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 .
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-17 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).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 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 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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are 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.
With regards to claim 1 , the claim recites “… a winch control device … comprising a control unit configured to receive, as an input, a wound cable length signal and a measured pressure signal …” and then it recites … determine at least one of the first control signal and the second control signal based on at least one of : … the measured pressure signal … and at least one signal of : … the wound cable length signal …”. The claim is indefinite because the claim requires both a wound cable length signal and a measured pressure signal, however only one of a first control signal and the second control signal is required. It is unclear how an embodiment of only one first control signal or only one second control signal is supported since the a ‘wound cable length signal’ and a ‘measured pressure signal’ are at least two signals. It is also unclear whether the first instance of “based on at least one of” is referring to a group that belongs to both the first control signal and second control signal or whether the first instance of ‘based on at least one of’ belongs to the ‘first control signal’ and the second occurring instance of ‘based on at least one of’ belongs to the ‘second control signal’. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret that both first and second control signals are processed and this is consistent with Fig. 3. Should this be what the applicant is intending, the examiner suggests the applicant remove the ‘at least one’ language and ensure that both first and second control signals are required.
Additionally, with regards to claim 1, the produced value of the calculated pull force signal is not referenced and it appears the actuator assembly for winding an unwinding the cable is independent of the calculated pull force signal (which appears different from how the spec describes it , as shown in Fig 3, the calculated pull force signal is processed to generate THE first control signal , and this in turns controls the actuator assembly). The examiner suggests the applicant coupling the output to the first control signal to ensure the actuation is dependent upon the calculated pull force (via ‘SC1’).
With regards to claim 2-11 and 13, they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above since they depend upon the subject matter of issue in claim 1 and they do not resolve the issues of claim 1.
With regards to claim 14, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claims 15-16, they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above since they depend upon the subject matter of issue in claim 1 and they do not resolve the issues of claim 1.
With regards to claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above. Furthermore, it recites “providing as an output” a pull force on the winch assembly, wherein THE pull force is calculated based on the value of the wound cable length and the pressure value”. The examiner notes that the actual pull force applied on the winch assembly does not appear to be consistent with the specification’s description which explains the pull force actually undergoes additional processing (see filtering in block 32) to yield another value (such as SC1) , and SC1 is used to control the actuator and subsequently an actual pull force via SC1 is updated based on the calculated pull force. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume the applicant intended that the pull force calculated impacts and controls the actuator via SC1 to produce an actual pull force (different than the calculated).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered with respect to prior art rejections previously applied, and although the prior art rejections are withdrawn, new 35 USC 112 rejections are applied and double patenting rejections remain. Thus the pending claims are still rejected and applicant’s arguments concerning the pending claims being allowable is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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
Prosecution Insights