DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 16-19, and 21-31 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the independent claims. Claims 1-3, 9-11, 17, 18, and 21-31 are presently amended. Claims 4-7, 12-15, and 20 had been previously cancelled. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 03/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/09/2026 “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant’s argument according to the rejection of claims 1-3, 8-11, 16-31 under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) has been fully considered. Regarding term “attachment”, applicant argued that since loader is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art to support different attachments, therefore although the specification only discloses “bucket”, but because of the term loader, specification support various attachment. The argument respectfully is not persuasive. Term “attachment” as recited in the claim is broader than the disclosed invention in the instant specification. Throughout the specification, “a tractor with a bucket” has been disclosed and there is no evidence that the disclosure can be enabled with any other attachment. The only reference to anything else besides a bucket, is in paragraph [0027], "keeping pallets level on forks during lifting and lowering of the loader" which is disclosed passively and it is not a direct description of an attachment embodiment. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, pp. 14-15) regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 17, and 19 (Young/Fredrickson) and claims 2-3, 10-11, 18-19, and 21-31 (Young/Fredrickson/Mollick) have been considered. The arguments (toward Fredrickson and Mollick), in view of the amendments, are persuasive. However, new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments are applied in office action below.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
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 1-31 are 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.
With respect to claim 1 (similarly, claims 9 and 17), it has been amended to encompass “controlling an attachment for a tractor” where “bucket” has been replaced by “attachment” in the amended claim. In machinery, an "attachment" is a broader term including a specialized tool like buckets, blades or other implements connecting to a base machine (i.e. tractor), however, the instant specification is silent about the disclosed method being used for a tractor connected to any other attachment than a bucket. Therefore, the specification supports a bucket, but does not support a broader category of implements other than a bucket.
Further, with respect to claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 17, and 21-31, the claims have been amended to encompass the limitation of “to maintain the angle of the implement relative to the tractor”. The specification is silent about this limitation. According to paragraph [0061] of the instant specification, the processing circuitry is capable of “determining whether the sensor data indicate that the bucket 104 is level or not (e.g., at a same height relative to the ground”. Also, in paragraph [0027], the benefits of having the bucket’s angle relative to the ground not change while the arms lift and lower the bucket, has been discussed. Therefore, there is no support in the specification for this limitation.
Further, with respect to claims 1, 9, 17, 21, the claims encompass the limitations “a second variable speed of the second electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated relative to the first variable speed”. The specification is silent about this feature. The present specification discloses varying the speed of the actuators while adjusting the tilt of the bucket based on the motion of the lift arms (e.g. paragraphs [0022], [0024]-[0025], [0068]), variable speed control of the bucket using electric actuators which vary the speed of the electric actuators based on an input from a joystick (e.g. paragraph [0026]-[0027]), and also discloses synchronized actuation of the electric actuators (e.g. paragraphs [0060]), [0067]. However, the specification doesn’t provide written description about calculating speed of the second actuator relative to the speed of the first actuator.
The dependent claims 2, 8, 10, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the similar reasoning and also as being depended on rejected base claims.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 8-10, 16-18, 21-2, 25-26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young US 20230228060 A1, hereinafter “Young”, in view of Schoenmaker, US 20080263908 A1, hereinafter “Schoenmaker”.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Young discloses A method and device for controlling an electrically actuated attachment for a tractor (at least Abstract, “devices for control of …work elements”, [0002], “work vehicles…include.. tractor”, [0006]), the device operatively connected to a tractor implement ([0002], [0006], “A control system can include one or more control devices configured to, during a startup mode of the power machine: receive an operator input for a movement of at least one electrical actuator of the one or more electrical actuators”, [0063]) and comprising memory coupled to processing circuitry ([0131], “(e.g., a processor device operatively coupled to a memory),”), the method comprising: receiving, by processing circuitry of a device operatively connected to a tractor attachment, a first user input from a controller ([0006], “receive an operator input”, [0086], [0131]); receiving, by the processing circuitry, sensor data indicative of a first position of a first electrically powered actuator ([0098], [0105], “position sensor”, [0107]) operatively connected to a first lift arm portion of the tractor attachment and of a second position of a second electrically powered actuator operatively connected to and configured to move an implement of a the tractor attachment ([0017], [0057], [0099], Fig. 2 and associated texts) , wherein the first electrically powered actuator is configured to move the first lift arm portion relative to the tractor (at least [0006], “electrical actuator configured to [] move the lift arm relative to the main frame,”, __ first actuator reads on lift actuator 518 as shown in Fig. 5 and discloses in paragraph [0099]__), and wherein the second electrically powered actuator is configured to move the implement relative to the first lift arm portion (at least [0006], “one or more electrical actuator configured to [] or move the implement carrier relative to the lift arm.”, __second actuator reads on tilt actuator 522 as shown in Fig. 5 and discloses in paragraph [0099]__); generating, by the processing circuitry, based on the first user input and the first position, one or more first actuation commands for the first electrically powered actuator (at least [0006], “based on the received operator input, command movement of the at least one electrical actuator in the first predetermined direction until at least one of: the at least one electrical actuator reaches a predetermined reference position,”); generating, by the processing circuitry, based on the one or more first actuation commands and the second position, one or more second actuation commands for the second electrically powered actuator ([0007]-[0008], “command additional movement of the at least one electrical actuator. The one or more control devices can be configured to determine an actual position of the at least one electrical actuator, corresponding to the additional movement, based on sensed movement relative to the predetermined reference position.”, __command additional movement reads on second actuation commands__),
Young doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the one or more first actuation commands are associated with causing a first variable speed of the first electrically powered actuator, and wherein the one or more second actuation commands are associated with causing a second variable speed of the second electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated relative to the first variable speed to maintain an angle of the implement relative to the tractor while the first lift arm portion moves; causing, by the processing circuitry, actuation of the first electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more first actuation commands; and causing, by the processing circuitry, actuation of the second electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more second actuation commands.
However, Schoenmaker teaches wherein the one or more first actuation commands are associated with causing a first variable speed of the first electrically powered actuator, and wherein the one or more second actuation commands are associated with causing a second variable speed of the second electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated relative to the first variable speed to maintain an angle of the implement relative to the tractor while the first lift arm portion moves ( at least see [0025], [0042], [0065], [0101], “control signals for controlling the attachment position (e.g., bucket position or attachment angle) with a minimum update frequency that is proportional to the rate of movement (e.g., velocity or acceleration) of the boom via control data” “the leveling module 50 may update the attachment position (e.g., bucket position or attachment angle) with an update frequency of the control data or control signals that is proportional to rate of angular displacement of the boom.”, [0104]-[0107], __Note: In particular according to paragraphs [0100]-[0101], Schoenmaker teaches levelling module module in which the bucket is dynamically adjusted to keep it level based on control signals from a first electronic actuator (first actuator from [0025]), According to paragraphs [0104]-[0107], the corresponding responses in [0100]-[0101] are calculated via lookup tables/reference data relationships, also in figure 10 graphs show predetermined relationship change between angular position between boom (raising/lowering) and implement (inclination); from this (and the "update frequency” that is updated based on velocity of the boom) the slope of the graph is known to equate to the speed of change/speed of the actuator correspondingly__); causing, by the processing circuitry, actuation of the first electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more first actuation commands (__a second cylinder associated with the attachment in Schoenmaker disclosure reads on the first actuator_ See Abstract, “A second cylinder is associated with the attachment.”, and paragraphs [0024] and [0025], “The first electrical control interface 13 may comprise an electromechanical valve, an actuator, a servo-motor, a solenoid or another electrically controlled device for controlling or regulating hydraulic fluid associated with the first hydraulic cylinder 12.”) ; and causing, by the processing circuitry, actuation of the second electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more second actuation commands (__a first cylinder associated with the boom reads on second actuator in the claim__, [0024], “The first cylinder assembly 10 comprises the combination of a first hydraulic cylinder 12, a first sensor 14, and a first electrical control interface 13.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young with including it by actuation command to adjust the speed of the second actuator, that is calculated relative to the speed of first actuator in order to move the bucket with a desired angle as taught by Schoenmaker, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and performance of the working vehicle specifically tractor in operating the bucket.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, Young in view of Schoenmaker teaches the method, device and system of claims 1, 9, and 17 (See rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17), however, although Young discloses determining a current orientation of the lift arm (and any implement coupled thereto), according to paragraph [0098], Young doesn’t explicitly disclose determining, based on the sensor data, that the implement is not at the angle, wherein generating the one or more first actuation commands and generating the one or more second actuation commands are based on the determination that the implement is not at the angle, and wherein the actuation of the second electrically powered actuator causes automatic reorientation of the implement to the angle.
However, Schoenmaker teaches determining, based on the sensor data, that the implement is not at the angle, wherein generating the one or more first actuation commands and generating the one or more second actuation commands are based on the determination that the implement is not at the angle, and wherein the actuation of the second electrically powered actuator causes automatic reorientation of the implement to the angle ([0005], “A second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom.” “A controller [] for controlling the second cylinder to attain an attachment angle”, [0100], “maintain the attachment (e.g., 251 or the bucket) in a desired orientation (e.g., level to avoid spilling material in the bucket)”, [0104], “Further, the reference attachment leveling data may vary based on an initial position and a preset position that is a target position or final position. The attachment angle compensates for boom movement to keep the attachment (e.g., bucket) in a desired orientation (e.g., level to avoid spilling material in the bucket).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young with including it by actuation command to adjust the speed of the actuators, in order to attain a target/desired bucket angle as taught by Schoenmaker, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and performance of the working vehicle specifically tractor in operating the bucket.
Regarding claim 8 and 16, Young in view of Schoenmaker teaches the method and device of claim 1 and 9 (See rejection of claims 1 and 9), however, Young does not disclose wherein the controller comprises a joystick.
However, Schoenmaker teaches wherein the controller comprises a joystick ([0024], “The controller 20 communicates with a user interface 22. The user interface 22 comprises a switch, a joystick,”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young with including it by actuation commands to first and second actuators, respectively, configured to move the lift arms and the bucket and controlling through a joystick as taught by Schoenmaker, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an interface for the operator to control the input command via a joystick.
Regarding claim 17, Young discloses A system for controlling an implement for a tractor (at least abstract, “electrical devices for control of one or more work elements.”, [0002]-[0003], __one type of a power machine is a work vehicle and work vehicles include a tractor__, [0062]) the system comprising: a tractor implement connected to a first lift arm ([0006], “an implement carrier supported by the lift arm”, [0075]-[0078]); a first electrically powered actuator operatively connected to and configured to move a first lift arm portion of a the tractor attachment relative to a tractor ([0006], “one or more electrical actuator configured to be powered by the electrical power source to one or more of: move the lift arm relative to the main frame”, __ first actuator and second actuator as recited in the claim reads on lift actuator 518 as shown in Fig. 5 and discloses in paragraph [0099]); a second electrically powered actuator operatively connected to and configured to move the tractor implement, wherein the second electrically powered actuator is configured to move the implement relative to the first lift arm portion ([0006], “move the implement carrier relative to the lift arm.”, [0075]-[0078], __ second actuator as recited in the claim reads on tilt actuator 522 as shown in Fig. 5 and discloses in paragraph [0099]__); one or more sensors ([0098]); a controller ([0081]); and memory coupled to processing circuitry operatively connected to the tractor ([0131], “a processor device operatively coupled to a memory”) the processing circuitry configured to: receive a first user input from a controller ([0006], “receive an operator input”, [0086], [0131], receive, from one or more sensors, sensor data indicative of a first a first position of the first electrically powered actuator ([0098], [0105], “position sensor”, [0107]) and of a second position of the second electrically powered actuator (([0017], [0057], [0099], Fig. 2 and associated texts, [0098], “include a position sensor for one or more extenders or other components of one or more electrical actuators (as appropriate),”, [0099], [0107]-[0108]); generate, based on the first user input and the first position, one or more first actuation commands for the first electrically powered actuator (at least [0006], “based on the received operator input, command movement of the at least one electrical actuator in the first predetermined direction until at least one of: the at least one electrical actuator reaches a predetermined reference position,”); generate, based on the one or more first actuation commands and the second position, one or more second actuation commands for the second electrically powered actuator ([0007]-[0008], “command additional movement of the at least one electrical actuator. The one or more control devices can be configured to determine an actual position of the at least one electrical actuator, corresponding to the additional movement, based on sensed movement relative to the predetermined reference position.”, __command additional movement reads on second actuation commands__),
Young doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more first actuation commands are associated with causing a first variable speed of the first electrically powered actuator, and wherein the one or more second actuation commands are associated with causing a second variable speed of the second electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated relative to the first variable speed to maintain an angle of the implement relative to the tractor while the first lift arm portion moves;
However, Schoenmaker teaches wherein the one or more first actuation commands are associated with causing a first variable speed of the first electrically powered actuator, and wherein the one or more second actuation commands are associated with causing a second variable speed of the second electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated relative to the first variable speed to maintain an angle of the implement relative to the tractor while the first lift arm portion moves ( at least see [0025], [0042], [0065], [0101], “control signals for controlling the attachment position (e.g., bucket position or attachment angle) with a minimum update frequency that is proportional to the rate of movement (e.g., velocity or acceleration) of the boom via control data” “the leveling module 50 may update the attachment position (e.g., bucket position or attachment angle) with an update frequency of the control data or control signals that is proportional to rate of angular displacement of the boom.”, [0104]-[0107], __Note: In particular according to paragraphs [0100]-[0101], Schoenmaker teaches levelling module module in which the bucket is dynamically adjusted to keep it level based on control signals from a first electronic actuator (first actuator from [0025]), According to paragraphs [0104]-[0107], the corresponding responses in [0100]-[0101] are calculated via lookup tables/reference data relationships, also in figure 10 graphs show predetermined relationship change between angular position between boom (raising/lowering) and implement (inclination); from this (and the "update frequency” that is updated based on velocity of the boom) the slope of the graph is known to equate to the speed of change/speed of the actuator correspondingly__);
Further, although Young teaches cause actuation of the first electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more first actuation commands and cause actuation of the second electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more second actuation commands ( at least see paragraphs [0007], [0076], “cause the control system to command additional movement of the at least one electrical actuator.”, [0076], “Actuation (i.e., extension and retraction) of the actuators 238 cause the lift arm assembly 230 to pivot about joints 216 and thereby be raised and lowered”, [0089]), however, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Schoenmaker, also more explicitly teaches cause actuation of the first electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more first actuation commands (__a second cylinder associated with the attachment in Schoenmaker disclosure reads on the first actuator_ See Abstract, “A second cylinder is associated with the attachment.”, and paragraphs [0024] and [0025], “The first electrical control interface 13 may comprise an electromechanical valve, an actuator, a servo-motor, a solenoid or another electrically controlled device for controlling or regulating hydraulic fluid associated with the first hydraulic cylinder 12.”) ; and cause actuation of the second electrically powered actuator by sending the one or more second actuation commands (__a first cylinder associated with the boom reads on second actuator in the claim__, [0024], “The first cylinder assembly 10 comprises the combination of a first hydraulic cylinder 12, a first sensor 14, and a first electrical control interface 13.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young with including it by actuation command to adjust the speed of the second actuator, that is calculated relative to the speed of first actuator in order to move the bucket with a desired angle as taught by Schoenmaker, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and performance of the working vehicle specifically tractor in operating the bucket.
Regarding claims 21 and 25 and 29, Young in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method, device and system of claims 2, 10, and 18 (See rejections of claims 2, 10, and 18), and Young discloses further comprising: receiving second sensor data indicative of a third position of the first electrically powered actuator and a fourth position of the second electrically powered actuator ([0098], “a position sensor for one or more extenders or other components of one or more electrical actuators (as appropriate), ” “track relative movement of one or more actuator”, [0099] __first actuator and second actuator reads, respectively, on lift actuator 518 and tilt actuator 522 as shown in Fig. 5 and discloses in paragraph [0099]__, __according to at least paragraph [0098] of Young, the relative movement of the one or more actuator is tracked by the associated position sensor which reads on the claimed limitation__ ); generating one or more third actuation commands for the first electrically powered actuator and the second electrically powered actuator (at least [0006], “command movement of the at least one electrical actuator”, [0007]- [0057]-[0059], [0076]-[0077], claims 1 and 2);
Young doesn’t explicitly teach cause coordinated movement of the first lift arm portion and the implement via actuation of the second electrically powered actuator at a second variable speed that is dynamically calculated based on movement of the first lift arm portion such that the implement maintains the angle relative to the tractor.
However, Schoenmaker teaches causing coordinated movement of the first lift arm portion and the implement via actuation of the second electrically powered actuator at a second variable speed that is dynamically calculated based on movement of the first lift arm portion such that the implement maintains the angle relative to the tractor ([0042], “the controller controls the first hydraulic cylinder and the second hydraulic cylinder to move the boom and the attachment simultaneously.” “the controller may determine or read a first linear position versus time of the first cylinder (i.e., a first linear velocity), a second linear position versus time of a the second cylinder (i.e., a second linear velocity), an attachment angle versus time between the attachment and the boom (i.e., an attachment angular velocity), or a boom angle versus time between a vehicle (or a support) and the boom (i.e., a boom angular velocity).”, [0062])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young in view of Fredrikson, further the actuation command to cause the coordinated movement of the first lift arm and implement through the coordinated actuation of the first and second actuators as taught by Schoenmaker, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of maintaining the desired orientation of the working machine’s implement which improves the performance of the working vehicle.
Regarding claims 22 and 26 and 30, Young in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method, device and system of claims 21, 25, and 29 (See rejections of claims 21, 25, and 29), and Schoenmaker teaches wherein causing the coordinated movement comprises applying a third variable speed to the first electrically powered actuator and a fourth variable speed to the second electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated to be different than the third variable speed to maintain the angle of the implement relative to the tractor ([0042], “controller 20 controls the first hydraulic cylinder 12 to attain a target boom angular range and controls the second cylinder to attain a target attachment angular range associated with the preset position state in response to the command.”, “move the boom and the attachment simultaneously” “controller may determine or read a first linear position versus time of the first cylinder (i.e., a first linear velocity), a second linear position versus time of a the second cylinder (i.e., a second linear velocity), an attachment angle versus time between the attachment and the boom (i.e., an attachment angular velocity), or a boom angle versus time between a vehicle (or a support) and the boom (i.e., a boom angular velocity). Under a sixth technique, the controller may be arranged to take a first derivative of the first linear velocity, the second linear velocity, the attachment angular velocity or the boom angular velocity to determine or estimate the acceleration of deceleration of the boom, the attachment, or both”, __ Accordingly, in order to attain a target attachment angle, the velocity of the first actuator is obtained in accordance with the velocity of the other actuator__)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young in view of Schoenmaker, further the actuation command to cause the coordinated movement by applying a different speeds to the second actuators based on the speed of the first actuator as taught by Schoenmaker, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of maintaining the desired orientation of the working machine’s implement which improves the performance of the working vehicle.
Claims 3, 11,19, 23, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, in view of Schoenmaker, further in view of Veys US 4999022 A, hereinafter “Veys”.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Young in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method, device and system of claims 1, 9, and 18 (See rejections of claims 1, 11, and 18), and Although Young discloses different configurations and functionalities of the actuators according to paragraphs [0088]-[0089] depending on how the electrical actuators is coupled to the component of power machine to raise (lower) a lift arm and change an attitude of the implement (e.g., a bucket), however, Young doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the one or more first actuation commands comprise a first actuation command to cause the first lift arm portion to move, via actuation of the first electrically powered actuator, more than a second lift arm portion of the tractor attachment, via actuation of a third electrically powered actuator operatively connected to the second lift arm portion, to maintain the angle of the implement relative to the tractor while the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion move.
However, Veys teaches wherein the one or more first actuation commands comprise a first actuation command to cause the first lift arm portion to move, via actuation of the first electrically powered actuator, more than a second lift arm portion of the tractor attachment, via actuation of a third electrically powered actuator operatively connected to the second lift arm portion, to maintain the angle of the implement relative to the tractor while the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion move. (at least Fig. 2, Fig. 4 and Col 2, Lines 35-37, “the bucket tilted at an angle with respect to the base plane of the tractor.”, Clo 2, last paragraph, Col 5, Lines 46-48 “The arms are able to telescope independently as shown with telescoping sections 32 and 32'. Thus, the right side of the blade (as shown) can be ahead of the left side.”, Col 6, second paragraph,).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young in view of Schoenmaker, further the actuation command to cause the actuation commands to move the first actuator (attached to first lift arm) more that the second actuator (attached to the second lift arm) as taught by Veys, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of maintaining the desired orientation of the working machine’s implement which improves the performance of the working vehicle.
Regarding claims 23 and 27 and 31, Young in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method, device and system of claims 3, 10, and 17 (See rejections of claims 3, 10, and 17), and Young teaches further comprising: receiving second sensor data indicative of a third position of the first electrically powered actuator and a fourth position of the third electrically powered actuator ([0098], “a position sensor for one or more extenders or other components of one or more electrical actuators (as appropriate), ” “track relative movement of one or more actuator”, [0099] __first actuator and second actuator reads, respectively, on lift actuator 518 and tilt actuator 522 as shown in Fig. 5 and discloses in paragraph [0099]__, __according to at least paragraph [0098] of Young, the relative movement of the one or more actuator is tracked by the associated position sensor which reads on the claimed limitation__);
Schoenmaker teaches determining, based on the second sensor data, that the tractor implement is at the angle relative to the tractor [0005], “A second sensor detects an attachment angle of attachment with respect to the boom.”); generating, based on the determination that the tractor implement is at the angle relative to the tractor, one or more third actuation commands for the first electrically powered actuator and the third electrically powered actuator ([0005], “A controller controls the first hydraulic cylinder to attain a boom angle within a target boom angular range and for controlling the second cylinder to attain an attachment angle within a target attachment angular range associated with the preset position in response to the command.”, [0042]) and causing synchronized movement of the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion via actuation of the first electrically powered actuator and the third electrically powered actuator, such that the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion move at a same speed and in a same direction by sending the one or more third actuation commands to maintain the implement at the angle relative to the tractor. ([0042], “the controller controls the first hydraulic cylinder and the second hydraulic cylinder to move the boom and the attachment simultaneously.”, __this happen to attain the target attachment angle__).
Moreover, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Veys also teaches and causing synchronized movement of the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion via actuation of the first electrically powered actuator and the third electrically powered actuator, such that the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion move at a same speed and in a same direction by sending the one or more third actuation commands to maintain the implement at the angle relative to the tractor (Fig. 4 and Col 2, Lines 34-37, “the bucket tilted at an angle with respect to the base plane of the tractor.”, Claim 1, Col 3, second paragraph, Col 3, Lines 32-39, “operate both cylinders 38 and 38' together,”, Col 6 second paragraph, Col 8 lines 10-25, Col 6, Lines 36-42)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young in view of Schoenmaker, further including with the synchronized movement of the first and second lift arms through actuation of the first and third actuator as taught by Schoenmaker or in alternative rejection taught by Veys, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and performance of the working vehicle specifically tractor in operating the bucket.
Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, in view of Schoenmaker, further in view of Veys, further in view of Kean, US 20190330823 A1, hereinafter “Kean”, and Berger et al., US 6233511 B1, hereinafter “Berger”.
Regarding claims 24 and 28, Young in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method and device of claims 23 and 27 (See rejections of claims 23 and 27), however, Young doesn’t explicitly teach wherein causing the synchronized movement comprises applying a third variable speed to the first electrically powered actuator and a fourth variable speed to the third electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated to be different than the third variable speed to achieve synchronization between the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion to maintain the angle of the implement relative to the tractor
Kean teaches wherein causing the synchronized movement comprises applying a third variable speed to the first electrically powered actuator and a fourth variable speed to the third electrically powered actuator that is dynamically calculated to be different than the third variable speed to achieve synchronization between the first lift arm portion and the second lift arm portion (__Kean teaches a method of synchronously operating a plurality of actuators of a work machine in a coordinated operation to move an implement, See at least Abstract. Kean further discloses that the method of synchronously operating a plurality of actuators of a work machine, includes receiving an operation selection which has an associated set of velocity ratios which dictate relative velocities of the plurality of actuators. (See paragraph [0007]-[0008])),
Although Kean doesn’t explicitly teach that the synchronization between the actuators is used to maintain the angle of the implement relative to the tractor, however, for example, Berger teaches synchronized movement between the actuators to maintain a constant angle between the bucket and the frame (Col 2 second paragraph, Col 8, third paragraph, Col 11 last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for control of work elements of work vehicles (such as tractor) as taught by Young in view of Schoenmaker, further including with the synchronized movement by applying different speed of the first and second lift arms through actuation of the first and third actuator as taught by Kean, for maintaining the bucket angle as taught Berger, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and performance of the working vehicle and maintaining the desired orientation of the working machine’s implement.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwamura et al., US 20170342679 A1, discloses a construction machine control system and teaches calculating a target speed of a boom based on the determined target speed of the bucket.
Mairet et al., US 20190226175 A1, teaches an electrohydraulic bucket position control system for a work vehicle, in which bucket commands are modified based on a relationship between the commanded velocity of the boom and a level orientation of the bucket during the commanded heights of the boom.
Ikari et al., US 4984956 A, discloses a construction machine including booms and a bucket and a technical idea wherein a tilt speed of the bucket is harmonized with a lift speed of the booms in a case where a scooping operation for scooping gravel or the like is performed by actuating only a bucket operation lever while the booms are automatically lifted by allowing a boom operation lever to be immovably held at a boom kick-out position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights