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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered and prosecution has been reopened in light of a request of appeal. The prior art references presented in the Final Office Action, mailed 08/12/2025, did not sufficiently explain the operation of the apparatus put forth in the disclosure of Slawson as part of US 9180747 B2, hereinafter referred to as Slawson, such that a more complete analysis is required. Such analysis is detailed below.
In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner wishes to address specific arguments put forth by applicant.
Applicant posits that the interpretation presented in the Final Office Action fundamentally misconstrues the teaching of Slawson, and that the relationship between the chassis height and axle length would necessarily be altered from Slawson’s teaching under the presented interpretation, as the height adjustment would need to be decoupled from the track width adjustment. Applicant further states that the presented interpretation of Slawson (“each wheel 14 is individually actuated, and therefore can be actuated in conjunction with one another, the axle on the first side of the chassis extending while the opposite side axle on the second side of the chassis retracts.", Final Office Action, page 4) fundamentally misconstrues the teaching of Slawson.
Applicant further posits that even if the apparatus taught by Slawson was capable of accomplishing the method of the claims, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to translate the chassis “by extending axles on a first side of the chassis while retracting axles on a second, opposite side of the chassis” for any reason, or in any circumstance, claiming an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Upon further search and consideration, Slawson, as described, does teach of a movement that would include “extending axles of a first side of the chassis while retracting axles on a second, opposite side of the chassis”, as is required by the claims. Column 2, lines 17-15, describe actuating the track adjustment system to preserve a constant track width “…wherein shifting the wheels laterally involves shifting the two left wheels in a first direction and shifting the two right wheels in a second direction, the second direction being opposite the first direction”. While this does not explicitly state an inward/outward movement relationship of the two sets of wheels to the chassis, there is no other reasonable interpretation of “a first and second direction, the second direction being opposite the first” for the wheels to shift laterally that would maintain a constant track width other than inward and outward relative to the chassis. As such, there is explicit motivation in the disclosure of Slawson to translate the chassis “by extending axles on a first side of the chassis while retracting axles on a second, opposite side of the chassis”.
Regarding the coupling of this motion to the vertical adjustment of the chassis and fundamentally altering the teaching of Slawson, there is no requirement of the claimed invention that a constant height be maintained during the lateral motion that would require such a modification to be made to the disclosure of Slawson. All that is required is the lateral adjustment of the chassis relative to the wheels, which the disclosure of Slawson satisfies as detailed above.
Applicant further notes that Rife et al as part of US 20200122540 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rife, does not rectify the proposed deficiency of Slawson. While examiner agrees that Rife does not address the contested details of Slawson, the argument is moot in light of the analysis above.
As such, the rejection under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Slawson in view of Rife is maintained with a more complete and detailed analysis provided.
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 1-4, 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slawson in view of Rife.
Regarding Claim 1: Slawson teaches of a vehicle comprising a chassis (Slawson: Chassis 12), a plurality of ground-engaging elements configured to support the chassis above a ground surface (Slawson: Wheels 14), and a plurality of support assemblies supporting the chassis on the ground-engaging elements (Slawson: Fig. 5, Adjustment mechanism 90), the vehicle capable of accomplishing:
laterally translating the chassis relative to the support assemblies by extending axles on a first side of the chassis while retracting axles on a second, opposite side of the chassis without changing a track width of the ground-engaging elements (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 18-24, Inner axle 30 slidingly engages with outer axle 28 which may translate the wheels 14 relative to the chassis; Slawson: Column 2, line 17-25, the track width is preserved by shifting the wheels laterally, shifting the two left wheels in a first direction and the two right wheels in a second, opposite direction to the first direction, indicating motion inward and outward relative to the chassis if the wheelbase is being maintained).
Slawson does not teach of a method of detecting the orientation of the chassis relative to gravity.
Rife teaches of a vehicle comprising a chassis (Rife: Fig. 1, frame 12), a plurality of ground-engaging elements configured to support the chassis above a ground surface (Rife: Fig. 1, transportation devices 16), and a plurality of support assemblies supporting the chassis on the ground-engaging elements (Rife: Fig. 1, columns 18), capable of accomplishing:
detecting an orientation of the chassis relative to gravity (Rife: Paragraph 43, sensors 110a and 110b determine a slope S1, which is defined as being relative to reference plane P perpendicular to gravity),
and translating the chassis relative to the support assemblies based on the detected orientation of the chassis (Rife: controller 132 takes input from sensors 110 and communicates with the hydraulic system of columns 18 to move chassis 12 relative to transport devices 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to partially automate the lateral adjustment of the axles with the automatic detection of the orientation of the chassis relative to gravity taught by Rife to reduce the risk of rollover of the vehicle (Rife: Paragraph 60, correcting the desired orientation can maintain stability of the machine to prevent rollovers). Such a combination of elements would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions to the predictable result of creating a safer vehicle that can automatically adjust its orientation with respect to gravity.
Regarding Claim 2: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 1.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 1, Rife further teaches wherein detecting an orientation of the chassis relative to gravity comprises detecting the orientation with a level sensor (Rife: Paragraph 13/40, sensor 114 can be a slope sensor/gyroscopic sensor).
Regarding Claim 3: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 1.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 1, Rife further teaches wherein detecting an orientation of the chassis relative to gravity comprises detecting the orientation with an inertial sensor (Rife: Paragraph 14, sensor 114 can be an accelerometer).
Regarding Claim 4: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 1.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 1, Rife further teaches wherein detecting an orientation of the chassis relative to gravity comprises detecting the orientation based on GPS signals (Rife: Paragraph 13, sensors 110a and 110b can be GPS sensors).
Regarding Claim 6: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 1.
Slawson further teaches wherein laterally translating the chassis relative to the support assemblies comprises transmitting a command from a control panel to a controller (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 45-53, Line 61-63, Line Control panel 48 and instrument panels 46 control the functions of applicator 10, which includes support assembly 22's lateral movement).
Regarding Claim 7: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 6.
Slawson further teaches wherein the control panel is located at location selected from the group consisting of inside an operator cab, on an exterior of the chassis, and in a mobile device (Fig. 4, control panel 48 is located within the cabin 18).
Further, Rife also teaches wherein the control panel is located at location selected from the group consisting of inside an operator cab, on an exterior of the chassis, and in a mobile device (Rife: Fig. 1, control panel 32 is located on operator platform 30 on the exterior of the machine).
Regarding Claim 8: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 1.
Slawson further teaches of laterally translating the chassis relative to the support assemblies (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 18-24, Inner axle 30 slidingly engages with outer axle 28 which may translate the wheels 14 relative to the chassis).
Slawson does not explicitly state that this movement shifts the center of gravity towards a midpoint between the ground engaging elements.
Rife teaches that the translation of the chassis comprises moving a center of gravity of the vehicle toward a midpoint between ground-engaging elements (Rife: Paragraph 43, sensors 110a and 110b determine slope S1, and controller 132 adjusts columns 18 to maintain desired orientation to avoid rollovers, which occur due to the center of gravity moving outside the wheel base).
In light of the modifications described above in claim 1, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to utilize the detection method of the chassis orientation relative to gravity to maintain a stable position with the center of gravity within the ground engaging elements to avoid rollovers (Rife: Paragraph 60, correcting the desired orientation can maintain stability of the machine to prevent rollovers). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions to the predictable result of a machine that prevents rollovers of the machine by maintaining a center of gravity in the middle of the wheel base through lateral translation of the chassis.
Regarding Claim 9: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 1.
Slawson further teaches the vehicle further comprising adjusting height-adjustment actuators associated with the support assemblies to raise or lower the chassis (Slawson: Fig. 5, Adjustment mechanism 90, adjustment elements 92 and 94 being hydraulic cylinders).
Further, Rife also teaches the vehicle further comprising adjusting height-adjustment actuators associated with the support assemblies to raise or lower the chassis (Rife: Paragraph 34, frame 12 is raised and lowered by hydraulic cylinders associated with columns 18).
Regarding Claim 10: Slawson teaches of a vehicle comprising:
a chassis (Slawson: chassis 12);
a plurality of ground-engaging elements configured to support the chassis above a ground surface (Slawson: Wheels 14);
a plurality of support assemblies supporting the chassis on the ground-engaging elements (Slawson: Fig. 5, Adjustment mechanism 90);
a plurality of adjustable axles configured to change a lateral distance from the chassis to each of the support assemblies (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 18-24, Inner axle 30 slidingly engages with outer axle 28 which may translate the wheels 14 relative to the chassis);
and a controller configured to move the chassis laterally along the axles (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 45-53, Line 61-63, Line Control panel 48 and instrument panels 46 control the functions of applicator 10, which includes support assembly 22's lateral movement), by extending the axles on a first side of the chassis while retracting the axles on a second, opposite side of the chassis without changing a track width between ground-engaging elements on opposing sides of the chassis (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 18-24, Inner axle 30 slidingly engages with outer axle 28 which may translate the wheels 14 relative to the chassis; Column 2, line 17-25, the track width is preserved by shifting the wheels laterally, shifting the two left wheels in a first direction and the two right wheels in a second, opposite direction to the first direction, indicating motion relative to the chassis if the wheelbase is being maintained).
Slawson does not teach of at least one sensor configured to detect an orientation of the chassis relative to gravity, wherein the controller receives a signal from the sensor correlated to the orientation of the vehicle to move the chassis.
Rife teaches of a vehicle comprising:
a chassis (Rife: Fig. 1, frame 12);
a plurality of ground-engaging elements configured to support the chassis above a ground surface (Rife: Fig. 1, transportation devices 16);
a plurality of support assemblies supporting the chassis on the ground-engaging elements (Rife: Fig. 1, columns 18);
at least one sensor configured to detect an orientation of the chassis relative to gravity (Rife: Paragraph 43, sensors 110a and 110b determine a slope S1, which is defined as being relative to reference plane P perpendicular to gravity);
and a controller configured to receive a signal from the sensor correlated to the orientation and to move the chassis responsive to the signal without changing a track width between ground-engaging elements on opposing sides of the chassis (Rife: controller 132 takes input from sensors 110 and communicates with the hydraulic system of columns 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to partially automate the lateral adjustment of the axles with the automatic detection of the orientation of the chassis relative to gravity taught by Rife to reduce the risk of rollover of the vehicle (Rife: Paragraph 60, correcting the desired orientation can maintain stability of the machine to prevent rollovers). Such a combination of elements would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions to the predictable result of creating a safer vehicle that can automatically adjust its orientation with respect to gravity.
Regarding Claim 11: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 10.
Slawson further teaches the vehicle further comprises:
an application system carried by the chassis (Slawson: Fig. 1, application system 16), the application system comprising:
a liquid holding tank (Slawson: Fig. 1, liquid holding tank 32), and a plurality of nozzles spaced along a boom, wherein the nozzles are configured to deliver liquid from the liquid holding tank to the ground surface (Slawson: Fig. 1, delivery system 34 includes a pair of booms 36 comprising pumps and spray nozzles to disperse the contents of the holding tank 32; Col. 6, Line 36-39).
Regarding Claim 12: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 10.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 10, Rife further teaches wherein the controller is configured to automatically move the chassis after receiving the signal from the at least one sensor (Rife: Paragraph 13/14/40, sensors 110 and 114 send positioning information to controller 132 to change the orientation of the frame 12).
Regarding Claim 13: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 10.
Slawson further teaches wherein the controller is configured to move the chassis laterally while the support assemblies remain stationary (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 18-24, Inner axle 30 slidingly engages with outer axle 28 which may translate the wheels 14 relative to the chassis; each wheel 14 is individually actuated, and therefore can be actuated in such a way to shift the chassis while maintaining wheel position).
Regarding Claim 14: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 10.
Slawson further teaches wherein each support assembly comprises a height-adjustment actuator (Slawson: Fig. 5, Adjustment mechanism 90, adjustment elements 92 and 94 being hydraulic cylinders).
Further, Rife also teaches wherein each support assembly comprises a height-adjustment actuator (Rife: Paragraph 34, Frame 12 is raised and lowered by hydraulic cylinders associated with columns 18).
Regarding Claim 15: Slawson in view of Rife teaches of the vehicle described above in claim 10.
Slawson further teaches wherein the height-adjustment actuators each comprise hydraulic cylinders connected to a common fluid source via a respective control valve (Slawson: Fig. 5, Adjustment mechanism 90, adjustment elements 92 and 94 being hydraulic cylinders).
Further, Rife also teaches wherein the height-adjustment actuators each comprise hydraulic cylinders connected to a common fluid source via a respective control valve (Rife: Paragraph 34, frame 12 is raised and lowered by hydraulic cylinders associated with columns 18).
Regarding Claim 16: Slawson teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (as part of the computer processor 70; Col 7, Line 52 – Col 8, Line 15) of a vehicle comprising an electronic control system (Slawson: Fig. 4, electronic instrument panel 46 as part of control panel 48), the vehicle comprising a chassis (Slawson: Fig. 1,chassis 12), a plurality of ground-engaging elements supporting the chassis above a ground surface (Slawson: Fig. 1, wheels 14), and a plurality of adjustable axles supporting the chassis on the ground-engaging elements (Slawson: Fig. 5, Adjustment mechanism 90 attached to slidably adjustable horizontal axles 30 and 28), which causes the vehicle to:
Laterally translating the chassis relative to the ground engaging elements by extending the axles on a first side of the chassis while retracting the axles on a second, opposite side of the chassis without changing a track width of the ground-engaging elements (Slawson: Col. 6, Line 18-24, Inner axle 30 slidingly engages with outer axle 28 which may translate the wheels 14 relative to the chassis; Column 2, line 17-25, the track width is preserved by shifting the wheels laterally, shifting the two left wheels in a first direction and the two right wheels in a second, opposite direction to the first direction, indicating motion relative to the chassis if the wheelbase is being maintained).
Slawson does not teach of detection of the orientation of the chassis relative to gravity or the use of that detection in the translation of the chassis.
Rife teaches of an electronic control system (Rife: Fig. 1, control panel 32 and control system 100 controls and outputs information related to operation of machine 10) for a vehicle comprising a chassis (Rife: Fig. 1, frame 12), a plurality of ground-engaging elements configured to support the chassis above a ground surface (Rife: Fig. 1, transportation devices 16), and plurality of support assemblies supporting the chassis on the ground-engaging elements (Rife: Fig. 1, columns 18) which causes the vehicle to:
detect an orientation of the chassis relative to gravity (Rife: Paragraph 43, sensors 110a and 110b determine a slope S1, which is defined as being relative to reference plane P perpendicular to gravity, which is communicated and used by controller 132);
and translating the chassis relative to the support assemblies based on the detected orientation of the chassis without changing a track width of the ground-engaging elements (Rife: Paragraph 13/14/40, sensors 110 and 114 send positioning information to controller 132 to change the orientation of the frame 12 without a change in the width of the transportation devices 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to partially automate the lateral adjustment of the axles with the automatic detection of the orientation of the chassis relative to gravity taught by Rife to reduce the risk of rollover of the vehicle (Rife: Paragraph 60, correcting the desired orientation can maintain stability of the machine to prevent rollovers). Such a combination of elements would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions to the predictable result of creating a safer vehicle that can automatically adjust its orientation with respect to gravity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. White as part of 20090194984 A1 teaches of an agricultural implement comprising a chassis, a plurality of ground engaging elements configured to support the chassis above the ground’s surface, a plurality of support assemblies supporting the chassis on the ground engaging elements, wherein the chassis may be translated laterally relative to the support assemblies by extending an axle on a first side of the chassis while retracting axles on a second, opposite side of the chassis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671