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with each other and in reference to a machine reference frame to determine estimates of the degree of stability of the machine.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include further including fusing the refined a posteriori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine with each other and in reference to a machine reference frame to determine estimates of the degree of stability of the machine, as in Hirayama. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Hirayama, P.6 ]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Nackers discloses further including determining a weight to be associated with each successive a priori estimate of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine relative to a weight to be associated with each successive a posteriori estimate based on successive actual measured values received from the plurality of sensors, and assign a Kalman gain representative of the relative weights by retrieving from a predetermined gain schedule a state covariance matrix representative of a predicted variability in the a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine, and an estimated measurements covariance matrix representative of the predicted variability in the actual measurements received from the plurality of sensors. (“a gain schedule module 222 may be configured to calculate weights (or gains) to be used when combining each successive predicted state estimate with a successive actual measurement value to obtain an updated “best” estimate.” “ See at least[Col.10]).
Nackers does not explicitly the a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine.
However, Hirayama does teach the a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine (“The center-of gravity calculation unit 213 calculates the center-of-gravity position of the the weight of each part specified by the entire work machine 100 based on the center-of-gravity position of each part and position specifying unit 212 . Specifically, the center-of structure 110 , m sb of the gravity calculator 213 calculates the known weight m tb of the traveling swing structure 130 , m bm of the boom 151 , m am of the arm 152 , and m bk of the bucket 153 . , based on the measured value mpl of the payload meter 106, an affine matrix Tcomw ' is obtained by the following equation (6), and the center-of- gravity position Tcomw of the entire work machine 100 is calculated from the affine matrix Tcomw '.” [P.6]). Both Nackers and Hirayama teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability. However, Hirayama explicitly the a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include the a priori estimates of the locations of the centers of gravity of the first and second portions of the machine, as in Hirayama. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Hirayama, P.6 ]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Nackers discloses further including outputting a visible or audible indication of the machine’s current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at the different potential states of the machine, and presenting to an operator of the machine one or more of an indicator of an effect that lift height of a payload carried by the machine will have on a degree of stability of the machine, an indicator of an effect that articulation angle of the machine will have on a degree of stability of the machine, and a bubble level indicator showing an effect that machine orientation will have on a degree of stability of the machine (“Feedback can also be provided to the information exchange interface 350 regarding the machine pitch and roll… The disclosed machine state control system 50 may provide feedback directly to an operator through one or more displays associated with the information exchange interface 350… or through sounds…” [ Col.15-17]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17,
Nackers does not explicitly disclose teach wherein the outputting of a visible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at different potential states of the machine includes displaying to an operator one or more of a vertical bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the vertical bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine
as the lift height of the payload carried by the machine is varied
a horizontal bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the horizontal bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the articulation angle of the machine is varied
and a bubble level indicator having concentric rings with gradations of color or other visual signifiers notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the machine orientation is changed
Murphy teaches wherein the outputting of a visible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at different potential states of the machine includes displaying to an operator one or more of a vertical bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the vertical bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine (“The autopilot system has several modes of operation 500, some of which are shown in FIG. 5. The system may operate in more than one mode simultaneously. In the “CG Determination” mode 505 the system calculates or measures the location of the tractor's center of gravity (or changes in the center of gravity location from a known starting point). In the “Mapping/Recording” mode 510 the system records tractor position and attitude and uses that information to create detailed topographic maps. In the “Advance Terrain Warning” mode 515 the system combines pre-existing maps and knowledge of planned maneuvers to warn an operator of future rollover risks.” [0039])
as the lift height of the payload carried by the machine is varied (“FIG. 3 lists common hazards that increase rollover risk. These hazards include driving on too steep a slope and encounters with bumps or ditches. Some maneuvers, such as uphill turns, are safe at slow speed, yet pose significant rollover risk at higher speeds. Sharp turns increase risk compared to gradual turns. The position of a tractor's center of gravity affects rollover risk greatly. High center of gravity conditions caused by unusual loads (e.g. spray tanks) or lifted implements (e.g. buckets) increase rollover risk. Driving with a flat tire can make an otherwise tolerable slope traverse impassable. “ See at least[0010]),
a horizontal bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the horizontal bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the articulation angle of the machine is varied (“he autopilot system of FIG. 4 provides many capabilities including steering a tractor along a predetermined path, providing light-bar course guidance, mapping hazards in a field, controlling variable rate application of sprays. The system also monitors the risk of tractor rollover. When rollover risk exceeds a critical threshold—or, based on knowledge of a planned path over mapped terrain, will exceed a critical threshold in the future—the autopilot may take control of the tractor to prevent rollover (e.g. by slowing down) or warn the tractor operator and provide suggestions (e.g. slow down, turn in a particular direction), or both. The capability to provide warnings of immediate and/or future rollover hazards improves both safety and efficiency of a tractor operation. “ See at least[0038]),
