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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent.
Claims 1-3, 15, and 17-20 have been amended.
Claim 16 has been canceled.
This FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12 November 2025.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 18 April 2025, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to objection of the claims, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, there is a new ground(s) of rejection in view of newly found prior art.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stakor et al. (US 9327946 B2), hereinafter Stakor, in view of Pachta et al. (US 11505995 B1), hereinafter Pachta, and Harmon et al. (US 20200354199 A1), hereinafter Harmon.
Regarding claim 1, Stakor discloses:
A system for determining position information on a derrick truck having an extensible boom with a claw mechanism and an auger fitted thereto on a distal end thereof, the system comprising (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lines 18-21, mobile cranes and digger derricks are typically mounted to mobile utility vehicle and include a rotating turret from which a boom extends; Col 1. Lines 23-24, digger and auger assemblies may be coupled with the outer end of the boom; Col. 4, Lines 5-7, vehicle may further include additional implements or tools not depicted in the drawings for utility pole placement):
However, Stakor does not specifically state:
a first sensor node affixed to a non-rotating portion of the auger;
a sensor hub that receives data from the at least one sensor node;
wherein the at least one sensor node provides data to the sensor hub that includes positional information of the auger;
wherein the positional information includes a drilling angle of the auger.
Pachta teaches:
a first sensor node affixed to a non-rotating portion of the auger (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 63-67, Col. 6, lines 1-12, In some embodiments, digger derrick system 10 may include one or more angle sensors which may be used to measure angles of specific components in relation to one another or a substantially horizontal or vertical plane. For example, in some embodiments digger derrick system 10 may include digger angle sensor 36. Digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to measure the angle of the digging member 26, or a screw anchor, in relation to a substantially horizontal plane. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may comprise one of an inclinometer, a dual axis inclinometer, a rotary encoder, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), or any type of linear measurement device. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle A of the digging member 26 or of a screw anchor. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle E of digging member 26 or of a screw anchor);
wherein the at least one sensor node provides data to the sensor hub that includes positional information of the auger (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 63-67, Col. 6, lines 1-12, In some embodiments, digger derrick system 10 may include one or more angle sensors which may be used to measure angles of specific components in relation to one another or a substantially horizontal or vertical plane. For example, in some embodiments digger derrick system 10 may include digger angle sensor 36. Digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to measure the angle of the digging member 26, or a screw anchor, in relation to a substantially horizontal plane. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may comprise one of an inclinometer, a dual axis inclinometer, a rotary encoder, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), or any type of linear measurement device. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle A of the digging member 26 or of a screw anchor. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle E of digging member 26 or of a screw anchor);
wherein the positional information includes a drilling angle of the auger (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 63-67, Col. 6, lines 1-12, In some embodiments, digger derrick system 10 may include one or more angle sensors which may be used to measure angles of specific components in relation to one another or a substantially horizontal or vertical plane. For example, in some embodiments digger derrick system 10 may include digger angle sensor 36. Digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to measure the angle of the digging member 26, or a screw anchor, in relation to a substantially horizontal plane. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may comprise one of an inclinometer, a dual axis inclinometer, a rotary encoder, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), or any type of linear measurement device. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle A of the digging member 26 or of a screw anchor. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle E of digging member 26 or of a screw anchor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pachta into the invention of Stakor to include an angular measurement of an attached auger as Pachta discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can automatically sense and adjust the digging operation of a derrick digger to correct for angle (Pachta: Col. 1, lines 51-54). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor and drilling auger angle measurement as taught by Pachta. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, the Stakor in view of Pachta does not specifically state:
a sensor hub that receives data from the at least one sensor node;
Harmon teaches:
a sensor hub that receives data from the at least one sensor node (Fig. 7; [0006], system may further comprise a sensor hub that receives data from the first and second sensor nodes and contains geometric information);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta to include a sensor hub as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can report boom position (Harmon, [0012]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and a sensor hub as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
wherein the drilling angle of the auger includes an angle of the auger with respect to level (Pachta: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 63-67, Col. 6, lines 1-12, In some embodiments, digger derrick system 10 may include one or more angle sensors which may be used to measure angles of specific components in relation to one another or a substantially horizontal or vertical plane. For example, in some embodiments digger derrick system 10 may include digger angle sensor 36. Digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to measure the angle of the digging member 26, or a screw anchor, in relation to a substantially horizontal plane. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may comprise one of an inclinometer, a dual axis inclinometer, a rotary encoder, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), or any type of linear measurement device. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle A of the digging member 26 or of a screw anchor. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle E of digging member 26 or of a screw anchor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pachta into the invention of Stakor to include an angular measurement of an attached auger as Pachta discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can automatically sense and adjust the digging operation of a derrick digger to correct for angle (Pachta: Col. 1, lines 51-54). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor and drilling auger angle measurement as taught by Pachta. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
wherein the drilling angle of the auger includes an angle of the auger with respect to a part of the derrick truck (Pachta: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 63-67, Col. 6, lines 1-12, In some embodiments, digger derrick system 10 may include one or more angle sensors which may be used to measure angles of specific components in relation to one another or a substantially horizontal or vertical plane. For example, in some embodiments digger derrick system 10 may include digger angle sensor 36. Digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to measure the angle of the digging member 26, or a screw anchor, in relation to a substantially horizontal plane. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may comprise one of an inclinometer, a dual axis inclinometer, a rotary encoder, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), or any type of linear measurement device. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle A of the digging member 26 or of a screw anchor. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle E of digging member 26 or of a screw anchor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pachta into the invention of Stakor to include an angular measurement of an attached auger as Pachta discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can automatically sense and adjust the digging operation of a derrick digger to correct for angle (Pachta: Col. 1, lines 51-54). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor and drilling auger angle measurement as taught by Pachta. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Stakor discloses:
wherein the part of the derrick truck comprises the extensible boom (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lines 18-21, mobile cranes and digger derricks are typically mounted to mobile utility vehicle and include a rotating turret from which a boom extends).
Regarding claim 5, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
wherein the sensor hub is affixed to a non-extending base of the boom fixed to the derrick truck (Harmon: [0007], may include at least one sensor node per segment of the boom),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to include installation of a sensor hub to a non-extending portion of the boom arm as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can accurately measure along the length of the boom. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon and a sensor hub installed at a specific location as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
wherein the position information includes a distance from the first sensor node to the hub (Harmon: [0007], first and second sensor nodes may comprise at least two distance measurement sensors and report the distance between the sensor nodes based on a fusion of input from the at least two sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to include measurement of the distance between sensor nodes as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can accurately measure along the length of the boom. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Schoenmaker and Harmon and a measurement of distance between sensor nodes as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
wherein the hub comprises a second sensor node (Harmon: [0007], may include at least one sensor node per segment of the boom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to include an additional sensor node in the sensor hub as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can accurately measure along the length of the boom. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon and a measurement of distance between sensor nodes as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
further comprising a third sensor node affixed to the boom at a location spaced apart from the base (Harmon: [0007], may include at least one sensor node per segment of the boom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to include an additional sensor node as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can accurately measure along the length of the boom. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon and a measurement of distance and angle between sensor nodes as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
where the third sensor node reports data to the hub including a distance between the third sensor node and the hub and an angle of the boom with respect to the base (Harmon: [0005], sensor nodes provide a measurement of distance between nodes and provide a measurement of angle between boom and base).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to include an additional sensor node as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can accurately measure along the length of the boom. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Patcha and Harmon and a measurement of distance and angle between sensor nodes as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon discloses:
wherein the hub uses a fusion of data from the first and second sensor nodes to determine a distance between the first and second sensor nodes (Harmon: [0007], first and second sensor nodes may comprise at least two distance measurement sensors and report the distance between the sensor nodes based on a fusion of input from the at least two sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to measure the distance between sensor nodes as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can accurately measure along the length of the boom. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon and a measurement of distance and angle between sensor nodes as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Stakor discloses:
A system for determining position information of a derrick truck comprising (Stakor: Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lines 18-21, mobile cranes and digger derricks are typically mounted to mobile utility vehicle and include a rotating turret from which a boom extends; Col 1. Lines 23-24, digger and auger assemblies may be coupled with the outer end of the boom; Col. 4, Lines 5-7, vehicle may further include additional implements or tools not depicted in the drawings for utility pole placement):
However, Stakor does not specifically state:
a first sensor node fixed to a movable boom mounted to the derrick truck;
a second sensor node fixed to the derrick truck at a location that does not move when the boom moves;
a hub configured to gather measured data from the first and second sensor nodes and determining at least an angle of the boom and a distance between the first and second sensor nodes.
an auger having a drilling angle that is variable with respect to the boom;
and a third sensor affixed to the auger and reporting the drilling angle of the auger to the hub;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pachta into the invention of Stakor to include an angular measurement of an attached auger as Pachta discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can automatically sense and adjust the digging operation of a derrick digger to correct for angle (Pachta: Col. 1, lines 51-54). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor and drilling auger angle measurement as taught by Pachta. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Pachta teaches:
an auger having a drilling angle that is variable with respect to the boom (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 63-67, Col. 6, lines 1-12, In some embodiments, digger derrick system 10 may include one or more angle sensors which may be used to measure angles of specific components in relation to one another or a substantially horizontal or vertical plane. For example, in some embodiments digger derrick system 10 may include digger angle sensor 36. Digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to measure the angle of the digging member 26, or a screw anchor, in relation to a substantially horizontal plane. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may comprise one of an inclinometer, a dual axis inclinometer, a rotary encoder, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), or any type of linear measurement device. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle A of the digging member 26 or of a screw anchor. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle E of digging member 26 or of a screw anchor);
and a third sensor node affixed to the auger and configured to report the drilling angle of the auger to the hub (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 63-67, Col. 6, lines 1-12, In some embodiments, digger derrick system 10 may include one or more angle sensors which may be used to measure angles of specific components in relation to one another or a substantially horizontal or vertical plane. For example, in some embodiments digger derrick system 10 may include digger angle sensor 36. Digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to measure the angle of the digging member 26, or a screw anchor, in relation to a substantially horizontal plane. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may comprise one of an inclinometer, a dual axis inclinometer, a rotary encoder, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), or any type of linear measurement device. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle A of the digging member 26 or of a screw anchor. In some embodiments, digger angle sensor 36 may be configured to determine angle E of digging member 26 or of a screw anchor).
However, Stakor in view of Pachta does not specifically state:
a first sensor node fixed to a movable boom mounted to the derrick truck;
a second sensor node fixed to the derrick truck at a location that does not move when the boom moves;
a hub configured to gather measured data from the first and second sensor nodes and determining at least an angle of the boom and a distance between the first and second sensor nodes.
Harmon teaches:
a first sensor node fixed to a movable boom mounted to the derrick truck (Harmon: [0007], first and second sensor nodes may comprise at least two distance measurement sensors and report the distance between the sensor nodes based on a fusion of input from the at least two sensors);
a second sensor node fixed to the derrick truck at a location that does not move when the boom moves (Harmon: [0007], first and second sensor nodes may comprise at least two distance measurement sensors and report the distance between the sensor nodes based on a fusion of input from the at least two sensors; [0007], may include at least one sensor node per segment of the boom);
a hub configured to gather measured data from the first and second sensor nodes and determining at least an angle of the boom and a distance between the first and second sensor nodes (Harmon: Fig. 7; [0006], system may further comprise a sensor hub that receives data from the first and second sensor nodes and contains geometric information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta to measure the distance between sensor nodes as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can accurately measure along the length of the boom. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and a measurement of distance and angle between sensor nodes as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 10-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon, and further in view of Schoenmaker et al. (US 20080263908 A1), hereinafter Schoenmaker.
Regarding claim 10, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon does not specifically state:
wherein the claw mechanism has an extended state and a retracted state, and further comprising a fourth sensor node affixed to the claw mechanism measuring the angle thereof to determine when the claw mechanism is in the extended state and when the claw mechanism is in the retracted state, and to report the data associated with the determinations to the hub.
However, Schoenmaker teaches:
wherein the claw mechanism has an extended state and a retracted state, and further comprising a fourth sensor node affixed to the claw mechanism measuring the angle thereof to determine when the claw mechanism is in the extended state and when the claw mechanism is in the retracted state, and to report the data associated with the determinations to the hub (Schoenmaker: Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom; [0045], controller may open and close jaws; [0037], a preset position or preset position state comprise one or more of the following positions of a boom, an attachment, or both: a lower boom position, an elevated boom position, a bucket curl position, a material carrying or level position of a bucket or attachment, a ready-to-dig position, a ready position, a return-to-dig position, a curl position of an attachment ( e.g., bucket), a lower ready-to-dig position, an elevated ready-to-dig position, a lower curl position (e.g., for transportation of material in a bucket), an elevated curl position, a ready-to-dump position, a dump position, a lower dump position, and an elevated dump position, a first operational position, a second operational position, among other possibilities, each of the preset positions may be defined by one or more of the following: a preset boom angle, a preset attachment angle, a preset bucket angle, a preset boom angular range, a preset attachment angular range, a preset bucket angular range, an attachment angle, an attachment angular range, a boom angle, and a boom angular range, a boom position, a boom position range, an attachment position, and an attachment position range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schoenmaker into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to include an indication of positional state of an end tool as Schoenmaker discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system is configurable and viewable by an operator of the vehicle (Schoenmaker, [0037]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon and a measurement of positional state taught by Schoenmaker. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Stakor in view of Pachta, Harmon, and Schoenmaker discloses:
wherein the hub reports at least part of the data from the first, second, third, and fourth sensor nodes to a load moment computer on the derrick truck (Harmon: Fig. 7; [0010], sensor hub provides current geometric data to a load moment indicator system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta, Harmon, and Schoenmaker to include a load moment indicator system as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can calculate the moment applied onto the vehicle by a load that can potentially topple/overturn the vehicle (Harmon, [0024]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta, Harmon, and Schoenmaker and load moment indicator system as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Stakor in view of Pachta, Harmon, and Schoenmaker discloses:
wherein the claw mechanism has an open state and a closed state that are determine by the fourth sensor node (Schoenmaker: [0045], controller may open and close jaws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Schoenmaker into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta, Harmon, and Schoenmaker to include an indication of positional state of an end tool as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system is configurable and viewable by an operator of the vehicle (Schoenmaker, [0037]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta, Harmon, and Schoenmaker and a measurement of positional state taught by Schoenmaker. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Stakor in view of Pachta and Harmon does not specifically state:
a claw mechanism affixed to the boom and having an extended position, a retracted position, an open state, and a closed state;
and a fourth sensor node affixed to the boom and measuring at least one of the extended position, retracted position, open state, and closed state.
Schoenmaker teaches:
a claw mechanism affixed to the boom and having an extended position, a retracted position, an open state, and a closed state (Schoenmaker: Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom; [0045], controller may open and close jaws; [0037], a preset position or preset position state comprise one or more of the following positions of a boom, an attachment, or both: a lower boom position, an elevated boom position, a bucket curl position, a material carrying or level position of a bucket or attachment, a ready-to-dig position, a ready position, a return-to-dig position, a curl position of an attachment ( e.g., bucket), a lower ready-to-dig position, an elevated ready-to-dig position, a lower curl position (e.g., for transportation of material in a bucket), an elevated curl position, a ready-to-dump position, a dump position, a lower dump position, and an elevated dump position, a first operational position, a second operational position, among other possibilities, each of the preset positions may be defined by one or more of the following: a preset boom angle, a preset attachment angle, a preset bucket angle, a preset boom angular range, a preset attachment angular range, a preset bucket angular range, an attachment angle, an attachment angular range, a boom angle, and a boom angular range, a boom position, a boom position range, an attachment position, and an attachment position range; [0045], controller may open and close jaws);
and a forth sensor node affixed to the boom and measuring at least one of the extended position, retracted position, open state, and closed state (Schoenmaker: Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom; [0045], controller may open and close jaws; [0037], a preset position or preset position state comprise one or more of the following positions of a boom, an attachment, or both: a lower boom position, an elevated boom position, a bucket curl position, a material carrying or level position of a bucket or attachment, a ready-to-dig position, a ready position, a return-to-dig position, a curl position of an attachment ( e.g., bucket), a lower ready-to-dig position, an elevated ready-to-dig position, a lower curl position (e.g., for transportation of material in a bucket), an elevated curl position, a ready-to-dump position, a dump position, a lower dump position, and an elevated dump position, a first operational position, a second operational position, among other possibilities, each of the preset positions may be defined by one or more of the following: a preset boom angle, a preset attachment angle, a preset bucket angle, a preset boom angular range, a preset attachment angular range, a preset bucket angular range, an attachment angle, an attachment angular range, a boom angle, and a boom angular range, a boom position, a boom position range, an attachment position, and an attachment position range; [0045], controller may open and close jaws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schoenmaker into the invention of Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon to include an indication of positional state of an end tool as Schoenmaker discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system is configurable and viewable by an operator of the vehicle (Schoenmaker, [0037]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Pachta and Harmon and a measurement of positional state taught by Schoenmaker. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stakor in view of Schoenmaker and Harmon.
Regarding claim 18, Stakor dislcloses:
A system for determining a moment of a derrick truck with a movable boom and a claw mechanism attached thereto, the system comprising (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lines 18-21, mobile cranes and digger derricks are typically mounted to mobile utility vehicle and include a rotating turret from which a boom extends; Col 1. Lines 23-24, digger and auger assemblies may be coupled with the outer end of the boom; Col. 4, Lines 5-7, vehicle may further include additional implements or tools not depicted in the drawings for utility pole placement):
a second sensor node fixed to the derrick truck at a location that does not move when either of the boom and claw mechanism move (Col. 6, Lines 21-23, sensor may be mounted to bearing plate of turret for detecting a lateral angle of inclination);
However, Stakor does not specifically state:
a first sensor node fixed to the claw;
and wherein the first sensor node is configured to measure a position of the claw mechanism and a distance between the first sensor node and the second sensor node;
wherein at least one of the first and second sensor nodes is configured to report the measured position of the claw mechanism and the distance between the first and second sensor nodes to a load moment computer,
Schoenmaker teaches:
a first sensor node fixed to the claw (Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schoenmaker into the invention of Stakor to include an angular measurement of an attached implement as Schoenmaker discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can measure how an attached tool is oriented. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor and tool orientation measurement as taught by Schoemaker. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Stakor in view of Schoenmaker does not specifically state:
and wherein the first sensor node is configured to measure a position of the claw mechanism and a distance between the first sensor node and the second sensor node;
wherein at least one of the first and second sensor nodes is configured to report the measured position of the claw mechanism and the distance between the first and second sensor nodes to a load moment computer,
Harmon teaches:
and wherein the first sensor node is configured to measure a position of the claw mechanism and a distance between the first sensor node and the second sensor node ([0005], sensor nodes provide a measurement of distance between nodes and provide a measurement of angle between boom and base);
wherein at least one of the first and second sensor nodes is configured to report the measured position of the claw mechanism and the distance between the first and second sensor nodes to a load moment computer (Fig. 7; [0010], sensor hub provides current geometric data to a load moment indicator system),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Harmon into the invention of Stakor as modified by Schoenmaker to include a load moment indicator system as Harmon discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can calculate the moment applied onto the vehicle by a load that can potentially topple/overturn the vehicle (Harmon, [0024]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Schoenmaker and load moment indicator system as taught by Harmon. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 19, Stakor in view of Schoenmaker and Harmon teaches:
wherein the position of the claw mechanism includes an angle of the tool (Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom; Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom; [0045], controller may open and close jaws; [0037], a preset position or preset position state comprise one or more of the following positions of a boom, an attachment, or both: a lower boom position, an elevated boom position, a bucket curl position, a material carrying or level position of a bucket or attachment, a ready-to-dig position, a ready position, a return-to-dig position, a curl position of an attachment ( e.g., bucket), a lower ready-to-dig position, an elevated ready-to-dig position, a lower curl position (e.g., for transportation of material in a bucket), an elevated curl position, a ready-to-dump position, a dump position, a lower dump position, and an elevated dump position, a first operational position, a second operational position, among other possibilities, each of the preset positions may be defined by one or more of the following: a preset boom angle, a preset attachment angle, a preset bucket angle, a preset boom angular range, a preset attachment angular range, a preset bucket angular range, an attachment angle, an attachment angular range, a boom angle, and a boom angular range, a boom position, a boom position range, an attachment position, and an attachment position range; [0045], controller may open and close jaws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schoenmaker into the invention of Stakor as modified by Schoenmaker and Harmon to include an indication of positional state of an end tool as Schoenmaker discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system is configurable and viewable by an operator of the vehicle (Schoenmaker, [0037]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Schoenmaker and Harmon and a measurement of positional state taught by Schoenmaker. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Stakor in view of Schoenmaker and Harmon teaches:
where the position of the claw mechanism includes an open or closed state of the tool (Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom; Abstract, a second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom; [0045], controller may open and close jaws; [0037], a preset position or preset position state comprise one or more of the following positions of a boom, an attachment, or both: a lower boom position, an elevated boom position, a bucket curl position, a material carrying or level position of a bucket or attachment, a ready-to-dig position, a ready position, a return-to-dig position, a curl position of an attachment ( e.g., bucket), a lower ready-to-dig position, an elevated ready-to-dig position, a lower curl position (e.g., for transportation of material in a bucket), an elevated curl position, a ready-to-dump position, a dump position, a lower dump position, and an elevated dump position, a first operational position, a second operational position, among other possibilities, each of the preset positions may be defined by one or more of the following: a preset boom angle, a preset attachment angle, a preset bucket angle, a preset boom angular range, a preset attachment angular range, a preset bucket angular range, an attachment angle, an attachment angular range, a boom angle, and a boom angular range, a boom position, a boom position range, an attachment position, and an attachment position range; [0045], controller may open and close jaws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schoenmaker into the invention of Stakor as modified by Schoenmaker and Harmon to include an indication of positional state of an end tool as Schoenmaker discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system is configurable and viewable by an operator of the vehicle (Schoenmaker, [0037]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor as modified by Schoenmaker and Harmon and a measurement of positional state taught by Schoenmaker. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stakor, Pachta, and Harmon in view of Cowell de Gruchy et al. (US 20240220901 A1), hereinafter Cowell de Gruchy.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stakor, Pachta, and Harmon does not specifically state:
wherein the first sensor node is battery powered.
However, Cowell de Gruchy teaches:
wherein the first sensor node is battery powered ([0182], sensors are battery powered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cowell de Gruchy into the invention of Stakor to include battery-powered sensors as Cowell de Gruchy discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that has sensors which are low cost and easy to install (Cowell de Gruchy, [0182]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a derrick truck with extendable boom as disclosed by Stakor and battery-powered sensors as taught by Cowell de Guchy. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Jagoda (US 20210285187 A1) discloses a controller and control system to measure orientation of a hydraulic excavator relative to a gravity force vector.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 - 17:00 EST.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666