DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection in response to amendments filed 9/8/2025. 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 filed 9/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 102 rejection, applicant merely states the claimed feature and states that the prior art of Trembley does not teach the claimed feature. However, no specific argument is made as to why Trembley does not teach the claimed feature. As described in the prior art rejection below Trembley performing automatic counter-steering when the work machine reaches a horizontal limit. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the specification objection and 112 rejections, applicant argues that the amendment of the specification has overcome the objection and rejections. However, no structure has been provided in the specification that would emit the acoustic signal. To overcome this rejection applicant should provide structure of what would emit the acoustic signal for example a microphone or a speaker so long as it is not become new matter.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: providing structural support for “means are provided which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted when a parameter representative of the stability is exceeded” as claimed in dependent claims 7 and 18.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 18 cite the limitation “means are provided which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted when a parameter representative of the stability is exceeded”. However, the specification does not provide any description of the structure that would emit the acoustic warning. Therefore the scope of how the acoustic warning is emitted is unclear. Further the “means which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted” is omitted from the specification entirely with only the display being used to show the stability of the system.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 18 cite the limitation “means are provided which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted when a parameter representative of the stability is exceeded”. However, the specification does not provide any description of the structure that would emit the acoustic warning. Therefore the scope of what is emitted the acoustic warning is unclear. Further the “means which are configured such that an acoustic warning is emitted” is omitted from the specification entirely with only the display being used to show the stability of the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tremblay (US 20180327238, IDS).
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).
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).
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 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657