DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
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 March 11, 2026, Examiner withdraws the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 and issues new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed March 11, 2026, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to a blade tilt steering, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. On Pages 7 and 8, Applicant states that the prior combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Jaliwala does not teach blade tilt steering. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a blade tilt steering may refer to adjustments which control, i.e., steer, the blade, including control of a blade tilt.
Applicant's arguments, filed March 11, 2026, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to blade tilt steering, such that tilting one side of the blade relative to another side causes the machine to steer during pushing operations depending on the load of the blade, have been fully considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, and Yamamoto (US 5487428 A), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Kosarev, Hughes, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto 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 to restore 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)
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 such that the blade tilt steering angle is maintained independently of the frame tilt … (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 … due to the frame tilting as the machine traverses uneven terrain;
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.”) and that this can be used to sustain a blade position across uneven terrain (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. Because of the difficulty of this task, various methods are known for controlling the blade's cylinder position based on absolute position references via lasers or geographical positioning systems (GPS).”)
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.
However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the desired blade tilt steering angle tilts one side of the blade relative to another side to steer the machine during pushing operations depending on the load of the blade;
restore the desired blade tilt steering angle for steering the machine,
such that the blade tilt steering angle is maintained independently of the frame tilt to preserve the blade tilt steering function.
However, Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor teaches that a vehicle can travel on a target direction (Column 2, Lines 54-60, “Preferably, a traveling direction when the automatic blade control mode is set by the driving mode setting means is set as the target traveling direction for the vehicle body. When the traveling direction of the vehicle body is altered by manual operation with the automatic blade control mode being selected, the traveling direction after the alteration is preferably set as a new target traveling direction.”) where the steering is ensured by blade tilt steering, such that the machine is steered by differential forces acting on the blade, while also ensuring a level operation (Columns 1-2, Lines 63-9, “According to the arrangement of the above straight-ahead traveling control system, when the automatic blade control mode for dozing operation has been set, the blade controller means obtains the first blade tilting amount used for driving the vehicle body straight ahead from the yaw angle of the vehicle body in relation to a target traveling direction for the vehicle body, the yaw angle being detected by the yaw angle detector means, and obtains the second blade tilting amount used for forming a laterally horizontal earth surface after digging by the blade from the tilt angle of the laterally tilting blade in relation to the ground, the tilt angle being detected by the blade tilt angle detector means. Then, the blade controller means controls tilting of the blade based on the first and second blade tilting amounts thus obtained.”)
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 the dual-IMU control system of Kosarev, as previously modified by Hughes and Jaliwala, with the blade tilt steering based on differential forces as taught by Yamamoto, as this provides additional controllability which ensures automatic travel along an intended course (Column 1, Lines 31-39, “The present invention has been made in order to overcome the above disadvantages and therefore one of the objects of the invention is to provide a straight-ahead traveling control system for a bulldozer in which it is not necessary for the operator to operate levers for driving the bulldozer on a desired course, so that dozing operation can be efficiently performed without causing tremendous fatigue to the operator.”)
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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 relative to the absolute global frame of reference … ; further tilting the blade relative to the machine to compensate for any blade tilt error, such that the tilt of the blade is constant relative to the absolute global frame of reference regardless of the blade tilt relative to the frame such that the blade tilt steering angle is maintained independently of the frame tilt …
(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
receiving at the controller an IMU indication that the blade is tilted different than a desired tilt of the blade relative to the absolute global frame of reference due to the frame tilting as the machine traverses uneven terrain
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.”) and that this can be used to sustain a blade position across uneven terrain (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. Because of the difficulty of this task, various methods are known for controlling the blade's cylinder position based on absolute position references via lasers or geographical positioning systems (GPS).”).
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.
However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the desired blade tilt steering angle tilts one side of the blade relative to another side to steer the machine during pushing operations depending on the load of the blade;
such that the blade tilt steering angle is maintained independently of the frame tilt to preserve the blade tilt steering function.
However, Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor teaches that a vehicle can travel on a target direction (Column 2, Lines 54-60, “Preferably, a traveling direction when the automatic blade control mode is set by the driving mode setting means is set as the target traveling direction for the vehicle body. When the traveling direction of the vehicle body is altered by manual operation with the automatic blade control mode being selected, the traveling direction after the alteration is preferably set as a new target traveling direction.”) where the steering is ensured by blade tilt steering, such that the machine is steered by differential forces acting on the blade, while also ensuring a level operation (Columns 1-2, Lines 63-9, “According to the arrangement of the above straight-ahead traveling control system, when the automatic blade control mode for dozing operation has been set, the blade controller means obtains the first blade tilting amount used for driving the vehicle body straight ahead from the yaw angle of the vehicle body in relation to a target traveling direction for the vehicle body, the yaw angle being detected by the yaw angle detector means, and obtains the second blade tilting amount used for forming a laterally horizontal earth surface after digging by the blade from the tilt angle of the laterally tilting blade in relation to the ground, the tilt angle being detected by the blade tilt angle detector means. Then, the blade controller means controls tilting of the blade based on the first and second blade tilting amounts thus obtained.”)
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 the dual-IMU control system of Kosarev, as previously modified by Hughes and Jaliwala, with the blade tilt steering based on differential forces as taught by Yamamoto, as this provides additional controllability which ensures automatic travel along an intended course (Column 1, Lines 31-39, “The present invention has been made in order to overcome the above disadvantages and therefore one of the objects of the invention is to provide a straight-ahead traveling control system for a bulldozer in which it is not necessary for the operator to operate levers for driving the bulldozer on a desired course, so that dozing operation can be efficiently performed without causing tremendous fatigue to the operator.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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, Jaliwala, and Yamamoto, 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”).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosarev, in view of Hughes and Yamamoto.
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 blade tilt steering 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 such that the blade tilt steering angle is maintained independently of the frame tilt;
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.”)
However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the desired blade tilt steering angle tilts one side of the blade relative to another side to steer the machine during pushing operations depending on the load of the blade;
such that the blade tilt steering angle is maintained independently of the frame tilt to preserve the blade tilt steering function.
However, Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor teaches that a vehicle can travel on a target direction (Column 2, Lines 54-60, “Preferably, a traveling direction when the automatic blade control mode is set by the driving mode setting means is set as the target traveling direction for the vehicle body. When the traveling direction of the vehicle body is altered by manual operation with the automatic blade control mode being selected, the traveling direction after the alteration is preferably set as a new target traveling direction.”) where the steering is ensured by blade tilt steering, such that the machine is steered by differential forces acting on the blade, while also ensuring a level operation (Columns 1-2, Lines 63-9, “According to the arrangement of the above straight-ahead traveling control system, when the automatic blade control mode for dozing operation has been set, the blade controller means obtains the first blade tilting amount used for driving the vehicle body straight ahead from the yaw angle of the vehicle body in relation to a target traveling direction for the vehicle body, the yaw angle being detected by the yaw angle detector means, and obtains the second blade tilting amount used for forming a laterally horizontal earth surface after digging by the blade from the tilt angle of the laterally tilting blade in relation to the ground, the tilt angle being detected by the blade tilt angle detector means. Then, the blade controller means controls tilting of the blade based on the first and second blade tilting amounts thus obtained.”)
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 the dual-IMU control system of Kosarev, as previously modified by Hughes, with the blade tilt steering based on differential forces as taught by Yamamoto, as this provides additional controllability which ensures automatic travel along an intended course (Column 1, Lines 31-39, “The present invention has been made in order to overcome the above disadvantages and therefore one of the objects of the invention is to provide a straight-ahead traveling control system for a bulldozer in which it is not necessary for the operator to operate levers for driving the bulldozer on a desired course, so that dozing operation can be efficiently performed without causing tremendous fatigue to the operator.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Kosarev, Hughes, and Yamamoto, 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, Hughes, and Yamamoto, 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, Hughes, and Yamamoto, 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, Hughes, and Yamamoto, 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, Hughes, and Yamamoto, 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], “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), previously 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), previously of record, teaches a blade tilt control (Paragraph [0036], “hydraulic actuators that control the height, tilt, and angle of the tool”). Sapilewski (US 20080195268 A1), previously of record, teaches a blade tilt steering (Abstract, “An implement steering system includes at least one sensor for providing an indication of tilt associated with an implement as it traverses along an implement path of travel and at least another sensor for providing an indication of the current position of the implement as it traverses along the implement path of travel.”). Zimmerman (US 6041870 A), previously of record, teaches a blade tilt steering (Figure 4). Hayashi (US 20130087349 A1), newly of record, teaches a blade tilt steering based on measured forces (Abstract, “A blade control system of the present invention includes a determining part which is configured to determine whether or not a load acting on a blade exceeds a first threshold, and a tilt controlling part which is configured to supply a hydraulic oil to a tilt cylinder for causing the blade to perform a rightward tilt action and a leftward tilt action when the determining part determines that the load acting on the blade exceeds the first threshold.”). Stedman (US 3601210 A), newly of record, teaches a blade tilt steering and the advantage of blade tilt steering, (Column 3, Lines 20-26, “steering is accomplished by varying the load, as by lowering one end of the dozer blade deeper into the earth. In this type of steering the speed of the disabled track is retarded without braking. Consequently, the driving force consumed in the heat of friction of the brake is retained and the machine moves forwardly on a curved path with substantially no loss of effective power.”)
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, Erin Bishop, can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights