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 .
Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Specifically, the claims use the phrase “in particular”. The examiner recommends amending the claims so that [preceding phrase] “in particular” [general phrase], so that the [general phrase] is incorporated into the [preceding phrase]. For example, in claim 1, amend the portion in lines 14-15 as follows:
an external Cartesian coordinate reference frame
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim1-15 are 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the commanded actuation" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the critical tipping moment" and "the upper bound tipping moment" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the forward and predominantly downward direction" and "the downward and predominantly forward direction" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the limiting direction", “the commanded forward and predominantly downward direction”, and “the commanded downward and predominantly forward direction” in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While the examiner believed that all antecedent basis issues have been addressed, the examiner requests applicant’s assistance in double checking and correcting any instances overlooked by the examiner.
Further regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the portion after “preferably” is not being treated on the merits.
Referring to claims 9-12, the term “predominantly” in claim 9-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predominantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the portions directed to predominantly are not being treated on the merits.
Regarding claim 11, since a modification is generated to a vertical direction from the unknown “predominantly” related directions (see above), it is unclear how the claim should be interpreted. For examination purposes, claim 11 is not being treated on the merits due to the uncertainty.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, it is unclear what is actually being recited. While it appears that support for the claim can be found in Fig. 3 and applicants’ specification 0033, neither clarify the substance of the claim. The examiner requests applicant’s assistance to clarify the claim language and in the meantime, claim 12 has not been treated on the merits due to the uncertainty.
Referring to claim 15, the claim limitation is incomplete. For examination purposes, claim 15 is interpreted as “…wherein the variable boom loading arrangement includes at least…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rushton et al1 [Rushton] EP 3702311.
Referring to claim 1, Rushton teaches the method of actuating a variable boom loading arrangement, comprising a variable length boom that can be extended and retracted using a length actuator [Fig. 1, 0032, 0048].
wherein a first end of the variable length boom is pivotally attached to a frame, and wherein the variable length boom can be pivoted relative to the frame by means of a pivot actuator [9, 10 Fig. 1, 0049].
wherein a second end of the variable length boom is used for handling loads [11 Fig. 1, 0051].
wherein an input command that is given by an operator is modified if the variable boom loading arrangement reaches a predefined tipping moment, resulting in a modified output command to the actuators, so as to avoid a tipping of the variable boom loading arrangement [0067-0068].
wherein the input command is used to calculate an unmodified commanded direction of the second end of the variable length boom in an external reference frame, in particular in an external Cartesian coordinate reference frame, wherein the modification scheme that is applied to the input command and that results in a modified output command to the actuators depends on the calculated unmodified commanded direction in the external reference frame [Fig. 1, 0077].
`In summary, Rushton teaches a control method for a vehicle with a variable length boom to operator controls and modify those controls if a tipping threshold is reached. Specifically, the system determines that operation is causing a tilt threshold to be approached and in response, slows operation of the motor which ultimately controls boom operation. If the threshold is reached, the electric motor stops further operation of the boom. Determining the tilt threshold is determined based on the state of the geometry of the vehicle including the weight and extension position of the boom in the X and Y coordinate plane (i.e., Cartesian Coordinates).
Referring to claim 2, Rushton teaches an orientation sensor for determining position [0058].
Referring to claim 3, Rushton teaches a load handling implement is mounted to the end of the boom [0034].
Referring to claim 4, Rushton teaches that once a tilt threshold is exceeded (interpreted as a critical tipping moment) the electric motor is stopped despite there being demand from the control [0067].
Referring to claim 6, Rushton teaches when controlling the machine to move away from the tipping threshold, speed restrictions are progressively lifted [0013]. In other words, this teaches that a maximum speed is increased the further the boom is backed away from the tilt threshold. Rushton also teaches that the operator can control the speed of the machine to operate at a desired velocity [0068]. Together, these suggest that the operator can control the speed to be a constant slow speed while the speed restrictions are progressively lifted. Thus, when an operator controls the boom to move away from the tilt threshold, the operator can control the operation to be at a slow rate while the speed restriction is lifted to a speed above the operator speed. In this case, the unmodified command would be unchanged when moving in a direction away from the tilt threshold.
Referring to claim 7, Rushton teaches that speed restrictions can be lifted or progressively lifted when moving away (the second end of the boom) from the tilt threshold [0013, 0071].
Referring to claim 13, Rushton teaches a transition scheme when transitioning to the between an operation mode that stops operation of the boom and operation that allows the user to operate the boom unrestricted. Specifically, the transition to the stop operation reduces the speed of operation while approaching the tilt threshold [0068] and the transition to normal operation lifts or progressively lifts speed restrictions when retreating from the tilt threshold [0013, 0071].
Referring to claim 14, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claim 1. Rushton teaches the method and therefore teaches the system performing the method. In addition, Rushton further teaches a variable length boom [6 Fig. 1, 0032] with a first end pivotally attached to a frame [B Fig. 1, 0049] which pivots by means of a pivot actuator [10 Fig. 1, 0049]; the boom comprising a tool mount at the second end of the boom [11 Fig. 1, 0034], an electric control unit to input a command from an input device from a user to control the length and pivot actuators [13, 24 Fig 2, 0047, 0067].
Referring to claim 15, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rushton as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7 and 13-15 above.
Referring to claim 5, Rushton teaches that the method further identifies an approach to the tilt threshold wherein operation occurs as a reduced speed [0068]. This illustrates that a range exists for modifying operation to a reduced amount. While, Rushton teaches reducing the speed it not explicitly taught that the speed is linearly reduced. The examiner is taking official notice that there is a plurality of known ways to reduce speed which include progressively reducing speed in a linear, exponential, stair stepped manner or a simply reduce speed and hold it for the entire range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try either variant including linear reduction because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Furthermore, there is a reasonable expectation of success since all variants reduce speed which Rushton states the desire to “prevent a sudden stop” since “the inertia of such a sudden stop could lead to the working machine 1 tipping.”
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rushton as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7 and 13-15 above and further in view of LMI Systems: Load Moment Indicator Systems [LMI].
Referring to claim 8, while Rushton teaches reducing speed when approaching a tilt threshold, it is not explicitly taught the relationship between reducing the speed of extension and lowering together. explicitly teaches that increasing boom length and lowering the boom increases the moment arm and can lead to tipping [pg. 2]. Because Rushton reduces speed when approaching a tilt threshold, and because extension increases the moment arm (not raising), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reduce only the extension speed because Rushton reduces the speed causing the approach to the tilt threshold and the extension, not raising, contributes to that tilt moment.
Referring to claim 10, while Rushton teaches reducing speed when approaching a tilt threshold, it is not explicitly taught the relationship between reducing the speed of extension and lowering together. LMI explicitly teaches that increasing boom length and lowering the boom increases the moment arm and can lead to tipping [pg. 2]. Because Rushton reduces speed when approaching a tilt threshold, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to account for how the extension and lowering operation together would affect vehicle tipping and reduce the speed of both if determined that a tilt threshold is being approached because such precautions would improve vehicle stability. While the Rushton-LMI combination does not explicitly teach the rates between slowing the extension and lowering operation, it would have been obvious by design choice to reduce the speed equally or reducing the extension at a greater rate then the lowering (so long that it does not compromise stability) because there are only a few possible variations to reduce both; reduce at the same rate, reduce extension faster then lowering, reducing lowering faster than extension.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rushton as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7 and 13-15 above and further in view of Morinaga et al [Morinaga] WO 2007049767.
Referring to claim 9, while Ruston teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught that if an operator were controlling the boom to move in a vertical direction, and actuation power is insufficient to maintain the operation, to reduce the input command of the length and pivot actuator, to maintain the vertical direction. In particular, Rushton does not discuss an actuation power being insufficient. Morinaga teaches that an engine output any be insufficient to power a hydraulic pump and, in such situations, speed cannot reach what is desired by an operator [0025]. Rushton teaches using a motor to drive the hydraulics [0068] and allows for an operator control the boom to extend/retrack and raise/lower [0047-0049] thus naturally allowing the boom to move in a vertical direction using a combination of both movements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to realize that there exists the possibility of the motor not being able to drive the hydraulic pumps at a desired speed as taught by Morinaga and in response to the reduced speed, maintain the same vertical movement but at a lesser speed because not doing so would cause control of the boom to take a path not intended by the operator possibly leading to a tipping event if extension occurred while exceeding the tilt threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 3/25/26
1 Cited by applicant