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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2022 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/14/2023 are accepted.
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(s) is/are:
“winch control device … configured to: control … determine…” in claim 1 and 14.
“winch control device is configured to determine …” in claims 2, and 4-9 .
“oscillation detector is configured to … receive, …. Detect …. Output …”, “winch control device is configured to define … “ in claims 3 and 9
“control unit configured to receive …” in claim 12
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 14-17 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘ 396) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 3, 5-8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11753283 (hereinafter ‘283) in view of Kanzler et al (US Patent: 8201349, published: Jun. 19, 2012, filed: May 19, 2006). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because :
With regards to claim 1 of ‘396 , claim 4 of ‘283 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘396. Although Claim 4 of ‘283 (which depends on limitations of claim 1 of ‘283) recites a ‘measured pull force’ compared to the ‘calculated pull force’ in claim 1 of ‘396, the examiner interprets points out under broadest reasonable interpretation, the term ‘measured’ in claim 4 of ‘283 encompasses the meaning of ‘a determined/assessed pull force’, and similarly, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the term ‘calculated’ is interpreted to encompass an assessed pull force.
However, although claim 4 of ‘283 encompasses a ‘driving direction’ (by dependency upon claim 1 of ‘283), claim 4 of ‘283 does not specifically include a forward driving direction.
Yet Kanzler et al teaches a forward driving direction (column 8, lines 5-17: a snow grooming machine assesses cable force with respect to a forward direction of travel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 4 of ‘283’s actuator to determine cable pull force with respect to other data, such that the other data would have included assessing forward direction, as taught by Kanzler et al. The combination would have allowed claim 4 of ‘283 to have made it easier to operate a vehicle by taking into account cable torque and to have made it easier to drive while improving grooming quality (Kanzler et al, column 2, lines 35-45).
With regards to claim 2 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 1 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 2 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 2 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 3 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 6 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 4 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 5 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 5 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 6 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 6 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 7 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 7 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 7 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 8 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 8 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 3 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 9 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch actuator assembly, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 10 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 10 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the hydraulic circuit and the variable displacement pump, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396. Additionally, claim 11 of ‘283 further teaches the limitations claim 11 of ‘396.
With regards to claim 14 of ‘396, The combination of claim 4 of ‘283 and Kanzler teaches the limitations of claim 14 of ‘396, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396 above.
With regards to claim 15 of ‘396, the combination claim 4 of ‘283 and Kanzler teaches the limitations of claim 15 of ‘396, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396 above.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘396, the combination claim 4 of ‘283 and Kanzler teaches the limitations of claim 16 of ‘396, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396 above.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘396, the combination claim 4 of ‘283 and Kanzler teaches the limitations of claim 17 of ‘396, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396 above.
Claims 12 and 13 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘ 396) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11753283 (hereinafter ‘283) in view of Kanzler et al (US Patent: 8201349, published: Jun. 19, 2012, filed: May 19, 2006) in view of Paoletti (US Application: US 20200115202, published: Apr. 16, 2020, filed: Jun. 8, 2018).
With regards to claim 12 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches the winch control device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396.
However the combination explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396 did not address wherein the winch control device comprises a control unit configured to receive, as input, the wound cable length signal and the measured pressure signal and output a calculated pull force signal indicative of an estimated pull force on the cable.
Yet Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device comprises a control unit configured to receive, as input, the wound cable length signal and the measured pressure signal and output a calculated pull force signal indicative of an estimated pull force on the cable (paragraphs 0009, 0020, 0036 and 0043: based on pressure signal and cable length, an actuator controlled to a calculated controlled pull force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 4 and Kanzler of ‘283 ‘s control unit to further receive a cable length and pressure signal and output an estimated pull force, as also taught by Paoletti et al. The combination would have implemented an improved tracked vehicle that can maneuver and be more reactive in dynamic conditions (Paoletti, paragraphs 0004-0007).
With regards to claim 13 of ‘396, the combination of claim 4 of ’283 and Kanzler teaches wherein the control device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘396.
However the combination does not expressly teach wherein the control device is independent of a force sensor configured to measure the pull force on the cable.
Yet Paoletti teaches wherein the control device is independent of a force sensor configured to measure the pull force on the cable (paragraphs 0099, 0100: the control device is insensitive pull force measurement via use of feedback control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 4 and Kanzler of ‘283 ‘s control device to further such that can be independent of a force sensor configuration, as also taught by Paoletti. The combination would have implemented an improved tracked vehicle that can maneuver and be more reactive in dynamic conditions (Paoletti, paragraphs 0004-0007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paoletti (US Application: US 20200115202, published: Apr. 16, 2020, filed: Jun. 8, 2018).
With regards to claim 1, Paoletti teaches A winch assembly comprising:
a support structure (Fig 1, paragraph 0009: a support structure 14 is shown );
a drum rotatable relative to the support structure;
a cable wrapped around the drum (Fig. 1, paragraph 0055: a cable is attached to drum 15);
an actuator assembly coupled to the drum (Fig. 3, reference number 17: an actuator assembly is coupled to the drum) ) and configured to receive at least one of:
a first control signal indicative of a desired pump pressure of the actuator assembly (paragraph 0009, 0090, claim 16 of Paoletti: a first control signal indicates desired pump pressure ), and a second control signal indicative of a desired pump displacement of the actuator assembly (paragraph 0009: a second control signal indicates desired displacement) ; and
a winch control device coupled to the actuator assembly and configured to: control, via the actuator assembly (paragraph 0009: a winch is coupled to actuator to control the actuator of the cable), a winding and an unwinding of the cable (claim 16 of Paoletti: the actuator controls the winding and unwinding of the cable), and determine at least one of the first control signal and the second control signal based on at least one of: a measured travel speed signal indicating a measured travel speed of a tracked vehicle, a measured pressure signal indicative of a measured pressure of a high pressure branch of a hydraulic circuit of the actuator assembly, and at least one signal of: a cable speed signal, a wound cable length signal, an operator set desired pull force signal, a measured angle signal of an arm of the winch assembly relative to a forward direction, and a calculated pull force signal indicating a calculated pull force (Abstract, Fig 1, paragraphs 0009, 0043, 0071, 0075 -0077, claim 16 of Paoletti: first and/or second control signals can be defined/determined according types of data such as measured angle, cable speed, cable length, measured travel speed, direction of travel (shown in Fig 1 to include a vector flexibly encompassing forward/reverse and other angled directions around vertical axis B, desired pull force manually set by an operator).
With regards to claim 2. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device is configured to determine at least one of the first control signal and the second control signal based on a pressure of at least one pump of at least one track of the tracked vehicle and a pressure difference between two pumps of two tracks of the tracked vehicle (paragraphs 0023 and 0032 and claim 17 of Paoletti: first control signal and second control signal can be based on pump for at least one track and difference in pressure).
With regards to claim 3. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device further comprises: an oscillation detector configured to: receive, as an input, the calculated pull force signal, detect oscillations by detecting frequencies related to harmonics having amplitude values greater than a certain value, and output at least one frequency value if an oscillation on the calculated pull force signal is detected, and an active filter that is frequency-adjustable and adjusted in frequency based on the frequency detected by the oscillation detector to at least dampen oscillations in the calculated pull force, wherein the winch control device is configured to define the first control signal via the active filter (paragraph 0012, 0034, claims 18 and 19 of Paoletti: oscillation can be detected related to harmonics based upon amplitudes greater than an certain value and implementing an active filter based upon frequency detected ).
With regards to claim 4. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device is configured to determine the first control signal based on at least one of: the measured angle signal, the cable speed signal, the wound cable length signal, the measured travel speed signal, the calculated pull force signal, the operator set desired pull force signal, and the measured pressure signal (paragraph 0019, 0075-0077, claim 20 of Paoletti: a first control signal can be based on a plurality of data points such as cable length/speed signal(s)).
With regards to claim 5. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device is configured to determine the first control signal based on at least one of a value of at least one pressure of at least one pump supplying at least one of a first track of the tracked vehicle and a second track of the tracked vehicle, and a track pressure signal indicative of a pressure difference of the hydraulic circuits supplying the first track of the tracked vehicle and the second track of the tracked vehicle (paragraphs 0023 and 0032, claim 21 of Paoletti: first control signal is based on pressure of at least one pump of at least one of first and second track(s), and determining a pressure difference between first and second track(s) ).
With regards to claim 6. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device is configured to determine the second control signal based on at least one of: the measured angle signal, the cable speed signal, the wound cable length signal, the operator set desired force signal, the calculated pull force signal, the measured travel speed signal, and the measured pressure signal (paragraph 0032, 0075-0077, claim 22 of Paoletti: a second control signal can be based on one of a plurality of data points such as cable speed signal).
With regards to claim 7. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device is configured to determine the second control signal based on at least one of: a motor unit speed signal and a track pressure signal (paragraph 0032, 0075-0077, claim 23 of Paoletti: a second control signal can be based on one of a plurality of data points such motor speed and track pressure).
With regards to claim 8. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device is configured to determine the second control signal based on a desired theoretical force signal calculated based on at least one of: the measured angle signal, the cable speed signal, the desired pull force signal, a track pressure signal and the measured travel speed signal (paragraphs 0033 and 0086, second control signal is based on theoretical force value and the value/signal is calculated based on at least one of a cable speed signal).
With regards to claim 9. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches further comprising an oscillation detector configured to: receive, as input, the calculated pull force signal, detect oscillations by detecting frequencies related to harmonics having amplitude values greater than a certain value, and provide, as output, at least one frequency value if an oscillation on the calculated pull force signal is detected, and an active filter that is frequency-adjustable based on the frequency detected by the oscillation detector to at least dampen oscillations in the calculated pull force, wherein the winch control device is configured to determine the second control signal via the active filter (paragraphs 0012 and 0034: based on pull force, oscillations are detected for harmonics greater than a certain value and one or more frequencies are output along with application of a filter to determine the second control signal).
With regards to claim 10. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the actuator assembly comprises: a hydraulic circuit, and a variable displacement pump which supplies the hydraulic circuit and is configured to vary a displacement based on a pressure defined by at least one of: the pressure of the high pressure branch of the hydraulic circuit, a pressure indicated by the first control signal, and the second control signal (paragraph 0035: the actuator assembly comprises a hydraulic circuit and displacement pump to vary displacement based on at least one of the pressure measured in the high pressure branch of the hydraulic circuit).
With regards to claim 11. The winch assembly of claim 10, Paoletti teaches further comprising a variable displacement hydraulic motor coupled to the hydraulic circuit and supplied by the variable displacement pump via the hydraulic circuit, the variable displacement hydraulic motor configured to vary a displacement based on the pressure of the high pressure branch of the hydraulic circuit (paragraph 0037: a variable displacement hydraulic motor is coupled to the hydraulic circuit and supplied by the variable displacement pump via the hydraulic circuity ).
With regards to claim 12. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the winch control device comprises a control unit configured to receive, as input, the wound cable length signal and the measured pressure signal and output a calculated pull force signal indicative of an estimated pull force on the cable (paragraphs 0009, 0020, 0036 and 0043: based on pressure signal and cable length, an actuator controlled to a calculated controlled pull force).
With regards to claim 13. The winch assembly of claim 1, Paoletti teaches wherein the control device is independent of a force sensor configured to measure the pull force on the cable (paragraphs 0099, 0100: the control device is insensitive pull force measurement via use of feedback control).
With regards to claim 14. Paoletti teaches A tracked vehicle comprising: an engine assembly; a first track; a second track; and a winch assembly comprising: a support structure, a drum rotatable relative to the support structure, a cable wrapped around the drum, an actuator assembly coupled to the drum and configured to receive at least one of: a first control signal indicative of a desired pump pressure of the actuator assembly, and a second control signal indicative of a desired pump displacement of the actuator assembly, and a winch control device coupled to the actuator assembly and configured to: control, via the actuator assembly, a winding and an unwinding of the cable, and determine at least one of the first control signal and the second control signal based on at least one of: a measured travel speed signal indicating a measured travel speed of the tracked vehicle, a measured pressure signal indicative of a measured pressure of a high pressure branch of a hydraulic circuit of the actuator assembly, and at least one signal of: a cable speed signal, a wound cable length signal, an operator set desired pull force signal, a measured angle signal of an arm of the winch assembly relative to a forward direction, and a calculated pull force signal indicating a calculated pull force, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The tracked vehicle of claim 14, Paoletti teaches comprising a first pump configured to drive the first track and a second pump configured to drive the second track (paragraphs 0023 and 0032, claim 21 of Paoletti: first control signal is based on pressure of at least one pump of at least one of first and second track(s), and determining a pressure difference between first and second track(s)).
With regards to claim 16. The tracked vehicle of claim 14, Paoletti teaches further comprising a vehicle control unit connected to the winch control device and configured to define a forward command signal (Fig 1: a drive command signal is defined to set a desired direction of travel about a vertical axis B , which encompasses a direction D such as forward).
With regards to claim 17. Paoletti teaches A method of controlling a winch assembly of a tracked vehicle, the winch assembly comprising a rotatable drum, a cable wrapped around the drum, an actuator assembly coupled to the drum, comprising a variable displacement pump and a hydraulic motor and configured to wind and unwind the cable, the method comprising: controlling the pressure exiting the variable displacement pump to control at least one of the winding and unwinding of the cable and the displacement of the variable displacement pump to control the winding and unwinding of the cable based on the measured travel speed of the tracked vehicle, a pressure value measured on a high pressure branch of a hydraulic circuit of the actuator assembly, and at least one value of: a cable speed, a wound cable length, an operator set desired pull force, and a measured angle of the arm of the winch assembly relative to a direction of travel, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Runggaldier (US Patent: 8839533): This reference teaches a snow groomer with a winch assembly and frame structure with drum and drum-actuator.
Mack (US Application: US 20080250889): This reference teaches a tracked vehicle including use of a winch and arm to help the vehicle move/groom a piste.
Leitner et al (US Application: US 20050279980): This reference teaches a cable winch/drum arrangement for a piste preparation vehicle to enable piste vehicle to move up or down a hill.
Kanzler (US Application: US 2004/0144000): This reference teaches a snow trail grooming vehicle that includes a cable winch apparatus for assisting the vehicle in steep sections.
Rechenmacher (US Application: US 2001/0017366): This reference teaches adjusting a tractive force of a cable of an overhead winch of a tracked vehicle and also implementing individual hydraulic pumps to control each track.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172