and a bubble level indicator having concentric rings with gradations of color or other visual signifiers notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the machine orientation is changed (“Roll angle display 1220 is shown both inside the tractor cab and separately …. a vertical indicator 1230 and horizon 1232, and a roll limit indicator 1240. The display gives a tractor operator an intuitive picture of the current roll angle of the tractor. “ See at least[0054]). Both Nackers and Murphy teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability during different modes of operation. However, Murphy explicitly teaches wherein the outputting of a visible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at the different potential states of the machine includes displaying to an operator one or more of a vertical bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the vertical bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the lift height of the payload carried by the machine is varied, a horizontal bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the horizontal bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the articulation angle of the machine is varied, and a bubble level indicator having concentric rings with gradations of color or other visual signifiers notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the machine orientation is changed.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include wherein the outputting of a visible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at the different potential states of the machine includes displaying to an operator one or more of a vertical bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the vertical bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the lift height of the payload carried by the machine is varied, a horizontal bar with gradations of color or other visual signifiers along the horizontal bar for notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the articulation angle of the machine is varied, and a bubble level indicator having concentric rings with gradations of color or other visual signifiers notifying the operator of varying degrees of stability of the machine as the machine orientation is changed, as in Murphy. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Murphy, 0010, 0038-0039 and 0054]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Nackers discloses
the effect that variations in articulation angle of the machine will have on a degree of stability of the machine (“as shown in FIG. 3, sensor feedback from machine sensors regarding machine linkage positions and velocity, machine pitch rate and roll rate, and swing angle for a boom and stick of an excavator may be fused with signals provided by a vision system and perception sensors 320 indicative of the locations of obstacles or other features at a job site, and signals received from various operator controls 324. The fused data may be provided to the information exchange interface 350 in order to effect the generation of control command signals that change the operation of various solenoid actuators, throttle controls, fluid cylinder actuation devices, electrical controls, and motion control devices to result in the optimal positioning of the machine during a digging operation. “ See at least[Col.14 line 43-55]),
and the effect that variations in machine orientation, including changes in pitch angle or roll angle of the machine, will have on a degree of stability of the machine (“In other implementations the information received at the information exchange interface 350 may result in the generation of autonomous or semi-autonomous control command signals that are provided to various machine systems and subsystems for effecting changes in machine pose and changes in the relative positions and orientations of machine components. “ See at least[Col.14 line 35-43]).
Nackers does not explicitly disclose teach
wherein the outputting of an audible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at different potential states of the machine includes varying one or more of a type, a volume, an intensity, an amplitude, or a frequency of a sound to notify operator of the machine one or more of the effect that variations in lift height of a payload carried by the machine will have on a degree of stability of the machine.
However, Murphy does teach wherein the outputting of an audible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at different potential states of the machine includes varying one or more of a type, a volume, an intensity, an amplitude, or a frequency of a sound to notify operator of the machine one or more of the effect that variations in lift height of a payload carried by the machine will have on a degree of stability of the machine (“CG can be calculated for various tractor configurations or input manually by an operator if the location is already known. FIG. 6 is a flow chart for calculating tractor CG position. First the system is defined in step 605 by the type of tractor, attached implements, and accessories. The position and weight of each of these components is determined in step 610. Positions and weights may be obtained from manufacturer's data, a model, or user input, or a combination of sources. “ See at least[0041]). Both Nackers and Murphy teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability during different modes of operation. However, Murphy explicitly teaches outputting of an audible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at different potential states of the machine.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include outputting of an audible indication of the machine's current degree of stability and hypothetical future degrees of stability at different potential states of the machine, as in Murphy. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Murphy, 0041]).
Regarding claim 21,
Nackers does not explicitly disclose teach outputting a visible indication of the current degree of stability of the machine and a hypothetical future degrees of stability of the machine at one potential machine state
wherein the outputting includes outputting two or more of:
a first indicator of an effect that the lift height for the payload carried by the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine, wherein the first indicator includes at least two zones representing hypothetical future degrees of instability, a second indicator of an effect that the articulation angle of the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine, or a third indicator of the effect that one of the pitch or roll angle of the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine
Murphy teaches outputting a visible indication of the current degree of stability of the machine and a hypothetical future degrees of stability of the machine at one potential machine state (“The warning may be an aural warning such as a bell or horn, or a visual warning such as a red light or warning message on a display. The threshold value for current stability indices” [0071]). Both Nackers and Murphy teach methods for determining and communicating work machine stability during different modes of operation. However, Murphy explicitly teaches outputting a visible indication of the current degree of stability of the machine and a hypothetical future degrees of stability of the machine at one potential machine state.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include teaches outputting a visible indication of the current degree of stability of the machine and a hypothetical future degrees of stability of the machine at one potential machine state, as in Murphy. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Murphy, 0071]).
Kroehnert teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting two or more of:
a first indicator of an effect that the lift height for the payload carried by the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine, wherein the first indicator includes at least two zones representing hypothetical future degrees of instability, a second indicator of an effect that the articulation angle of the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine, or a third indicator of the effect that one of the pitch or roll angle of the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine (“In some embodiments, the target stability indicator is a constant that is compared to the instability indicator 340. The normalized constant can be developed through simulations and testing, and take into account a variety of characteristics such as lateral acceleration, yaw rate, vehicle speed, and steering angle.” [0065]). Both Nackers and Kroehnert teach methods for determining and communicating machine stability during different modes of operation. However, Kroehnert explicitly teaches an indicator of the effect that one of the pitch or roll angle of the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine.
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 monitoring method of Nackers to also include an indicator of the effect that one of the pitch or roll angle of the machine will have on the degree of stability of the machine, as in Kroehnert. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information that can be used to ensure safe determination of vehicle stability (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kroehnert, 0065]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights