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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objections related to claims 8 and 9 (section II) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections (section III) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons listed below, therefore the related rejections have been maintained.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments (page 10, para. 1: “Applicant asserts…”) that HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, and MINOSHIMA do not teach the claimed invention, the examiner disagrees because the rejection is not based on the teachings of any single reference alone but on what their combined teachings would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness 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) and MPEP 2145(IV). Further, the applicant asserts that these teachings do not anticipate the claimed invention, but the rejections in question are based on the standard of obviousness.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments (page 12, para. 3: “Hellholm does not…”) that HELLHOLM does not teach the claimed linkage arrangement, the examiner disagrees, pointing to discussion in the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections below, particularly those of claim 1. The examiner further points to the teachings of PETTERSSON (US-20200009932-A1), referenced below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 19 and 20, which generally discloses substantially similar structural features to the claimed and unclaimed elements of the instant invention.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments (page 12, para. 3: “Hellholm does not…”- page 13, para. 5: “Hence…”) that Nakazaki and MINOSHIMA teach away from combining them with the vehicle of HELLHOLM, the examiner disagrees. Although Nakazaki and MINOSHIMA are understood to teach pausing or other means of minimizing measurement disturbances as discussed by the applicant, the examiner does not consider this to be “teaching away” because they do not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution, and in fact provide teachings for successfully doing so- i.e. pausing measurements or ignoring signals when poor measurement conditions are detected; see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and MPEP 2145 (X)(D)(1).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: to maintain consistency with other appearances of the limitation “front and rear movable arms” the word “arm” should be removed from the phrase “…wherein the front and rear movable arms are…” which appears as the second to last line of page 2, and corrections should be made to the phrase “…wherein the front and rear moveable arms are…” appearing in the second line of page 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “the control unit is configured to repeatedly update the determined total weight of the load on the vehicle while the front and rear movable arms are actively operated to control a position of the ground support assembly” is not considered to be supported by the written specification as originally filed. The applicant pointed to paras. [0012], [0024], and [0066] as basis for the claim. The examiner does consider the limitation “repeatedly update the determined total weight of the load on the vehicle” to be supported by, at least, the teaching “the sensors can continuously determine the weight arranged on the vehicle as the work progresses” of para. [0012], but neither these passages nor any other specifically teach doing so “while the front and rear movable arms are actively operated to control a position of the ground support assembly”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Undue experimentation would be required for a person of ordinary skill in the art, in order to make or use the invention (see MPEP 2164.01(a) – Undue Experimentation Factors and In re Wands). The limitation “the control unit is configured to repeatedly update the determined total weight of the load on the vehicle while the front and rear movable arms are actively operated to control a position of the ground support assembly” is not considered to be sufficiently enabled because:
(A) the state of the prior art is such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that measurements made during a positioning operation are subject to noise and error and that pausing such measurement is advantageous (see Nakazaki, Col. 8, lines 16-49) and therefore would not recognize that the written specification, in light of the state of the prior art, teaches to do so.
(B) the inventor has not provided direction (for example, with respect to a control unit performing as claimed, particularly during the recited conditions prefaced by the “while” statement) as to overcoming or mitigating the disadvantages discussed above; if the inventor has found a method or means of mitigating these disadvantages they have not disclosed it.
(C) no working examples have been disclosed to show a control unit performing as claimed.
Claims 1 and 5-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the load" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the control unit is configured to repeatedly update the determined total weight of the load on the vehicle while the front and rear movable arms are actively operated to control a position of the ground support assembly”, which is considered indefinite due to the related 35 U.S.C. 112a rejections discussed above.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis L". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the moving part of the first attachment elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the vehicle body unit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-23 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected parent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 8-9, 17-18, 21, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HELLHOLM (US-20190359269-A1) in view of Nakazaki (US-5986220-A) and MINOSHIMA (WO-2016189654-A1) (note: the underlined portions below relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, HELLHOLM teaches a vehicle (Tracked Vehicle 10 & 11, Fig. 1) said vehicle (10 & 11) comprising:
a vehicle body (Vehicle Body 30 & 32, Fig. 1) comprising a central support beam (Chassis Beam of Vehicle Body 30, taught in Para. [0057]);
at least two ground support assemblies (Track Assembly Pair 20 & 21, Fig. 1) arranged to support said vehicle body (as illustrated in Fig. 1), each ground support assembly (20 & 21) comprises a support beam (Track Support Beam 22, Fig. 3a) arranged to carry either
at least two wheels (Support Wheels 23, Fig. 3a), or
track road wheels (Road Wheels 23a, Fig. 3a), at least one sprocket (Drive Wheel 24, Fig. 3a) and an endless track (Endless Track 25, Fig. 3a) arranged around the track road wheels (23 & 23a) and the sprocket (24);
a suspension device (Suspension Device “S”, Fig. 3a) for suspension of each of said ground support assemblies (20 & 21) to said vehicle body (30 & 32), said suspension device (S) is arranged to allow a movement of the ground support assembly (20 & 21) relative to the vehicle body (30 & 32) in a substantially vertical plane (the plane parallel to the illustration in Fig. 3a) extending in the longitudinal direction (left and right along the length of Track Support Beam 22 in Fig. 3a) of said ground support assembly (20 & 21) (Figs. 4a- d illustrate the Track Assembly Pair 20 & 21 moving with respect to Vehicle 11 in a substantially vertical plane extending in a longitudinal direction),
wherein each of said suspension devices (S) comprises
at least a front (Pendulum Arm 52, Fig. 23a) and rear (Pendulum Arm 54, Fig. 3a) movable arm connecting each of the ground support assemblies (20 & 21) to the vehicle body (10 & 11), and
an hydraulically powered cylinder (Hydraulic Cylinders 62 & 64, Fig. 3a) arranged to control the movement of each of the front (52) and/or rear (54) moveable arms to adjust the vertical position of the ground support assemblies (as illustrated in Figs 4a- d),
a first attachment element (Fastening Points P1b and P2b, Fig. 4a), for each front (52) and rear (54) moveable arm, fitted to the central support beam , wherein the {front} (52; see the corresponding claim objection above) and rear (54) movable arms are turnably connected to the central support beam via the respective first attachment element (Fastening Points P1b and P2b rotatably connecting Pendulum Arms 52 and 54 to the Vehicle Body 30, Fig. 4a and Para. [0069]),
a second attachment element (Fastening Points P1a and P2a, Fig. 4a), for each front (52) and rear (54) moveable arm, fitted to the support beam (22), wherein the {front} (52) and rear (54) {moveable arms} are turnably connected to the support beam via the respective second attachment element (Fig. 4a and Para. [0069]),
a coupling element (Fastening Points P3b and P4b, Fig. 4a), for each front (52) and rear (54) moveable arm, connecting the first attachment element (P1b and P2b) and a moving second end (top end of Hydraulic Cylinders 62 & 64, Fig. 3a) of a respective hydraulically powered cylinder (Fastening Points P3b and P4b and Fastening Points P1b and P2b all being connected to Vehicle Body 30 as illustrated in Fig. 4a).
HELLHOLM does not teach an arrangement for determining the loads on the front and rear movable arms, a control unit or sensors for measuring the load.
Nakazaki teaches, in another vehicle (Vehicle, Fig. 1), an arrangement for determining the weight of load (Deadweight Calculating Apparatus 1, Fig. 2) on the vehicle (11), said vehicle comprising a control unit (Microcomputer 3, Fig. 3), wherein a suspension device (Leaf Spring 33, Fig. 2) comprises sensors (Sensing Devices 7a, Fig. 2) arranged to determine (Para. starting Col. 6: Line 18) the loads on a front (left in Fig. 2) and rear (right in Fig. 2) movable arm (Axles 27, Fig. 2; understood to be arms in that they are elongated members which carry a load) and forward the information to the control unit (Fig. 3 teaches Sensors 7- which comprise Sensing Devices 7a as discussed in Para. starting Col. 6: Line 18- sending information to the Microcomputer 3; see also Para. starting Col. 6: Line 62) where the weight of the vehicle load is determined based on the information from the sensors (Para. starting Col. 6: Line 62 teaches, a CPU 3a- being a part of Microcomputer 3 as seen in Fig. 3- calculating the deadweight of the Vehicle 11 based on output signals from Sensors 7).
The arrangement for determining the weight of a load on a vehicle taught by Nakazaki is further arranged such that said sensors are sensors (7a) arranged to measure the tension (Para. starting Col. 6: Line 28 teaches that the Sensing Devices 7a are strain-gauge type sensors, which are well known in the art to be capable of measuring tension in a member) in the front (left) and rear (right) arm (Axles 27, Fig. 3a) to determine the total weight of the load on the vehicle (as discussed in Para. starting Col. 6: Line 18) (note: this teaching corresponds to the 103 rejection of claim 5 below).
Nakazaki further teaches that the arrangement for determining the weight of a load on a vehicle, as presented therein and in the related art discussed therein, advantageously improves the safety during driving of the vehicle by preventing overload of the vehicle (see Background of the Invention, beginning Col. 1; particularly Lines 6-33).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of HELLHOLM and Nakazaki in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HELLHOLM’s vehicle to include an arrangement for determining the weight of a load on the vehicle, a control unit and sensors for measuring the load as suggested by Nakazaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing an apparatus for preventing overload of the vehicle that would beneficially improve the safety of the vehicle during driving, as taught by Nakazaki and discussed above.
HELLHOLM, as modified above does not teach that the sensors are pressure sensors or that the measured load is a total load of the vehicle.
MINOSHIMA teaches, in another load weight measuring device for a construction machine (Abstract, Load Measuring Apparatus 100, Fig. 4), a pressure sensor (Pressure Sensor 52, 53, and 62, Fig. 2 and ) arranged to measure the pressure in cylinders (Lines 151-161 teach the Pressure Sensors 52, 53, and 62 measuring the pressure in Cylinder 51 and 61) to determine the total weight of the load (Pt) on a vehicle (Page 4, Lines 155-171 teach signals from the Pressure Sensors 52, 53, and 62 being sent to a Load Measuring Device 100 and Page 5, Lines 180-196 teach calculating a Total Load Pt).
The load weight measuring device (100) of MINOSHIMA is configured such that the calculations of the total weight (Pt) are adapted to the specific design of the hydraulically powered cylinders (Cylinder Section Area D being a calculation factor in determining the Total Load Pt, Fig. 4), the length of coupling elements (coupling elements for Cylinders 51 and 61 being illustrated in Fig. 2) and the angular positions of the hydraulically powered cylinders and the coupling elements (the Cylinders 51 and 61 being disposed in a substantially vertical orientation such that that act directly between Wheels 50 and 60 and Vehicle Body 10, the calculations of Fig. 4 are understood to be adapted to their length and angular position) (note: this teaching corresponds to the 103 rejection of claim 18 below).
The load weight measuring device (100) of MINOSHIMA is further configured to calculate the total weight of the load (Pt) based on the load information from all sensors (52 and 62) in the hydraulically powered cylinders (Page 5, Lines 180-196 teaches that Pressure Sensors 52 and 62 are used to calculate the Total Load Pt) (note: this teaching corresponds to the 103 rejection of claim 21 below).
The load weight measuring device (100) of MINOSHIMA is further configured to calculate the total weight of the load (Pt) based on load information from first sensors (the left-side instances of Pressure Sensors 52 and 62, Fig. 2 and Page 4, Lines 147-150) in a front left hydraulically powered cylinder (the front left instance of Cylinder 51, Fig. 2) and a rear left hydraulically powered cylinder (the rear left instance of Cylinder 61, Fig. 2), and also based on the load information from second sensors (the right-side instances of Pressure Sensors 52 and 62, Fig. 2 and Page 4, Lines 147-150) in a front right hydraulically powered cylinder (the front right instance of Cylinder 51, Fig. 2 and Page 4, Lines 147-150) and a rear right hydraulically powered cylinder (the rear right instance of Cylinder 61, Fig. 2, and Page 4, Lines 147-150) (Page 5, Lines 180-196 teaches that Pressure Sensors 52 and 62 are used to calculate the Total Load Pt) (note: this teaching corresponds to the 103 rejection of claim 23 below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the strain-gauge type sensor of HELLHOLM as modified by Nakazaki with the pressure sensor of MINOSHIMA as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent load measuring sensors recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of being able to mount a pressure type sensor in the fluid circuit away from the cylinder itself that would beneficially make the arrangement of the vehicle more flexible.
Regarding Claim 5, HELLHOLM, as modified above by Nakazaki teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Nakazaki and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of HELLHOLM).
Regarding Claim 6, HELLHOLM further teaches that the front and rear arm (52 & 54) are turnably connected to the vehicle body (30 & 32) and the support beam (22) (Para. [0099] teaches the Pendulum Arms 52 & 54 being rotatably attached- i.e. turnably connected- to Track Support Beam 22 and Para. [0101] teaches the Pendulum Arms 52 & 54 being rotatably attached to the Vehicle Body 30) to allow the ground support assembly (20 & 21) to move in the vertical plane (the plane parallel to the illustration in Fig. 3a) and at least one of the front (52) and rear (54) arm has an adjustable length (Rear Pendulum Arm 54 comprising a Crank Throw Configuration 58 for adjusting the distance from the Vehicle Body 30 and the Track Assembly 21; Fig. 3a and Para. [0099]) to allow the ground support assembly (20 & 21) to move in different angles in relation to the vehicle body (as illustrated in Figs. 4a- d).
Regarding Claim 8, HELLHOLM, as modified above, does not teach intermediate arms with sensors arranged between the front and rear arm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the arms with sensors taught by HELLHOLM/ Nakazaki such that there were intermediate arms disposed between the front and rear arms, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding Claim 9, HELLHOLM, as modified above to include strain-gauge sensors, teaches that the suspension device (S) comprises hydraulically powered cylinders (Hydraulic Cylinders 62 & 64, Fig. 3a) arranged to control {the front and rear} arms (52 & 54), to adjust the vertical position of the ground support assembly (as illustrated in Figs. 4a- d and discussed in Para. [0101]).
HELLHOLM, as modified above, does not teach intermediate arms.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the arms taught by HELLHOLM/ Nakazaki such that there were intermediate arms disposed between the front and rear arms, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
HELLHOLM does not teach that the sensors are pressure sensors.
MINOSHIMA teaches pressure sensors (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of MINOSHIMA and the motivation to combine them with the vehicle of HELLHOLM as modified).
Regarding Claim 17, HELLHOLM, as modified, does not teach repeatedly updating a total weight determination while the front and rear movable arms are actively operated.
MINOSHIMA teaches that a control unit (Load Measuring Apparatus 100, Fig. 3) that is configured to repeatedly update the determined total weight of the load (Pt) on the vehicle (Page 6, Lines 223-264 teaches measuring and calculating the Total Load Pt several times within a certain time period).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, and MINOSHIMA in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HELLHOLM’s vehicle to repeatedly update a total weight determination as suggested by MINOSHIMA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of continually monitoring an overload of the vehicle that would beneficially improve the safety of the vehicle during driving. Further, it would have been obvious to continue updating the total weight determination while the front and rear movable arms are actively operated as doing so would advantageously be a simpler system to build.
Regarding Claim 21, HELLHOLM further teaches that the vehicle body (30 and 32) comprises:
a front (Front Vehicle Unit 11, Fig. 1) and rear (Rear Vehicle Unit 12, Fig. 1) vehicle body unit connected to each other by a pivotable coupling (Para. [0126} teaches a Steering Joint Y) such that the angular position between the front (11) and rear (12) vehicle body unit could be changed to steer the vehicle during use (understood by the teaching of a Steering Joint Y), wherein both the front (11) and rear (12) vehicle body unit comprises one ground support assembly (Track Assemblies 21, Fig. 1) arranged on each side of the vehicle body unit to support said vehicle body (as illustrated in Fig. 1), and
HELLHOLM does not teach that a control unit uses information from all sensors to determine a total load weight, but MINOSHIMA does (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of MINOSHIMA and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of HELLHOLM).
Regarding Claim 22, HELLHOLM teaches a vehicle (Tracked Vehicle 10 & 11, Fig. 1) with substantially similar features as the vehicle of claim 1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above), and further teaches that each of the ground support assemblies (20 and 21), suspension devices (S), and the components that they comprise- e.g. the hydraulically powered cylinders (62 and 64) of the suspension devices- have a left (near, Fig. 1) and right (far, Fig. 1) instances (Track Assembly Pair 20 & 21 and Suspension Device “S” each having a left/ near and right/ far instance as illustrated in Fig. 1), and that the hydraulically powered cylinders (62 and 64) have front (left, Fig. 4a) and rear (right, Fig. 4a) instances (Hydraulic Cylinder 62 being disposed toward the front/ left and Hydraulic Cylinder 64 being disposed toward the rear/ right, Fig. 4a):
HELLHOLM does not teach an arrangement for determining the loads on the front and rear movable arms, a control unit or sensors for measuring the load, but Nakazaki does (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Nakazaki and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of HELLHOLM).
HELLHOLM, as modified above does not teach that the sensors are pressure sensors or that the measured load is a total load of the vehicle, but MINOSHIMA does (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of MINOSHIMA and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of HELLHOLM).
Regarding Claims 18 and 23, HELLHOLM, as modified by Nakazaki and MINOSHIMA, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Nakazaki and MINOSHIMA and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of HELLHOLM).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, and MINOSHIMA in view of GESSMANN (DE-102015202696-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, HELLHOLM, as modified above to include sensors, further teaches that said sensors are arranged to measure the {load on} the front and rear arm (52 & 54) of the vehicle body (30 & 32) or the support beam to determine the total weight of the load on the vehicle (as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above), and a turnable connection (Fastening Points P1a, P2a, P3a and P4a; Fig. 3a) of the front and rear arms (52 & 54).
HELLHOLM, as modified above, does not teach that the sensors are arranged to measure a moment.
GESSMANN teaches, in another vehicle (Vehicle 1, Fig. 1), sensors (Sensors 9 & 10, Fig. 1) arranged to measure the moment (the sensors understood to be capable of measuring a moment in that they measure a deflection of Wishbones 6- an arm of constant length- which is resisted by a spring with a known constant- see Para. [0034]; and therefore a moment can be calculated using the length of Wishbones 6, the spring constant and the deflection measured by Sensors 9 & 10) in a turnable connection of a front (left in Fig. 1) and rear (right in Fig. 1) arm (left and right Wishbones 6, Fig. 1) to determine the total weight of a load on the vehicle (Para. [0034] teaches the deflection of Wishbones 6 being measured to calculate the weight of a load of the Vehicle 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the sensors are of HELLHOLM, as modified, such that they measure a moment as suggested by GESSMANN, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GESSMANN in view of HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, and MINOSHIMA.
Regarding Claim 10, GESSMANN teaches a method (Paras. [0007]- [0018]) for determining the weight of load on {a vehicle} (1), wherein said method comprises the steps:
determining a reference value for the information from sensors (sensor, Para. [0013]) before any load is arranged on the vehicle (Para. [0012] teaches a calibration step in which sensors measure a the unladen vehicle weight- i.e. they measure a reference value before any load is on the vehicle);
measuring the load on a respective ground support assembly using the sensors and forwarding the information to a control unit (computing unit, Para. [0013]) that calculates the total weight of the load arranged on the vehicle (Para. [0013] teaches deflection of a chassis part being detected by a sensor and reported to a computing unit, and calculating a corresponding loading weight);
and repeating the step of measuring the load on the respective ground support assembly using the sensors and forwarding the information to the control unit that calculates the total weight of the load arranged on the vehicle at selected time intervals to update the total weight (Para. [0016] teaches that a change in the charge state is displayed in real time which would require repeating the measuring and updating step; where the term “charge” is understood therein to mean “load” based on an alternate English translation of GESSMAN (see NPL document: “Alternate English translation of DE-102015202696-A1” noting Page 2 Line 12: “weight of the charge” compared to Para. [0008] of the first translation: “weight of the load”)).
GESSMANN’s vehicle is not identical to the vehicle of claim 1.
HELLHOLM and Nakazaki teach the vehicle of claim 1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GESSMANN, HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, and MINOSHIMA in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify GESSMANN’s method for determining the weight of load on a vehicle to include the vehicle of HELLHOLM and Nakazaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of applying the weighing method to a vehicle with a track and suspension system that would beneficially provide greater load capacity and greater capability of navigating difficult terrain.
Regarding Claim 11, GESSMANN further teaches comparing the determined total weight to a predetermined maximum weight value and send alert if the predetermined maximum weight is exceeded (Para. [0016] teaches as system for determining if an axle is overloaded- i.e. if a predetermined maximum weight is exceeded- and Para. [0018] teaches an alert for an incorrect load placement).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GESSMANN, HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, and MINOSHIMA in view of Kerner (US-20180281549-A1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 14, (having similar limitations but different dependencies) GESSMANN further teaches comparing the determined total weight to a predetermined reference value (Para. [0016] teaches as system for determining if an axle is overloaded, which would require comparing the measure value to a predetermined maximum value).
GESSMANN does not teach calibrating the allowed speed for the vehicle based on the determined weight.
Kerner teaches, in another method for determining the weight of load on a vehicle (Abstract, where the self-propelled agricultural product applicator described therein is understood to be a vehicle as it can be used to transport people or goods across land), calibrating the allowed speed for the vehicle based on the determined weight (Para. [0018] teaches limiting a propulsion speed based a detected suspended weight).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GESSMANN, HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, MINOSHIMA, and Kerner in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for determining the weight of load on a vehicle of GESSMANN as modified to include the step of calibrating the allowed speed for the vehicle based on the determined weight as suggested by Kerner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of limiting the speed of a heavily loaded vehicle that would beneficially provide a safer vehicle.
Regarding Claims 13, 15 and 16, (having similar limitations but different dependencies) GESSMANN does not teach calibrating the allowed speed for the vehicle based on the determined weight and a condition of the ground.
Kerner teaches determining the conditions of the surrounding ground (Para. [0014] & [0019] teach an electronic control configured to receive a task input, one task being “APPLICATION” and another being “TRANSIT”; Para. [0007] teaches the vehicle being used alternately in a field and on a road such that the APPLICATION task may be associated with a field type ground condition and the TRANSIT task may be associated with a road type ground condition) and calibrate the allowed speed for the vehicle based on the determined weight and the conditions of the surrounding ground (Para. [0019] teaches controlling the speed of the propulsion unit in accordance with the task input- i.e. ground condition- and the suspended weight).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GESSMANN, HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, MINOSHIMA, and Kerner in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for determining the weight of load on a vehicle of GESSMANN as modified to include the step of calibrating the allowed speed for the vehicle based on the determined weight and a condition of the ground as suggested by Kerner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of limiting the speed of a heavily loaded vehicle while traversing uneven ground that would beneficially provide a safer vehicle.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HELLHOLM, Nakazaki, and MINOSHIMA in view of PETTERSSON (US-20200009932-A1).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, HELLHOLM does not teach that the cylinders are arranged as claimed.
PETTERSSON, in another vehicle (Title), teaches hydraulically powered cylinders (Struts 25A and 25B, Fig. 4; Para. [0052]) that extend substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis L (Struts 25A and 25B extending in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, Fig. 4 [claim 19]).
PETTERSSON that the hydraulically powered cylinders (25A and 25B) are arranged inside a central support beam (Centre Beam 14, Fig. 2), and wherein a moving part of first attachment elements (Joints 27, Fig. 7) extend through the support beam (14) and the hydraulically powered cylinders connected to the coupling elements are arranged inside the support beam (as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 7 [claim 20]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the hydraulically powered cylinders of HELLHOLM such that they were horizontal and inside a support beam as suggested by PETTERSSON, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the advantage of arranging hydraulic cylinders along the length of a vehicle and inside a support beam that would beneficially save space in vertical and widthwise directions.
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights