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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 7, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated December 16, 2025, Examiner maintains the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 and withdraws the rejections under 3.5. U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed December 16, 2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant states that Kosarev, previously of record, does not disclose to control a blade tilt. However, Kosarev controls the bulldozer blade in all angles of rotation (E.g., Paragraph [0025] “In practice, the parameters of the dozer blade to be controlled depends on the application. If the application requires control of only the slope of the dozer blade (relative to the ground; see further discussion below), then an estimate of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body is sufficient.” And Paragraph [0026], “If the dozer blade has more than three degrees of freedom, additional measurements (such as the attitudes of support arms), along with the estimate of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body, are needed to determine an estimate of the dozer blade position relative to the dozer body.” And Paragraph [0024], “In the most general case, a dozer blade can have up to six degrees of freedom (three angular rotations varying the relative attitude between the dozer blade and the dozer body and three translations varying the relative position between the dozer blade and the dozer body).”). Examiner notes that controlling any one axis of rotation, in a practical course of action, requires a coordination of all axes of rotation, including a blade tilt angle, ergo, regardless of what Kosarev intends to mean by a “slope”, a blade tilt angle is controlled. However, the control of tilt, generally, refers to the angle a bulldozer blade is to be held to produce a level or slope surface. In other words, that the blade may be – as several distinct operations - rotated longitudinally to create a forward cutting edge (yaw), lowered to a certain depth (and/or rotated laterally, in either case, pitch) and, finally, that the blade may be tilted to leave behind a slope of a given shape in the affected ground material (roll). In addition to the general control of a blade in three dimensions, this tilting functionality is described by Kosarev (Compare Paragraph [0002], “Other sensors, such as a fluid slope sensor, can be used to measure the attitude of the dozer blade.” and Paragraph [0025], “If the application requires control of only the slope of the dozer blade (relative to the ground; see further discussion below), then an estimate of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body is sufficient” – slope refers to tilt). In additional to teaching other claim limitations, Hughes, previously of record, albeit not cited in this capacity, also speaks to this same functionality as disclosed in Kosarev, (Paragraph [0018], “control the movement of the blade 12, including raising and lowering of the blade 12 as well as leveling of the blade 12 (or, if desired, angling/sloping of the blade 12” – a slope of the blade is contrasted with a levelling of the blade and raising/lowering of the blade, which means Hughes does not merely describe yaw and pitch rotation). Jaliwala, previously of record, cited now in a further extent, describes that this control of slope can be understood as producing an explicit and desired “tilt” of the machine’s grading tool (Paragraph [0031], “The desired position signal indicative of the automatically determined position of the machine implement 108 may include a desired elevation signal, such as, for example, a height 212 desired for the machine implement 108 above a plane 244 of the worksite 112. The desired position signal may include a desired tilt angle of the machine implement 108.”). Examiner also now provides, not relied upon for the rejection, Kobayashi (US 20130032367 A1), newly of record, which teaches a blade tilt control (Paragraph [0042]) and Dauderman (US 20220042284 A1), newly of record, which also teaches a blade tilt control (Paragraph [0036]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosarev (US 20140207331 A1), previously of record, in view of Hughes (US 20100163258 A1), previously of record, and Jaliwala (US 20150240453 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala respectively.
Regarding Claim 1
Kosarev discloses the following limitations,
A machine comprising: a frame; a blade coupled to the frame and configured to push a load; (Figure 1, depicting a dozer with a frame and blade, where a blade pushes a load)
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated with the blade and configured to indicate a tilt of the blade relative to an absolute global frame of reference; (Paragraph [0060], “For estimation of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body, a measurement system, according to an embodiment of the invention, includes inertial sensors mounted on the dozer body and inertial sensors mounted on the dozer blade.” -– an inertial sensor is an IMU, and is mounted to the blade. And Paragraph [0061], “For measuring the attitude of the dozer blade relative to the dozer body, the number and type of inertial sensors depends on the number of angular degrees of freedom and on the required accuracy. … For three angular degrees of freedom, three accelerometers mounted on the dozer body and three accelerometers mounted on the dozer blade can be used.” – if all degrees of rotation are measured, then a tilt angle is measured as one axis of rotation, the measurement is performed with respect to gravity)
and a controller configured to: … determine … a desired blade tilt steering angle … [and] cause the blade to be tilted to the desired blade tilt steering angle (Paragraph [0025] “In practice, the parameters of the dozer blade to be controlled depends on the application. If the application requires control of only the slope of the dozer blade (relative to the ground; see further discussion below), then an estimate of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body is sufficient.” – the blade tilt angle is established based on the feedback control, as one of the 3 axes of controlling the blade attitude)
determine, based on information from the IMU, that an actual blade tilt has changed … and is different from the desired blade tilt steering angle; cause, based on determining that the actual blade tilt angle is different from the desired blade tilt steering angle, the blade to be tilted according to a corrected blade tilt angle (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
wherein, when the actual blade tilt angle is offset, in a first direction, from the desired blade tilt steering angle, the corrected blade tilt angle is to tilt the blade in a second direction, opposite the first direction, (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
and wherein the corrected blade tilt angle causes the blade to be tilted … to match the desired blade tilt steering angle (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
However, Kosarev does not teach the following limitation,
a controller configured to: apply a blade tilt steering mode to the machine when the machine is pushing the load, wherein in the blade tilt steering mode the controller is configured to: receive blade tilt steering commands; determine, based on the blade tilt steering commands … a desired blade tilt steering angle relative to the absolute global frame of reference
determine, based on information from the IMU, that an actual blade tilt angle has changed relative to the absolute global frame of reference
and wherein the corrected blade tilt angle causes the blade to be tilted, relative to the absolute global frame of reference, to match the desired blade tilt steering angle
However, this is taught by Hughes, which teaches that an automatic level control can augment manual operator inputs (Paragraph [0018], “The micro-controller 34 can also enable an operator to control the system 10 to precisely maintain a desired slope angle, which is not possible with manually operated circuits.”), where the commands from an operator are the steering commands received by the controller, rather than the commands merely emanating from the controller itself, and further, redundantly teaches that an earth moving vehicle can establish a tool position relative to a horizontal plane (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the dual IMU control system of Kosarev with the level operation of Hughes, as this decreases the difficulty of a levelled digging task (Paragraph [0005], “In the past, operators of earthmoving equipment have been required to exert considerable skill and attention to manually control the blade position to compensate for changes in machine orientation due to operating the machine on uneven surfaces.”), and the assistive functionality improves a manual operator’s ability to control the vehicle (Paragraph [0018], “The micro-controller 34 can also enable an operator to control the system 10 to precisely maintain a desired slope angle, which is not possible with manually operated circuits.”).
However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
determine, based on the steering commands and the load, a desired blade tilt steering angle
However, this is taught by Jaliwala which measures a vehicle implement’s load to determine an appropriate control response, and furthermore redundantly teaches a controller feedback (Paragraph [041], “The operator inputs signal indicative of the operators' desired movement of the machine implement 108 may also include a tilt signal, such as, for example, tilt left and tilt right signals. In an aspect of the present disclosure, the adaptive controller 126 may process the operator input signal and the load factor received from the machine data 206b to output the machine control command to move the machine implement 108. The processor 202 may indicate the difference between the desired and the actual position of the machine implement 108 based upon the adaptive control method discussed with respect to FIGS. 3-8.”) and that this control can produce an explicitly desired ‘tilt angle’ (Paragraph [0031], “The desired position signal indicative of the automatically determined position of the machine implement 108 may include a desired elevation signal, such as, for example, a height 212 desired for the machine implement 108 above a plane 244 of the worksite 112. The desired position signal may include a desired tilt angle of the machine implement 108.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the control scheme of Kosarev, as previously modified by Hughes, with the load information of Jaliwala, as this creates a beneficial and adaptive control operation (Paragraph [0023], “In one aspect, the adaptive controller 126 is "adaptive" such that controller gains of the adaptive controller 126 are modified or adapted according to changing operating conditions and dynamics of the worksite 112 as well as parameters associated with the different loads and speeds of the machine 101”). Furthermore, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Kosarev further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein the IMU is a first IMU on the blade, and wherein the machine further comprises a second IMU on the frame (Paragraph [0060], “For estimation of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body, a measurement system, according to an embodiment of the invention, includes inertial sensors mounted on the dozer body and inertial sensors mounted on the dozer blade.”)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Kosarev further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein the controller is further configured to determine an absolute global tilt angle of the frame based on information from the second IMU (Paragraph [0060], “For estimation of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body, a measurement system, according to an embodiment of the invention, includes inertial sensors mounted on the dozer body and inertial sensors mounted on the dozer blade.” – the IMUs can measure in three axes, and thus measure a tilt angle as one axis)
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3. Hughes further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein the controller is further configured to compensate for changes in the absolute global tilt angle of the frame by causing the blade to be tilted, by a corresponding amount, in a direction that is opposite an actual direction of the absolute global tilt angle of the frame (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.” – if the frame passes over uneven terrain, then it rotates in one direction, and the automatic control of the machine blade rotates in the other direction to maintain a consistent absolute tilt angle)
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Kosarev further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein the controller is further configured to detect, based on determining that the actual blade tilt angle is different from the desired blade tilt angle, that the tilt of the blade is to be corrected (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 5. Kosarev further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein the controller is further configured to determine, based on a value of the difference between the actual blade tilt angle and the desired blade tilt steering angle, a value of the corrected blade tilt angle (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Kosarev further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein the machine is a dozer (Figure 1, depicting a dozer)
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination, as shown, does not yet teach the following limitation,
wherein the machine includes a manual steering joystick,
and wherein the controller is configured to receive the steering commands from the manual steering joystick
However, this is taught by further modification with Hughes, which depicts that an operator can control the vehicle with a joystick (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kosarev, as previously modified by Hughes, with the joystick of Hughes, as joysticks are an intuitive and common manner of controlling earth-moving implements. Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Kosarev further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein the machine includes hydraulics to control the tilt of the blade (Paragraph [0064], “hydraulic lift cylinders … control the position and the attitude of the dozer blade 108.”)
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Kosarev further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein, relative to the frame, the desired blade tilt angle and the actual blade tilt angle are equal (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control … the dozer blade.” – a feedback process directs an actual state into matching a target state)
Regarding Claim 17,
Kosarev discloses the following limitations,
A method for controlling a blade tilt of a machine; the method comprising … a blade tilt steering command when the machine is pushing a load; the controller tilting a blade in response to the blade tilt steering command (Figure 1, depicting a dozer with a frame and blade, where the blade is controlled. Paragraph [0061], “For measuring the attitude of the dozer blade relative to the dozer body, the number and type of inertial sensors depends on the number of angular degrees of freedom and on the required accuracy. … For three angular degrees of freedom, three accelerometers mounted on the dozer body and three accelerometers mounted on the dozer blade can be used.” – if all degrees of rotation are measured and operated upon, then tilt is known and controlled.)
wherein the tilting is done relative to a frame of the machine and relative to an absolute global frame of reference (Paragraph [0060], “For estimation of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body, a measurement system, according to an embodiment of the invention, includes inertial sensors mounted on the dozer body and inertial sensors mounted on the dozer blade.” -– because the absolute rotations of both pieces of the machine are measured, and part of the common control scheme, the blade positioning is performed with respect to the frame and with respect to gravity.)
receiving at the controller an IMU indication that the blade is tilted different than a desired tilt of the blade … ; and further tilting the blade relative to the machine to compensate for any blade tilt error, (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
However, Kosarev does not disclose the following limitations,
the method comprising: receiving at a controller a blade tilt steering command when the machine is pushing a load; the controller tilting a blade in response to the blade tilt steering command
tilting the blade relative to the machine to compensate for any blade tilt error, such that the blade is constant relative to the absolute global frame of reference regardless of the blade tilt relative to the frame
However, this is taught by Hughes, which teaches that an automatic level control can augment manual operator inputs (Paragraph [0018], “The micro-controller 34 can also enable an operator to control the system 10 to precisely maintain a desired slope angle, which is not possible with manually operated circuits.”), where the commands from an operator are the steering commands received by the controller, and also teaches that an earth moving vehicle can establish a tool position relative to a horizontal plane (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the dual IMU control system of Kosarev with the level operation of Hughes, as this decreases the difficulty of a levelled digging task (Paragraph [0005], “In the past, operators of earthmoving equipment have been required to exert considerable skill and attention to manually control the blade position to compensate for changes in machine orientation due to operating the machine on uneven surfaces.”)
However, the combination of Hughes and Kosarev does not teach the following limitation,
the controller tilting a blade in response to the blade tilt steering command and the load
However, this is taught by Jaliwala which measures a vehicle implement’s load to determine an appropriate control response, and furthermore redundantly teaches a controller feedback. (Paragraph [041], “The operator inputs signal indicative of the operators' desired movement of the machine implement 108 may also include a tilt signal, such as, for example, tilt left and tilt right signals. In an aspect of the present disclosure, the adaptive controller 126 may process the operator input signal and the load factor received from the machine data 206b to output the machine control command to move the machine implement 108. The processor 202 may indicate the difference between the desired and the actual position of the machine implement 108 based upon the adaptive control method discussed with respect to FIGS. 3-8.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the control scheme of Kosarev, as previously modified by Hughes, with the load information of Jaliwala, as this creates a beneficial and adaptive control operation (Paragraph [0023], “In one aspect, the adaptive controller 126 is "adaptive" such that controller gains of the adaptive controller 126 are modified or adapted according to changing operating conditions and dynamics of the worksite 112 as well as parameters associated with the different loads and speeds of the machine 101”). Furthermore, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 17. Kosarev further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the controller receives the steering commands and tilts the blade to a desired tilt steering angle, and wherein if the desired blade tilt steering angle is different from the tilt angle received from the IMU then the controller adjusts the desired blade tilt steering angle to an adjusted second desired blade tilt steering angle (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 18. Kosarev further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the adjusted second blade tilt steering angle is relative to the absolute global frame of reference and not relative to a frame of the machine (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.” – Hughes targets an absolute blade tilt angle)
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 18. Kosarev further discloses the following limitations,
Wherein there is a second IMU on the frame, and wherein information from the second IMU is delivered to the controller so the controller can determine an absolute global tilt angle of the machine (Paragraph [0064], “The IMU1 120 and the IMU2 130 communicate with a controller unit 140 (typically mounted within the cabin 102C) via a communications network 402”)
Hughes further already teaches the following limitations,
and wherein if the frame angle changes, the controller compensates by tilting the blade correspondingly in an opposite direction (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.”).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosarev in view of Hughes.
Regarding Claim 11,
Kosarev discloses the following limitations,
A system to control a blade tilt on a machine, the system comprising: (Figure 1, depicting a dozer with a frame and blade, where the blade is controlled. Paragraph [0061], “For measuring the attitude of the dozer blade relative to the dozer body, the number and type of inertial sensors depends on the number of angular degrees of freedom and on the required accuracy. … For three angular degrees of freedom, three accelerometers mounted on the dozer body and three accelerometers mounted on the dozer blade can be used.” – if all degrees of rotation are measured, then is controlled.)
an IMU on a blade; (Paragraph [0060], “For estimation of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body, a measurement system, according to an embodiment of the invention, includes inertial sensors mounted on the dozer body and inertial sensors mounted on the dozer blade.”)
and a controller configured to apply blade tilt steering to a machine when the machine is pushing the load, wherein when blade tilt steering, the controller is configured to … deliver blade tilt steering commands and to receive information from the IMU regarding a desired tilt angle of the blade relative to an absolute global frame of reference (Paragraph [0064], “The IMU1 120 and the IMU2 130 communicate with a controller unit 140 (typically mounted within the cabin 102C) via a communications network 402” and Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.”)
However, Kosarev does not disclose the following limitations,
a controller … configured to receive blade tilt steering commands
wherein the controller is configured such that if the machine tilts one direction, the blade is tilted an opposite direction so as to remain at the desired angle relative to the absolute global frame of reference
However, this is taught by Hughes, which teaches that an automatic level control can augment manual operator inputs (Paragraph [0018], “The micro-controller 34 can also enable an operator to control the system 10 to precisely maintain a desired slope angle, which is not possible with manually operated circuits.”), where the commands from an operator are the steering commands received by the controller, and also teaches that an earth moving vehicle can establish a tool position relative to a horizontal plane, i.e., a global frame of reference (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the dual IMU control system of Kosarev with the level operation of Hughes, as this decreases the difficulty of a levelled digging task (Paragraph [0005], “In the past, operators of earthmoving equipment have been required to exert considerable skill and attention to manually control the blade position to compensate for changes in machine orientation due to operating the machine on uneven surfaces.”)
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Kosarev and Hughes, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Kosarev further discloses the following limitation,
wherein there is a second IMU on a frame of the machine (Paragraph [0060], “For estimation of the dozer blade attitude relative to the dozer body, a measurement system, according to an embodiment of the invention, includes inertial sensors mounted on the dozer body and inertial sensors mounted on the dozer blade.”)
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Kosarev and Hughes, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12. Kosarev further discloses the following limitation,
wherein information from the second IMU is delivered to the controller so the controller can determine an absolute global tilt angle of the machine (Paragraph [0064], “The IMU1 120 and the IMU2 130 communicate with a controller unit 140 (typically mounted within the cabin 102C) via a communications network 402” – the controller receives the absolute angle of the frame IMU, because the measurement is with respect to gravity)
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Kosarev and Hughes, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 13. Hughes further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein if the machine angle changes, the controller compensates by tilting the blade correspondingly in the opposite direction (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.”).
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Kosarev and Hughes, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Kosarev further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the controller receives the steering commands and tilts the blade to a desired blade tilt steering angle, and wherein if the desired blade steering angle is different from the blade tilt angle relative to the absolute global frame of reference received from the IMU, then the controller adjusts the desired blade tilt steering angle to an adjusted second desired blade tilt steering angle (Paragraph [0023], “In an automatic control system, the feedback signal is transformed into a control signal that is used by a hydraulic control system to automatically control the height and the slope of the dozer blade.” – in a feedback process, a target state is defined, then the target is compared with the actual attitude, a feedback signal corrects a difference between the attitude, and this corrected angle attempts to resolve the deviation)
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Kosarev and Hughes, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Hughes further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein the adjusted second blade tilt steering angle is relative to the absolute global frame of reference and not relative to a frame of the machine (Paragraph [0016], “The system 10 can be used to control the actuators 16 connected to the blade 12 so as to create a level soil surface in spite of changes in machine orientation while driving over uneven ground. A control panel (not shown) can be provided by which an operator can program the micro-controller 34 to maintain the blade 12 in an essentially level orientation (horizontal to earth or perpendicular to gravity), and optionally at some desired angle (slope) to horizontal.” – Hughes targets an absolute blade tilt angle)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayashi (US 20130032367 A1), newly of record, which teaches a blade tilt control (Paragraph [0042], “a null control operable to set a desired tilt angle for the dozer blade, whereby the electronic tilt control provides signals to the electrically operated hydraulic control unless the dozer blade is at the desired tilt angle, which is an electronic null position.”). Dauderman (US 20220042284 A1), newly of record, teaches a blade tilt control (Paragraph [0036], “hydraulic actuators that control the height, tilt, and angle of the tool”).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 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, Helal Algahaim, can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights