DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Final action is in reply to the application 18011633 amendment filed on 09/12/2025.
Claims 1 - 8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to arguments
The applicant argues that ENNIE does not explicitly disclose the limitation regarding the location of the Receiver. The examiner states that ENNIS explicitly discloses that the location of the sensor can be located on any component that is rigidly connected to the frame. Therefore the examiner states that ENNIS has the motivation to a relocate of a sensor as admitted by ENNIS to other locations such that the location of the receiver from a roof portion of the cab to one that is mounted within the cab as taught in ONO would be proper combination. ENNIS would still be able to detect 3d geospatial positioning as ENNIS discloses that relocating the sensor to other parts of the vehicle is acceptable and does not state that this would cause an issue with spatial positioning. ENNIS shows motivation and through arrangement of parts as stated below, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the placement of the sensor to be located on the cab as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein ONO further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
The examiner does not find the applicants arguments persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US Patent 20200217042 – Ennis et al. hereinafter as ENNIS in view of WO 2017/164054 (cited to below using the English translation in associated US application US PG Pubs 20200299934 – Ono et al.) hereinafter as ONO
Regarding Claim 1:
ENNIS discloses:
Claim 1 (Original): A work machine comprising: a vehicular body frame including a front frame and a rear frame pivotably coupled(pivot point, see second diagram below) to the front frame; (front frame 106 and rear frame - see diagram below)
a cab which an operator enters, the cab being mounted on the vehicular body frame; (Cab 104 - see diagram below)
a draw bar coupled to the front frame, the draw bar being swingable with respect to the front frame; ( drawbar 110, front frame 106 – see diagram below)
a swing circle supported on the draw bar, the swing circle being rotatable relatively to the draw bar; ( circle 116 relative to draw bar 110, see diagram)
a blade supported on the swing circle, the blade being inclined with respect to the swing circle; (blade 122 on circle 116, see diagram below)
an antenna for reception of a satellite position determination signal arranged in a roof portion of the cab; (GNSS Receiver 138, see diagram below)
the first sensor detecting an inclination of the cab(para. 0038 – body IMU detecting angles of which body imu can be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to the front frame)
a second sensor that detects an angle of inclination of the draw bar with respect to the cab; ( (drawbar IMU 128 – drawbar sensor, see diagram below)
a third sensor that detects an angle of rotation of the swing circle with respect to the draw bar; ( rotation sensor 130 see diagram below)
a fourth sensor that detects an angle of inclination of the blade with respect to the swing circle; ( blade IMU 132 blade sensor, see diagram below) and
a controller that obtains a position of the blade in a global coordinate system based on the satellite position determination signal received by the antenna (para. 0037 – GNSS) and results of detection by the first sensor, the second sensor, the third sensor, and the fourth sensor. (IMU sensors para. 0038)
PNG
media_image1.png
321
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
710
954
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ENNIS discloses the sensor arrangement, however fails to expressly disclose the first sensor mounted on the cab. ENNIS further teaches that the sensor may be arranged to be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to the front frame. ( para. 0038 – body IMU 126) The cab as stated is rigidly connected to the rear end of the front frame. ( para. 0029 – wherein the cab 104 is connected to the front frame). Thus any component that is rigidly connected would function in largely the same manner See Paragraph 0038 – wherein body IMU can be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to front frame).
Additionally, ONO teaches the use of a controlled motor grader, wherein the controlling system can include a number of different sensors, including ones mounted within the cab (para. 0047)
As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the placement of the sensor to be located on the cab as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein ONO further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 2:
ENNIS / ONO discloses claim 1:
ENNIS discloses the sensor arrangement, however fails to expressly disclose wherein the first sensor is arranged in a ceiling portion of the cab. ENNIS further teaches that the sensor may be arranged to be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to the front frame. ( para. 0038 – body IMU 126) The cab as stated is rigidly connected to the rear end of the front frame. ( para. 0029 – wherein the cab 104 is connected to the front frame). Thus any component that is rigidly connected would function in largely the same manner See Paragraph 0038 – wherein body IMU can be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to front frame). As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the placement of the sensor to be located wherein the first sensor is arranged in a ceiling portion of the cab (ONO - para. 0047 - wherein a sensor is located within the cab), as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein ONO further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 3:
ENNIS / ONO discloses claim 1:
ENNIS discloses the sensor arrangement and the location of GNSS on the top of the cab ( Figure 1 – GNSS Receiver 138), however fails to expressly disclose wherein the first sensor is arranged directly under the antenna. ENNIS further teaches that the sensor may be arranged to be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to the front frame. ( para. 0038 – body IMU 126) The cab as stated is rigidly connected to the rear end of the front frame. ( para. 0029 – wherein the cab 104 is connected to the front frame). Thus any component that is rigidly connected would function in largely the same manner See Paragraph 0038 – wherein body IMU can be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to front frame). As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the placement of the sensor to be located wherein the first sensor is arranged directly under the antenna (ONO - para. 0047 - wherein a sensor is located on the ceiling of the cab) wherein the ceiling of the cab would be directly under the antenna from ENNIS, as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein ONO further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 4:
ENNIS / ONO discloses of claim 1:
ENNIS discloses the sensor arrangement, however fails to expressly disclose wherein the first sensor is arranged in a front edge portion of the cab. ENNIS further teaches that the sensor may be arranged to be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to the front frame. ( para. 0038 – body IMU 126) The cab as stated is rigidly connected to the rear end of the front frame. ( para. 0029 – wherein the cab 104 is connected to the front frame). Thus any component that is rigidly connected would function in largely the same manner See Paragraph 0038 – wherein body IMU can be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to front frame). As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the placement of the sensor is arranged in a front edge portion of the cab (ONO - para. 0047, 0048 - wherein a sensor is located on the ceiling of the cab, sensor can be IMU), as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein ONO further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 5:
ENNIS / ONO discloses of claim 4:
ENNIS discloses the sensor arrangement, however fails to expressly disclose wherein the cab includes an operator's seat where an operator takes a seat, and the first sensor is arranged in front of the operator's seat. ENNIS further teaches that the sensor may be arranged to be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to the front frame. ( para. 0038 – body IMU 126) The cab as stated is rigidly connected to the rear end of the front frame. ( para. 0029 – wherein the cab 104 is connected to the front frame). Thus any component that is rigidly connected would function in largely the same manner See Paragraph 0038 – wherein body IMU can be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to front frame). As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the placement of the sensor wherein the cab includes an operator's seat where an operator takes a seat, and the first sensor is arranged in front of the operator's seat (ONO - para. 0047, 0048 - wherein a sensor is located on the ceiling of the cab as no particular location on the ceiling is specified, and since the cab covers the operator it is reasonable that the sensor can be located in front and above the driver sitting in the seat within the cab, para. 0048 - sensor can be IMU, para. 0033 where in the operator seat,), as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein ONO further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 6:
ENNIS / ONO discloses of claim 4:
ENNIS discloses:
wherein the cab includes a steering wheel for an operator to perform an operation for steering the work machine and a steering console on which the steering wheel is supported(para. 0065 - steering wheel),
ENNIS discloses the sensor arrangement, however fails to expressly disclose the first sensor is arranged directly above the steering console. ENNIS further teaches that the sensor may be arranged to be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to the front frame. ( para. 0038 – body IMU 126) The cab as stated is rigidly connected to the rear end of the front frame. ( para. 0029 – wherein the cab 104 is connected to the front frame). Thus any component that is rigidly connected would function in largely the same manner See Paragraph 0038 – wherein body IMU can be mounted to any component that is rigidly connected to front frame). As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the placement of the sensor the first sensor is arranged directly above the steering console. (ONO - para. 0047, 0048 - wherein a sensor is located on the ceiling of the cab as no particular location on the ceiling is specified, and since the cab covers the operator it is reasonable that the ceiling sensor can be located above a steering console, para. 0048 - sensor can be IMU, para. 0038 where the cab includes a steering wheel), as the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein ONO further supports the placement being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 7:
ENNIS / ONO discloses of claim 1:
ENNIS discloses:
wherein the cab is mounted on the front frame. ( para. 0029 - wherein the cab is connected to rear end of the front frame)
Regarding Claim 8:
ENNIS / ONO discloses of claim 8:
ENNIS discloses:
The work machine according to claim 7, wherein the first sensor is arranged in front of a center of pivot of the front frame with respect to the rear frame. (Wherein sensors or located in front of the pivot point of the front frame, see diagram above regarding pivot point)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671