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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 08/20/2025. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 2, 3, 10, and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 12, and 15-17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request, filed 01/14/2026 and Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Havimaki, as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havimaki (US 20120323453 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Havimaki teaches a forestry apparatus (par. 1, forestry machine), comprising:
a main frame (par. 1, forestry machine would obviously have a main frame);
a plurality of wheels or tracks configured to support the main frame from a ground surface (par. 1, forestry machine would obviously have wheels or tracks in order to move);
a lifting linkage supported from the main frame, the lifting linkage including a boom having a boom distal end portion (Fig. 8 and par. 70, "The boom system 800 is responsible for controlling the boom and collecting data relating to the operation of the boom");
at least one lifting linkage actuator configured to raise and lower the boom of the lifting linkage (Fig. 8 and par. 70, "The boom system 800 is responsible for controlling the boom and collecting data relating to the operation of the boom");
a grapple suspended from the boom distal end portion, the grapple including first and second grapple tongs (par. 19, the forestry machine is a grab harvester, which would have a grapple with tongs) and a grapple actuator configured to move the grapple tongs in a closing motion from an open position toward a closed position (par. 70, “the actuator system 802 is responsible for the tasks in question as far as an actuator, e.g. a harvester and/or a grab, is concerned”), the first and second grapple tongs having first and second grapple tong tips, respectively (par. 19, grab harvester would have grapple tong tips);
at least one position sensor configured to generate at least one position signal corresponding to vertical height positions of the first and second grapple tong tips relative to the main frame or relative to the ground surface (par. 23, “Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”), wherein the at least one position sensor includes a grapple tong position sensor operably associated with the grapple actuator and configured to detect a grapple tong position in a range from the open position to the closed position (par. 43, " Naturally, the grab open/closed function may also be implemented by sensors, in which case it is also possible to monitor how the grab remains closed in the case of a large load, for instance").
Havimaki fails to explicitly teach a controller configured to receive the at least one position signal and to automatically control the at least one lifting linkage actuator to coordinate the vertical height positions of the first and second grapple tong tips relative to the main frame or relative to the ground surface with the closing motion of the grapple tongs, wherein the controller is further configured to send command signals to the at least one lifting linkage actuator to adjust a height of the boom during the closing motion of the grapple tongs to grasp a load lying on the ground surface, such that the grapple tong tips substantially follow a ground profile of the ground surface during the closing motion of the grapple tongs thereby reducing digging of the grapple tong tips into the ground surface during the closing motion of the grapple tongs.
Havimaki does teach automatically controlling the harvester operations (par. 8, "The invention enables an advanced operation of the machine and its control system to be achieved wherein data describing the driver's operation or the cooperation of the driver and the machine is utilized as a background such that the machine automatically adjusts one or more control parameters so as to enable e.g. a more advantageous fuel economy or a higher productivity to be achieved in forestry machine work"), but does not explicitly teach controlling the grapple so that the tongs follow a ground profile of the ground surface.
However, the instant specification does disclose that this action is regularly done by skilled operators (par. 3, “While picking up logs with the tongs of the skidder grapple machine, the human operator will raise the tongs to try to avoid digging into the ground with the tongs. The proper manual adjustment of the boom and arch positions along with the tongs in order to ensure that the tongs follow the ground surface as closely as possible requires a great deal of skill”). The courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 (III)). Furthermore, it has been decided that “it is not invention to produce a device which is within the realm of performance of a skilled mechanic in the ordinary progress of producing a device required to effectuate a given result” (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Using sensors in order to aid an operator in the operation of a grapple is already well-known in the art, as shown by Havimaki. Other examples of using sensors to control a grapple include Conway (US 20160138248 A1) (see par. 74) and Kanari (JP 2012019702 A) (see par. 32). Controlling a grapple in order to avoid digging into the ground is also well known in the art, as shown by the instant specification. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Havimaki to further control the grapple to avoid digging into the ground while closing.
Regarding claim 15, Havimaki teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 1. Havimaki further teaches the linkage assembly includes a rotational joint between the boom distal end portion and the grapple, the rotational joint having a rotational axis (par. 21, “With his or her control operations, the driver may control e.g. the turning, folding, lifting, extension/telescope of a boom or the rotation of a rotator as well as the opening/closing of a grab”); and the at least one position sensor further includes a rotational position sensor configured to detect a rotational position of the grapple relative to the boom distal end portion about the rotational axis (par. 23, “When the driver's operation is to be monitored, a particularly interesting group of parameters consists of data obtained from the driver's control panel and/or joysticks and control commands that are usually conveyed via a man-machine interface. Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”).
Although Havimaki fails to explicitly teach a sensor to detect a rotational position of the grapple relative to the boom distal end portion about the rotational axis, Havimaki does state that the driver’s operation is monitored and lists the rotation of a rotator as one such operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that there would be some kind of sensor to monitor the rotation.
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto teaches a forestry apparatus (par. 1, forestry machine) including a set of grapple tongs (par. 19, the forestry machine is a grab harvester, which would have a grapple with tongs) suspended from a height adjustable boom (Fig. 8 and par. 70, "The boom system 800 is responsible for controlling the boom and collecting data relating to the operation of the boom"), comprising:
(a) detecting with at least one position sensor a vertical height position of lower tong tips of the set of grapple tongs relative to a ground surface and generating a position signal corresponding to the position of the lower tong tips relative to the ground surface (par. 23, “Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”), the detecting including detecting a grapple tong position in a range from an open position to a closed position with a grapple tong position sensor and the generating including generating a grapple tong position signal indicating the grapple tong position in the range from the open position to the closed position (par. 43, "Naturally, the grab open/closed function may also be implemented by sensors, in which case it is also possible to monitor how the grab remains closed in the case of a large load, for instance");
(b) receiving the position signal with a controller, including receiving the grapple tong position signal (par. 43, "Naturally, the grab open/closed function may also be implemented by sensors, in which case it is also possible to monitor how the grab remains closed in the case of a large load, for instance"; Fig. 1, measurements are used to correct control);
(c) receiving with the controller a closing command from an operator to close the set of grapple tongs to grasp an article lying on the ground surface (par. 21, “When the driver's operation is to be monitored, a particularly interesting group of parameters consists of data obtained from the driver's control panel and/or joysticks and control commands that are usually conveyed via a man-machine interface. With his or her control operations, the driver may control e.g. the turning, folding, lifting, extension/telescope of a boom or the rotation of a rotator as well as the opening/closing of a grab”); and
Havimaki fails to explicitly teach (d) during the closing of the set of grapple tongs, automatically controlling a height of the height adjustable boom with the controller at least in part in response to the detected vertical height position of the lower tong tips and thereby raising a height of the lower tong tips relative to the ground surface to reduce any digging of the lower tong tips into the ground surface as the grapple tongs grasp the article lying on the ground surface.
Havimaki does teach automatically controlling the harvester operations (par. 8, "The invention enables an advanced operation of the machine and its control system to be achieved wherein data describing the driver's operation or the cooperation of the driver and the machine is utilized as a background such that the machine automatically adjusts one or more control parameters so as to enable e.g. a more advantageous fuel economy or a higher productivity to be achieved in forestry machine work"), but does not explicitly teach controlling the grapple so that the tongs follow a ground profile of the ground surface.
However, the instant specification does disclose that this action is regularly done by skilled operators (par. 3, “While picking up logs with the tongs of the skidder grapple machine, the human operator will raise the tongs to try to avoid digging into the ground with the tongs. The proper manual adjustment of the boom and arch positions along with the tongs in order to ensure that the tongs follow the ground surface as closely as possible requires a great deal of skill”). The courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 (III)). Furthermore, it has been decided that “it is not invention to produce a device which is within the realm of performance of a skilled mechanic in the ordinary progress of producing a device required to effectuate a given result” (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Using sensors in order to aid an operator in the operation of a grapple is already well-known in the art, as shown by Havimaki. Other examples of using sensors to control a grapple include Conway (US 20160138248 A1) (see par. 74) and Kanari (JP 2012019702 A) (see par. 32). Controlling a grapple in order to avoid digging into the ground is also well known in the art, as shown by the instant specification. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Havimaki to further control the grapple to avoid digging into the ground while closing.
Regarding claim 17, Havimaki teaches the method of claim 16. Havimaki further teaches step (a) further comprises: detecting with a boom position sensor a height of a distal end portion of the height adjustable boom relative to a main frame of the forestry grapple apparatus; and detecting with the grapple tong position sensor a position of the lower tong tips relative to the distal end portion of the height adjustable boom (par. 23, “Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”).
Regarding claim 18, Havimaki teaches the method of claim 17. Havimaki further teaches step (a) further comprises: detecting with a frame pitch and roll sensor an orientation of the main frame relative to the ground surface (par. 22, “Some machines are also provided with sensors, whereby data obtained from the sensors enables e.g. the movement area and position of one or more frames, axles and/or control cabins of the machine to be monitored. Sensors of this type, such as gyroscope and inclinometer sensors as well as various acceleration and position sensors, are often used e.g. in active levelling and stabilizing applications for the control cabin or entire frame of the forestry machine”).
Claim(s) 4-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen (US 20240397883).
Regarding claim 4, Havimaki teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 1. Havimaki further teaches a boom actuator (Fig. 8 and par. 70, "The boom system 800 is responsible for controlling the boom and collecting data relating to the operation of the boom").
Havimaki fails to disclose any structural details of the forestry apparatus, and therefore fails to explicitly teach the lifting linkage includes a lower link pivotally mounted on the main frame; the boom is pivotally mounted on the lower link; and the at least one lifting linkage actuator includes a lower link actuator configured to pivot the lower link relative to the main frame and the boom actuator is configured to pivot the boom relative to the lower link.
However, Hyvönen teaches the lifting linkage includes a lower link pivotally mounted on the main frame (par. 27, “With reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, the boom 20 is formed of a hoisting boom 21, a stick boom 22 and an extension boom 23. The boom 20 is mounted on the frame 11”); the boom is pivotally mounted on the lower link (Fig. 1, a stick boom 22 and an extension boom 23); and the at least one lifting linkage actuator includes a lower link actuator configured to pivot the lower link relative to the main frame and the boom actuator is configured to pivot the boom relative to the lower link (par. 28, “Actuators 101, 102, 103, 104 functioning, for example, hydraulically, are provided for movements of the boom 20, for example between the hoisting boom 21 and the slewing device 14, between the hoisting boom 21 and the stick boom 22, and between the stick boom 22 and the extension boom 23, for turning the hoisting boom 21 with respect to the slewing device 14, for turning the stick boom 22 with respect to the hoisting boom 21, and for moving the extension boom 23 in and out of the stick boom 22”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Havimaki to incorporate the teachings of Hyvönen. Use of a lower linkage, or a hoisting boom, is common and well-known in the art, and would have been a trivial modification to Havimaki.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 4. Havimaki further teaches the at least one position sensor includes: a frame position sensor configured to detect a position of the main frame relative to the ground surface (par. 23, “Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”); and at least one linkage position sensor configured to detect a kinematic position of the boom relative to the main frame (par. 23, “Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 5. Yamamoto further teaches the frame position sensor includes an inertial measurement unit (par. 23, acceleration sensors).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 5. Havimaki further teaches the at least one linkage position sensor includes a boom position sensor (par. 23, “Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”).
Havimaki fails to explicitly teach the at least one linkage position sensor includes a lower link position sensor.
However, Hyvönen teaches the at least one linkage position sensor includes a lower link position sensor (par. 55 Fig. 2, "The measuring elements 51, 52, 53, 54 may be constituted by angle sensors and/or linear sensors").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Havimaki and Hyvönen to further incorporate the teachings of Hyvönen. Use of a lower linkage, or a hoisting boom, is common and well-known in the art, and would have been a trivial modification to Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 7. Havimaki further teaches the boom position sensor includes a further inertial measurement unit (par. 23, acceleration sensors).
Havimaki fails to explicitly teach the lower link position sensor includes a further inertial measurement unit.
However, Hyvönen teaches a lower link position sensor (par. 55 Fig. 2, "The measuring elements 51, 52, 53, 54 may be constituted by angle sensors and/or linear sensors").
Although Hyvönen does not explicitly teach the lower link position sensor includes a further inertial measurement unit, Havimaki uses an acceleration sensor for the boom position sensor. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Havimaki in view of Hyvönen to also make the lower link position sensor also an IMU like the boom position sensor.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 7. Havimaki further teaches the boom actuator includes a smart hydraulic cylinder having an integrated extension sensor; and the integrated extension sensor of the smart hydraulic cylinder of the boom actuator is the boom position sensor (Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane.).
Havimaki fails to teach the lower link actuator includes a smart hydraulic cylinder having an integrated extension sensor; and the integrated extension sensor of the smart hydraulic cylinder of the lower link actuator is the lower link position sensor.
However, Hyvönen teaches a lower link actuator (par. 28 Fig. 2, “Actuators 101, 102, 103, 104 functioning, for example, hydraulically, are provided for movements of the boom 20, for example between the hoisting boom 21 and the slewing device 14, between the hoisting boom 21 and the stick boom 22, and between the stick boom 22 and the extension boom 23, for turning the hoisting boom 21”).
Although Hyvönen does not explicitly teach the lower link actuator includes a smart hydraulic cylinder having an integrated extension sensor; and the integrated extension sensor of the smart hydraulic cylinder of the lower link actuator is the lower link position sensor, Havimaki teaches the boom actuator includes a smart hydraulic cylinder having an integrated extension sensor; and the integrated extension sensor of the smart hydraulic cylinder of the boom actuator is the boom position sensor. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen to have also made the lower link actuator include a smart hydraulic cylinder having an integrated extension sensor like the boom actuator.
Regarding claim 19, Havimaki teaches the method of claim 16. Havimaki further teaches step (d) further comprises: automatically controlling with the controller, a pivotable position of the height adjustable boom relative to the pivoted lifting linkage (par. 85, “The invention enables an advanced operation of the machine and its control system to be achieved wherein data describing the driver's operation or the cooperation of the driver and the machine is utilized as a background such that the machine automatically adjusts one or more control parameters so as to enable e.g. a more advantageous fuel economy or a higher productivity to be achieved in forestry machine work”).Havimaki does not explicitly teach the lower linkage.
However, Hyvönen teaches automatically controlling with the controller, a pivotable position of a pivoted lower link relative to a main frame of the forestry apparatus (abstract, “The method for controlling a forwarder comprises storing in a control unit of the forwarder one or more predetermined paths of a head of an articulated boom of the forwarder or a grapple suspended from the head; enabling an automatic transfer of the head or the grapple along one of the paths”—the boom includes the hoisting boom/lower linkage; see Fig. 4, path 34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Havimaki to incorporate automatically controlling with the controller, a pivotable position of a pivoted lower link relative to a main frame of the forestry apparatus. Hyvönen states, “the invention facilitates the control of the boom of the forwarder and reduces the effort and stress of the operator of the forwarder. As another advantage, the manipulation of the boom is still simpler, more secure and easier to implement under demanding logging conditions than when providing a fully automated control of the boom” (par. 16). Additionally, since Havimaki already teaches automatically controlling with the controller, a pivotable position of a pivoted lower link relative to a main frame of the forestry apparatus, it would have been obvious for the controller to also automatically control the lower linkage as well.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen as applied above, and further in view of Maruyama (JP 2011131991).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 4. Havimaki further teaches the at least one position sensor includes at least one linkage position sensor configured to detect a kinematic position of the boom relative to the main frame (par. 23, “Particularly the existing small acceleration sensors may be readily arranged even in several different parts of the machine or the boom if the movement area of these parts is to be monitored in closer detail. It is also possible to provide several different operations, such as e.g. all degrees of release of a crane or a loader, e.g. with linear or increment type position sensors. Examples of these operations may include turning, lifting, folding and telescope operations of a crane”).
Havimaki and Hyvönen both fail to teach the controller is configured to send command signals to the lower link actuator and the boom actuator to coordinate lower link movement and boom movement so as to maintain a substantially constant lateral distance of the grapple from the main frame while adjusting a height of the boom relative to the main frame.
However, Maruyama teaches the controller is configured to send command signals to the lower link actuator and the boom actuator to coordinate lower link movement and boom movement so as to maintain a substantially constant lateral distance of the grapple from the main frame while adjusting a height of the boom relative to the main frame (par. 18, “In addition, the swing arm pivotably attached to the tip of the boom changes its posture with respect to the boom, thereby maintaining a constant distance between the upper end of the swing arm and the rigging attachment position”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen to incorporate the teachings of Maruyama. Maruyama states “it is not necessary to change the length of the rigging used to support the moment in the boom pull-down direction even if the boom elevation angle changes, and only the tension acts on the rigging” (par. 18).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen teaches the method of claim 19. Havimaki and Hyvönen both fail to teach automatically coordinating the pivotable position of the pivoted lower link relative to the main frame with the pivotable position of the height adjustable boom relative to the pivoted lower link, so as to maintain a substantially constant lateral distance of the grapple tongs from the main frame while adjusting the height of the height adjustable boom relative to the main frame.
However, Maruyama teaches automatically coordinating the pivotable position of the pivoted lower link relative to the main frame with the pivotable position of the height adjustable boom relative to the pivoted lower link, so as to maintain a substantially constant lateral distance of the grapple tongs from the main frame while adjusting the height of the height adjustable boom relative to the main frame (par. 18, “In addition, the swing arm pivotably attached to the tip of the boom changes its posture with respect to the boom, thereby maintaining a constant distance between the upper end of the swing arm and the rigging attachment position”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Havimaki in view of Hyvönen to incorporate the teachings of Maruyama. Maruyama states “it is not necessary to change the length of the rigging used to support the moment in the boom pull-down direction even if the boom elevation angle changes, and only the tension acts on the rigging” (par. 18).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havimaki in view of Olsen (US 20190048559).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yamamoto in view of Schwarzhans teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 1. Havimaki fails to teach the at least one position sensor includes a camera configured to detect the positions of the first and second grapple tong tips relative to the ground surface.
However, Olsen teaches the at least one position sensor includes a camera configured to detect the positions of the first and second grapple tong tips relative to the ground surface (par. 22, “The camera can be positioned on the work vehicle for capturing images of the work tool (e.g., a bucket, grapple, auger, ripper, compactor, hammer, shear, or other attachment for performing one or more tasks)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Havimaki to incorporate the teachings of Olsen. Olsen states “The vision system can enable the operator of the work vehicle to view objects (e.g., underground utilities, other pieces of equipment, or other workers) that may otherwise be obstructed from the operator's field of view. This can prevent the objects from being unintentionally damaged while the operator uses the work vehicle. This can also prevent the work vehicle from being unintentionally damaged by impacts with the objects” (par. 22).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Havimaki in view of Olsen teaches the forestry apparatus of claim 12. Havimaki fails to teach the camera is mounted on the boom.
However, Olsen teaches the camera is mounted on the boom (par. 25, "the camera can be mounted on a boom of the work vehicle").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Havimaki in view of Olsen to add the camera is mounted on the boom. Olsen states “The vision system can enable the operator of the work vehicle to view objects (e.g., underground utilities, other pieces of equipment, or other workers) that may otherwise be obstructed from the operator's field of view. This can prevent the objects from being unintentionally damaged while the operator uses the work vehicle. This can also prevent the work vehicle from being unintentionally damaged by impacts with the objects” (par. 22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conway (US 20160138248 A1) (see par. 74) and Kanari (JP 2012019702 A) (see par. 32) both teach using sensors to aid in controlling a forestry machine
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights