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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments filed Feburary 27, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 9, 15, and 18 are amended. Claim 20 is newly introduced. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1-17 and 19, Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the claims as amended. The prior art rejection of US20160130785A1 (Geier) in view of US202001149957A1 (Oetken) and US9267245B1 (Braun) is maintained with further citations added to the rejection below to address the amended limitations. For the purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, examiner is responding to applicant’s arguments to further explain why the prior art still reads on the amended claims.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior art rejections and has been indicated as allowable.
Claim 20 is newly added and addressed in the body of the rejection below.
Regarding the arguments directed at amended claim 1, applicant argues that Oetken can only be broadened based on the data about the physical conditions of the compacting area, not to data regarding the steering actuator itself. (page 13). However, examiner notes that the operational criteria mentioned by Oetken is a non-limiting list that includes temperature. Specifically, Oetken discloses that the flowchart of Fig. 6 comprises a step 504 of “receiving data indicative of operational criteria from one or more sensors” ([0052]), where the figure explicitly mentions temperature. However, Oetken further discloses operational criteria that does not pertain to just the compacting area (Oetken, [0052], “Put another way, should another operational criteria. (e.g., the width of the drum, the type of the material that forms the surface of the compacting area, the density and/or modulus of the material the forms the surface of the compacting area, etc.) factor into the method 500.”) and supporting the control with a plurality of sensors such as a steering sensor (Oetken, [0029], “The steering sensor 130 can be mounted on the compactor 100 and can be configured to measure steering angle, movement, steering speed, or rate of movement, of the steering wheel (not shown) by the operator … The steering sensor 130 can be in electronic communication with the operational controller 111 and can be configured to transmit data to the operational controller 111 indicative of the measured data (e.g., steering angle, movement, steering speed, rate of movement, other data relevant to steering, etc.)”), where the controller can modify the operation of the compactor (Oetken, [0045]).
As the arguments regarding dependent claims 10 and 16 are similar to claim 1, the rejections of claims 10 and 16 are maintained for similar reasons as the rejection of claim 1.
For at least these reasons, examiner maintains that Oetken can be broadened beyond the physical conditions of the compacting area.
Regarding the arguments directed at amended claims 9 and 15, applicant’s amendments include “upon return of the direction control of the remote control to the neutral position thereof after being moved from the neutral position thereof to command a turning operation”. However, examiner notes that both Geier and Oetken teaches manipulation of the machine by a joystick (see at least Geier, [0039] and Oetken, [0029]), where Oetken particularly points out the joystick in place of a steering wheel, where a steering wheel is a well know control method that does result in straight-line travel “upon return of the direction control of the remote control to the neutral position thereof after being moved from the neutral position thereof to command a turning operation”.
As the arguments regarding dependent claim 8 are similar to claims 9 and 15 above, the rejection of claim 8 is maintained for similar reasons as the rejections of claims 9 and 15.
For at least these reasons, examiner maintains that these limitations are taught by the prior art cited.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “belaying” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 18 and 20 contain the limitations “wherein overriding commands … includes preventing the control valve from adjusting the fluid flow …”. Examiner interprets that the language in between “commands” and “includes” to be descriptive of the commands. This would mean that the “includes” should be “include”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 discloses the feature “the source of hydraulic fluid”. However, there does not exist a prior mention of “a source of hydraulic fluid”. As the claim also introduces “a source of pressurized hydraulic fluid”, examiner suggests amending “the source of hydraulic fluid” to be “the source of pressurized hydraulic fluid”. For prior art examination, examiner will interpret the claim in that manner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160130785A1 (Geier) in view of US20200114957A1 from the IDS (Oetken) and US9267245B1 from the IDS (Braun).
Regarding claim 1, Geier discloses a compaction machine system comprising, the system comprising:
a compaction machine including:
a mobile chassis, the mobile chassis including a first subframe pivotably connected to a second subframe about a pivot connection;
Geier, [0006], “A common vibratory compactor, and one to which the invention is well-suited, is a vibratory trench roller. The typical vibratory trench roller includes a chassis supported on the surface to be compacted by front and rear rotating drum assemblies. Each drum assembly supports a respective subframe of the chassis. In the case of an articulated trench roller, the subframes are coupled to one another by a pivot connection.”
a steering actuator configured to cause the first and second subframes to pivot with respect to one another;
Geier, [0006], “Each of the drum assemblies may include a stationary axle housing and a drum that is mounted on the axle housing and that is driven to rotate by a dedicated hydraulic motor. Hydraulic motors are typically supplied with pressurized hydraulic fluid from a pump which may be powered by an engine mounted on one of the subframes.”, where the actuator would be this mounted-engine powered motor.
a steering angle sensor configured to provide data indicative of a machine steering angle;
Geier, [0036], “Electronics of the machine 50 receive signals from the eyes 70, 72, and 74 to start and stop the machine 50, to control propulsion and steering of the machine 50 in a desired (forward or reverse) direction, and to control the machine's exciter assemblies.”
a control unit in communication with the steering angle sensor and the steering actuator, the control unit being configured to control operation of the steering actuator and to determine an operational stroke of the steering actuator,
Geier, [0039], “The signal 24 is received by one or more of the eyes 70, 72, and 74 on the machine 50, transmitted to the machine’s circuity, and decoded to execute the commands transmitted by the remote controller 22.”, where the circuitry is the control unit in communication with the steering angle sensor (eyes 70, 72, 74) and the steering actuator.
a remote control exterior to the compaction machine, the remote control including a direction control and a transmitter configured to transmit an operator-generated steering command from the direction control to a receiver on the control unit of the compaction machine;
Geier discloses a remote control exterior to the compaction machine ([0039], “The machine 50 is controlled by an operator stationed above the trench 12 via a hand-held remote controller 22 that transmits an IR signal 24.”), the remote control including a direction control ([0039], “The remote controller 22 can be actuated to control some or all operating parameter of the machine. For example, it can be used to start and stop the engine. It also can be used to control the FORWARD/REVERSE direction of machine travel and to steer the machine 50, possibly using joysticks on the remote controller 22.”) and a transmitter configured to transmit an operator-generated steering command from the direction control to a receiver on the control unit of the compaction machine ([0039], “The machine 50 is controlled by an operator stationed above the trench 12 via a hand-held remote controller 22 that transmits an IR signal 24.”).
wherein the control unit is configured to control the steering actuator based on the operator-generated steering command from the direction control and the determined operational stroke of the steering actuator; and
Geier discloses the control unit configured to control the steering actuator based on the operator generated steering command from the direction control (see at least [0039] regarding decoded commands from the remote controller) and the determined operational stroke of the steering actuator ([0036], “steering of the machine 50 in a desired (forward or reverse) direction”).
wherein the control unit is configured to:
determine, based on input from the steering angle sensor, whether the steering actuator is at a limit of its operational stroke; and
While Geier does not disclose a control unit configured to determine, based on input from the steering angle sensor, whether the steering actuator is at a limit of its operational stroke, from a similar field of endeavor, Oetken discloses a steering sensor (see at least [0028] regarding one or more sensors 118 such as steering sensor 130) in communication with the control unit (operational controller 111), where said steering sensor can be configured to measure data indicative of the state of the steering system (see at least [0029] where the measured state includes steering angle) and is in communication with the steering articulation actuator (see at least [0039,0044] and Fig. 5 of Oetken).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system of Oetken to the system Geier as Oetken provides a system for tracking the current state of the compactor automatically controlling movement (Oetken, [0044]).
upon determining that the steering actuator is at the limit of its operational stroke, override commands from the direction control to alter the machine steering angle beyond that which results in the limit of the operational stroke of the steering actuator.
While Oetken discloses overriding commands from the direction control to alter the machine steering angle beyond that which results in the limit of the operational stroke of the steering actuator (see at least Oetken, claim 8 and Oetken, [0050]), Oetken does not explicitly disclose the overriding upon determining that the steering actuator is at the limit of its operational stroke.
However, in light of the rationale above regarding “determine, based on input …”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the system to further combine the overriding commands of Oetken to the system of Geier as actuators of vibratory compactors have actuators that are costly and prone to failure evidenced by Braun (Braun, column 1, lines 60-67, “However, high pressure steering actuators are costly and are prone to failure, such as by way of oil leaks and/or pressure losses. Electrically powered high force actuators suitable for steering are available, but are more costly than hydraulic actuators. And they have many moving parts which are prone to failure in severe operating conditions.” Braun further discloses in column 2, lines 1-6, “In addition, vibratory roller machines with linear steering actuators and solid axle configuration are further limited by the maximum slope in which they can traverse. The need therefore exists to provide a system for a vibratory roller machine that eliminates one or more of the foregoing disadvantages.”. In view of the citation of Braun, combining Oetken to the system of Geier would provide a method of overriding commands in response to a threshold or limit relevant to the operations.
Regarding claim 2, with the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the receiver is configured to receive the input from the direction control and transmit the input from the direction control to the control unit.
Geier, [0039], “The remote controller 22 performs these functions by transmitting an IR. signal 24 that propagates from the remote controller 22 in an expanding arc until it impinges on the machine 50. The signal 24 is received by one or more of the eyes 70, 72, and 74 on the machine 50, transmitted to the machine's circuitry, and decoded to execute the commands transmitted by the remote controller 22.”
Regarding claim 3, with the limitations of claim 2, the system further comprises: wherein the receiver comprises at least one of a radio receiver and an IR receiver
Geier, [0009], “The remote controller 22 transmits an IR signal 24 that propagates in an expanding arc until it impinges on the machine 10, where it is detected by one of two eyes 26 and 28 located on opposite ends of the machine 10.”
Regarding claim 8, with the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the operator-generated steering command is generated by movement of the direction control from a neutral position thereof; and
See at least [0008] and [0039] of Geier, where the machine 50 may be moved possibly using joysticks on the remote controller 22, where examiner interprets the joysticks unused by the operator to be from a neutral position.
wherein the control unit is configured such that, upon return of the directional control to the neutral position thereof, the control unit adjusts the operational stroke of the steering actuator to a neutral position resulting in straight- line travel.
While Geier does not explicitly mention the effects of returning the directional control to the neutral position, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that releasing the joystick would return the steering back to neutral to result in straight-line travel as the actuation of the directional control is what caused the steering to begin.
Regarding claim 9, Geier discloses a compaction machine system, the system comprising:
a mobile chassis, the mobile chassis including a first subframe pivotably connected to a second subframe about a pivot connection;
See rationale regarding claim 1, limitation 1.
a steering actuator configured to cause the first and second subframes to pivot with respect to one another;
See rationale regarding claim 1, limitation 2.
a steering angle sensor configured to provide data indicative of a machine steering angle;
See rationale regarding claim 1, limitation 3.
a control unit in communication with the steering angle sensor and the steering actuator, the control unit being configured to control operation of the steering actuator and to determine an operational stroke of the steering actuator,
See rationale regarding claim 1, limitation 4.
a remote control exterior to the compaction machine, the remote control including a direction control and a transmitter configured to transmit an operator-generated steering command from the direction control to a receiver on the control unit of the compaction machine, the operator-generated steering command being generated by movement of the direction control from a neutral position thereof;
See rationale regarding claim 1, limitation 5.
wherein the control unit is configured to control the steering actuator based on the operator-generated steering command from the direction control and the determined operational stroke of the steering actuator; and
See rationale regarding claim 1, limitation 6.
wherein the control unit is configured such that, upon return of the direction control to the neutral position thereof after being moved from the neutral position thereof to effect a turning operation, the control unit adjusts the operational stroke of the steering actuator to a neutral position resulting in straight-line travel.
See rationale regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, with the limitations of claim 9, the system further comprises:
wherein the control unit is configured to:
determine, based on input from the steering angle sensor, whether the steering actuator is at a limit of its operational stroke; and
upon determination that the steering actuator is at the limit of its operational stroke, override commands from the direction control to alter the machine steering angle beyond that which results in the limit of the operational stroke of the steering actuator.
See rationale regarding claim 1, limitation 7.
Regarding claim 11, with the limitations of claim 9, the system further comprises:
wherein the receiver comprises at least one of a radio receiver and an IR receiver.
See rationale regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Geier discloses a method of operating compaction machine system having a mobile chassis including a first subframe pivotably connected to a second subframe about a pivot connection and a steering actuator configured to cause the first and second subframes to pivot relative to one another and turn the compaction machine, the method comprising:
providing a remote control in communication with the compaction machine, the remote control including a direction control and a transmitter;
Geier, [0039], “The machine 50 is controlled by an operator stationed above the trench 12 via a hand-held remote controller 22 that transmits an IR signal 24. The remote controller can be actuated to control some or all operating parameter of the machine. For example, it can be used to start and stop the engine. It also can be used to control the FORWARD/REVERSE direction of machine travel and to steer the machine 50, possibly using joysticks on the remote controller 22.”
operating a control unit of the compaction machine to:
receive data indicative of a machine steering angle from a steering angle sensor;
See rationale of claim 1, limitation 3.
determine an operational stroke of the steering actuator based on the machine steering angle and orientation of the pivot connection;
While Geier in view of Oetken does disclose determining an operational stroke of the steering actuator (see at least Oetken, [0044]), Geier does not disclose the use of a sensor at the pivot connection, Braun discloses in column 3, line 64 to column 4, line 3, “The position sensor may comprise a first gyroscope located on the front subframe and a second gyroscope located on the rear subframe, a linear steer angle sensor between the front subframe and the rear subframe, an angular position sensor located at the pivot connection, and/or other sensor(s). A calibration device or algorithm may be used to calibrate the position sensor, and may include a global positioning system.”
One of ordinary skill would find it obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to include these sensors to the system of Geier as the operation of vibratory compaction machines require precise control over the angle at which they operate. Specifically, the inclusion of these sensors would provide a more robust system by providing more error-proofing through multiple sensors.
receive an operator-generated steering command from the direction control of the remote control via the transmitter, the operator-generated steering command being generated by movement of the direction control of the remote control from a neutral position thereof;
See the rationale of claim 1, limitation 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed remote control system of Geier would have the compaction system configured to receive the transmitted direction signal from the remote.
automatically adjust the operational stroke of the steering actuator based on the operator-generated steering command from the direction control of the remote control and the determined stroke of the steering actuator; and
See the rationale of claim 1, limitation 6.
based on the data from the steering angle sensor, automatically return the steering actuator to the neutral position in the resulting in straight-line travel upon return of the direction control of the remote control to the neutral position thereof after being moved from the neutral position thereof to command a turning operation.
See the rationale of claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, with the limitations of claim 15, the method further comprises:
wherein operating the control unit of the compaction machine further comprises:
determining, based on the data from the steering angle sensor, whether the steering actuator is at a limit of its operational stroke; and
upon determination that the steering actuator is at the limit of its operational stroke, override commands from the direction control that otherwise would attempt to alter the machine steering angle beyond that which results in the limit of the operational stroke of the steering actuator.See rationale of claim 1, limitation 7.
Regarding claim 17, with the limitations of claim 15, the method further comprises:
wherein operating the control unit of the compaction machine further comprises:
determining, based on the operator-generated steering command, whether the control unit needs to adjust the operational stroke of the steering actuator to turn the compaction machine; and
upon determination that the control unit does not need to adjust the operational stroke of the steering actuator, maintain the operational stroke of the steering actuator.
While Geier does not disclose a system ability to maintain an operational stroke of a steering actuator, Braun discloses in column 2, lines 53-58, “For example if the operator is commanding forward travel at low speed while compaction the soil, the control system can utilize sensor feedback to adjust the speed of one or more of the drums to maintain the commanded machine vector direction and speed until the operator changes the input.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to integrate the maintainability of the system shown in Braun to the system of Geier as the compacted area may require a maintained operational stroke depending on the situation the machine is applied.
Regarding claim 19, with the limitations of claim 15, the method further comprises:
wherein receiving an operator-generated steering command from the direction control of the remote control comprises receiving at least one of a radio signal and an RF signal from a transmitter of the remote control.
See rationale of claim 3.
Claims 4-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160130785A1 (Geier) in view of US20200114957A1 from the IDS (Oetken) and US9267245B1 from the IDS (Braun) and further in view of US20100051376A1 (Tanaka).
Regarding claim 4, with the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises: wherein the steering actuator comprises at least one hydraulic cylinder.
While Geier does identify the use of hydraulic actuation (Geier, [0006]), Geier does not explicitly disclose a hydraulic cylinder.
From a similar field of endeavor of hydraulic powered vehicles, Tanaka discloses the use of hydraulic cylinders in self-propelled compacting machines (Tanaka, [0001]) to articulate the compacting machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to use the hydraulic cylinders of Tanak to steer the system of Geier as the inventions are compatible and Geier does not give detail beyond what appears to be a general known in the art system of articulation.
Regarding claim 5, with the limitations of claim 4, the system further comprises:
further comprising
a source of pressurized hydraulic fluid,
a reservoir, and
a control valve that controls fluid flow between the hydraulic cylinder, the source of hydraulic fluid, and the reservoir; and
wherein the control valve is operated by the control unit to control the operational stroke of the hydraulic cylinder.
In view of the rationale of claim 4, Tanaka’s system comprises a source of pressurized hydraulic fluid (Tanaka, [0032], hydraulic pump 3), a reservoir (Tanaka, [0032], oil reservoir 9), and a control valve (Tanaka, [0032], pilot-operated directional control valve 5) that are operated by a control unit (Tanaka, [0044], controller 11), where the control valve drives the hydraulic cylinders (see at least Tanaka, [0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine these details to the system of Geier as Geier appears to disclose these elements (Geier, [0006]) but the detailed function of the hydraulics disclosed by Tanaka would allow for implementing the generic system disclosed by Geier.
Regarding claim 6, with the limitations of claim 5, the system further comprises: wherein the control valve is an on/off hydraulic solenoid valve or a proportional hydraulic solenoid valve, which would vary the speed at which the cylinder operates.
In view of the rationale of claim 5, the system of Tanaka discloses that the control valve is a pressure-proportional solenoid valve that can control the output value of the hydraulic pressure (see at least Tanaka, [0044]), where the pressure of the hydraulic fluid would affect the actuation speed of the cylinder.
Regarding claim 7, with the limitations of claim 4, the system further comprises:
wherein the steering angle sensor is a position sensor that is configured to sense an angular orientation of the pivot connection; and
While Geier does not disclose the use of a sensor at the pivot connection, Braun discloses in column 3, line 64 to column 4, line 3, “The position sensor may comprise a first gyroscope located on the front subframe and a second gyroscope located on the rear subframe, a linear steer angle sensor between the front subframe and the rear subframe, an angular position sensor located at the pivot connection, and/or other sensor(s). A calibration device or algorithm may be used to calibrate the position sensor, and may include a global positioning system.”
One of ordinary skill would find it obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to include these sensors to the system of Geier as the operation of vibratory compaction machines require precise control over the angle at which they operate. Specifically, the inclusion of these sensors would provide a more robust system by providing more error-proofing through multiple sensors.
wherein the control unit is configured to determine the stroke of the hydraulic cylinder based on the sensed angular orientation of the pivot connection.
Geier does not disclose identifying the steering stroke from the angular orientation of the pivot. However, from Braun’s disclosure in column 7, lines 6-10, “The angular position sensor 84 may monitor a relative angular position between the front subframe 16 and the rear subframe 18. Accordingly, a corresponding relative angular position value may be generated by the controller 56.”
While Braun does not disclose the determination of an operational stroke of the steering actuator, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the effective filing date, that the steering stroke controls the first subframe and would cause an angular deviation in the pivot, meaning that steering and angular orientation are correlated to each other. One of ordinary skill would further be able to use the sensor placement from Braun’s disclosure on the pivot if necessary to calculate the exact deviation of the pivot for the control unit to process.
Regarding claim 12, with the limitations of claim 9, the system further comprises:
wherein the steering actuator comprises at least one hydraulic cylinder.
See rationale regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, with the limitations of claim 12, the system further comprises:
wherein the control valve is an on/off hydraulic solenoid valve or a proportional hydraulic solenoid valve, which would vary the speed at which the cylinder operates.
See rationale regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, with the limitations of claim 12, the system further comprises:
wherein the steering angle senor is a position sensor that is configured to sense an angular orientation of the pivot connection; and wherein the control unit is configured to determine the stroke of the hydraulic cylinder based on the sensed angular orientation of the pivot connection.
See rationale regarding claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest, in the context of the claims, overriding commands from the direction control that otherwise would attempt to alter the machine steering angle beyond that which results in the limit of the operational stroke of the hydraulic cylinder includes preventing the control valve from adjusting the fluid valve into and out of the plurality of chambers of the hydraulic cylinder to prevent a relief valve. The closest prior art of record US20140298798A1 (Belshan) discloses the use of a load sense relief valve that vents steering fluid if the pressure exceeds a maximum threshold (Belshan, [0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights