DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection in response to amendments filed 6/8/2026. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a person of skill in the art having knowledge of how acoustic warnings would be emitted from a log handler, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection and 112 rejections are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art not teaching the amended feature of claim 1 have been 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are: “first means configured to determine the payload” in claims 1-3 “second means configured to determine, based on the payload determined by the first means and geometric data of the log handler, a parameter representative of the stability of the log handler” in claims 1-2; “third means configured to carry out a range limitation of the working equipment in the horizontal direction on the basis of the payload determined by the first means and geometric data of the log handler” in claim 3; and “means are provided which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted” in claims 7 and 18.
The first means will be interpreted as the pressure measured by a sensor as described in paragraph 3 on page 7. The second and third means will be interpreted as a control device as described in paragraph 5 on page 4. As described below the means configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted does not have sufficient structure described in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 20180327238, IDS) in view of Myers (US 20200141088).
Regarding claim 1, Tremblay teaches log handler with a wheel loader base unit, on which is located working equipment which is movable relative to the base unit and which comprises a tool, in particular a wood grabbing device ([0017] states “An articulated wheel loader may be provided that has a body which is pivotable in a mid-section. A primary linkage is pivotally mounted to the body, a secondary linkage is pivotally mounted to the primary linkage, and a grapple is pivotally mounted to the secondary linkage for carrying a load forward of the body” with [0005] discusses this particular system benefitting wheel loaders that handle logs), wherein the log handler comprises first means configured to determine the payload ([0019] states “The means for measuring the weight of the load being carried by the grapple may include pressure sensors in the primary linkage cylinder and the secondary linkage cylinder”), and second means configured to determine, based on the payload determined by the first means and geometric data of the log handler, a parameter representative of the stability of the log handler ([0020] states “The control system receives the angular disposition of the linkages and the weight of the load from the means for determining the angular disposition and the means for determining the weight of the load, respectively. The control system has the capability of triangulating the position of the linkages to calculate whether the load is in an unstable position” where the angular disposition of the linkages is interpreted as geometric data and where the result of the calculation of whether the load is in an unstable position is interpreted as a parameter representative of the stability of the log handler) wherein the working equipment comprises a swivel arm and a boom pivotably arranged thereon, and a control device is provided which is configured such that, when a limit value of the maximum horizontal extension caused by a lifting movement of the boom is reached, the horizontal extension of the working equipment is prevented from increasing further by automatic counter-steering of the swivel arm, ([0020] states “The control system receives the angular disposition of the linkages and the weight of the load from the means for determining the angular disposition and the means for determining the weight of the load, respectively. The control system has the capability of triangulating the position of the linkages to calculate whether the load is in an unstable position and, if the position of the load is unstable, preventing the operator from moving the load to a more unstable position” where the prevention of the movement to a more unstable position is interpreted as a range limitation of the working equipment with [0033] describing this as horizontal reach and with [0017] describing the linkages as pivotally mounted (swivel arms) and with [0023] describing the primary linkage as including a boom) but does not explicitly teach wherein the geometric data of the log handler consists of the height of the payload, the distance between the payload and the front tire, the steering angle, or the articulation angle.
Myers teaches wherein the geometric data of the log handler consists of the height of the payload, the distance between the payload and the front tire, the steering angle, or the articulation angle ([0039]-[0040] discuss determining the rate of instability of a work machine being based on the weight of the payload, the height of the payload, and the articulation angle of the work machine).
Tremblay teaches a log handler determining stability based on the geometric data. Myers teaches determining stability of a work machine based on articulation angle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tremblay with the articulation angle of Myers as Myers teaches that the articulation angle will increase instability [0039] and accounting for this will increase the safety of the work machine.
Regarding claim 2, Tremblay teaches log handler with a wheel loader base unit, on which is located working equipment which is movable relative to the base unit and which comprises a tool, in particular a wood grabbing device ([0017] states “An articulated wheel loader may be provided that has a body which is pivotable in a mid-section. A primary linkage is pivotally mounted to the body, a secondary linkage is pivotally mounted to the primary linkage, and a grapple is pivotally mounted to the secondary linkage for carrying a load forward of the body” with [0005] discusses this particular system benefitting wheel loaders that handle logs), wherein the log handler comprises first means configured to determine the payload ([0019] states “The means for measuring the weight of the load being carried by the grapple may include pressure sensors in the primary linkage cylinder and the secondary linkage cylinder”), and second means configured to carry out a range limitation of the working equipment in the horizontal direction on the basis of the payload determined by the first means and geometric data of the log handler ([0020] states “The control system receives the angular disposition of the linkages and the weight of the load from the means for determining the angular disposition and the means for determining the weight of the load, respectively. The control system has the capability of triangulating the position of the linkages to calculate whether the load is in an unstable position and, if the position of the load is unstable, preventing the operator from moving the load to a more unstable position” where the prevention of the movement to a more unstable position is interpreted as a range limitation of the working equipment with [0033] describing this as horizontal reach) wherein the working equipment comprises a swivel arm and a boom pivotably arranged thereon, and a control device is provided which is configured such that, when a limit value of the maximum horizontal extension caused by a lifting movement of the boom is reached, the horizontal extension of the working equipment is prevented from increasing further by automatic counter-steering of the swivel arm ([0020] states “The control system receives the angular disposition of the linkages and the weight of the load from the means for determining the angular disposition and the means for determining the weight of the load, respectively. The control system has the capability of triangulating the position of the linkages to calculate whether the load is in an unstable position and, if the position of the load is unstable, preventing the operator from moving the load to a more unstable position” where the prevention of the movement to a more unstable position is interpreted as a range limitation of the working equipment with [0033] describing this as horizontal reach and with [0017] describing the linkages as pivotally mounted (swivel arms) and with [0023] describing the primary linkage as including a boom).
Regarding claim 3, Tremblay teaches wherein the log handler comprising third means configured to carry out a range limitation of the working equipment in the horizontal direction on the basis of the payload determined by the first means and geometric data of the log handler ([0020] states “The control system receives the angular disposition of the linkages and the weight of the load from the means for determining the angular disposition and the means for determining the weight of the load, respectively. The control system has the capability of triangulating the position of the linkages to calculate whether the load is in an unstable position and, if the position of the load is unstable, preventing the operator from moving the load to a more unstable position” where the prevention of the movement to a more unstable position is interpreted as a range limitation of the working equipment with [0033] describing this as horizontal reach).
Regarding claim 4, Tremblay teaches wherein the log handler comprises at least two steerable wheels and the geometry data comprises the steering angle of the wheels ([0029] discusses including the steering angle of the wheels as depicted in Fig. 5 in the geometric data used to determine the stability of the loader).
Regarding claim 5, Tremblay teaches wherein the wheel loader base unit comprises a front carriage and a rear carriage, and the geometry data comprises the articulation angle between the front and rear carriages ([0029] discusses including the steering angle of the wheels as depicted in Fig. 5 in the geometric data used to determine the stability of the loader with [0032] discussing this angle equating the articulation angle between the front and rear carriages).
Regarding claim 6, Tremblay teaches wherein the log handler comprises a display in which the stability or the value of the parameter representative thereof is indicated ([0035] discusses the system warning the operator of the instability using a bright warning light where the light is interpreted as a display and the stability is indicated by the absence of the light and instability indicated by the light).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood according to the 112 rejection, Tremblay teaches wherein means are provided which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted when a parameter representative of the stability is exceeded ([0035] discusses the system warning the operator of the instability using an alarm).
Regarding claim 8, Tremblay teaches wherein the parameter is the resultant torque about the front tires of the wheel loader base unit ([0007] discusses the stability being determined by the moment (torque) generated about the front axle).
Regarding claim 10, Tremblay teaches wherein the log handler has a preferably payload-dependent reach limitation of the working equipment in the horizontal direction ([0033] “The electronic control algorithm limits the loader's horizontal reach to a calculated value, “K.””).
Regarding claim 11, Tremblay teaches wherein the working equipment comprises a swivel arm and a control device is provided which is configured so that when a limit value of the maximum horizontal projection is reached, manual forward swiveling of the swivel arm is prevented ([0020] states “The control system receives the angular disposition of the linkages and the weight of the load from the means for determining the angular disposition and the means for determining the weight of the load, respectively. The control system has the capability of triangulating the position of the linkages to calculate whether the load is in an unstable position and, if the position of the load is unstable, preventing the operator from moving the load to a more unstable position” where the prevention of the movement to a more unstable position is interpreted as a range limitation of the working equipment with [0033] describing this as horizontal reach and with [0017] describing the linkages as pivotally mounted (swivel arms)).
Regarding claim 13, Tremblay teaches wherein the working equipment comprises a swivel arm and a boom pivotally mounted thereon and a wood grabbing device or other tool mounted on the boom ([0017] discusses the system including primary and secondary pivotable linkages with [0023] describing the primary linkage as including a boom attached through a secondary linkage to a grapple (wood grabbing device)).
Regarding claim 14, Tremblay teaches wherein there is a pivot cylinder for pivoting the swivel arm relative to the wheel loader base unit and a lift cylinder for pivoting the boom relative to the swivel arm ([0025] states “secondary linkage 32 mounts to grapple 22 at grapple pivot point 34. The pivoting of grapple 22 with respect to secondary linkage 32 is controlled by a pair of grapple pivot cylinders 48, and the rotation of the grapple is controlled by a hydraulic motor 49 that drives a gear 51”).
Regarding claim 15, Tremblay teaches wherein the log handler comprises at least two steerable wheels and the geometry data comprises the steering angle of the wheels ([0029] discusses including the steering angle of the wheels as depicted in Fig. 5 in the geometric data used to determine the stability of the loader).
Regarding claim 16, Tremblay teaches wherein the wheel loader base unit comprises a front carriage and a rear carriage, and the geometry data comprises the articulation angle between the front and rear carriage ([0029] discusses including the steering angle of the wheels as depicted in Fig. 5 in the geometric data used to determine the stability of the loader with [0032] discussing this angle equating the articulation angle between the front and rear carriages).
Regarding claim 17, Tremblay teaches wherein the log handler comprises a display in which the stability or the value of the parameter representative thereof is indicated ([0035] discusses the system warning the operator of the instability using a bright warning light where the light is interpreted as a display and the stability is indicated by the absence of the light and instability indicated by the light).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood according to the 112 rejection, Tremblay teaches wherein means are provided which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted when a parameter representative of the stability is exceeded ([0035] discusses the system warning the operator of the instability using an alarm).
Regarding claim 19, Tremblay teaches wherein the parameter is the resultant torque about the front tires of the wheel loader base unit ([0007] discusses the stability being determined by the moment (torque) generated about the front axle).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay in view of Myers and further in view of Nakane (US 4511974, IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Tremblay teaches a variable permissible working range of the equipment [0033] but does not explicitly teach wherein a characteristic diagram is stored in the log handler which reproduces the permissible working range of the working equipment as a function of the height of the payload, the distance of the payload from the front tire of the wheel loader base unit and from the payload itself.
Nakane teaches wherein a characteristic diagram is stored in the log handler which reproduces the permissible working range of the working equipment as a function of the height of the payload, the distance of the payload from the front tire of the wheel loader base unit and from the payload itself (Col. 2 lines 40-58 discuss determining a range before there is a danger of overturn (permissible working range) based on the height of the fork (height of the payload), weight of the payload, and centroid position (distance of payload from front tire) where the calculation control circuit 86 is interpreted as the characteristic diagram).
Tremblay teaches a wheel loader that determines the stability based on the reach of the loader. Nakane teaches using the height, weight, and distance of the load in determining the stability. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tremblay with the calculation of Nakane as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being calculating the stability of the wheel loader.
Regarding claim 20, Tremblay teaches a variable permissible working range of the equipment [0033] but does not explicitly teach wherein a characteristic diagram is stored in the log handler which reproduces the permissible working range of the working equipment as a function of the height of the payload, the distance of the payload from the front tire of the wheel loader base unit and from the payload itself.
Nakane teaches wherein a characteristic diagram is stored in the log handler which reproduces the permissible working range of the working equipment as a function of the height of the payload, the distance of the payload from the front tire of the wheel loader base unit and from the payload itself (Col. 2 lines 40-58 discuss determining a range before there is a danger of overturn (permissible working range) based on the height of the fork (height of the payload), weight of the payload, and centroid position (distance of payload from front tire) where the calculation control circuit 86 is interpreted as the characteristic diagram).
Tremblay teaches a wheel loader that determines the stability based on the reach of the loader. Nakane teaches using the height, weight, and distance of the load in determining the stability. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tremblay with the calculation of Nakane as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being calculating the stability of the wheel loader.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/D.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/DYLAN M KATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights