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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0382983 to Gentle et al. in view of U.S. Pat. 4,852,660 to Leidinger et al.
Regarding claim 1, Gentle discloses a mobile construction equipment for operation on a surface (At least motor grader machine disclosed in Par. [0002]), the mobile construction equipment comprising: a work tool (At least implement/blade disclosed in Par. [0002]) that is movable between at least one position, in which the work tool works with respect to the surface, and at least one non-working position, in which the work tool does not work with respect to the surface (At least at Par. [0003, 0024; 0033]; wherein the interlock system may perform: 1. A blade side shift lockout function in a working position of the blade or 2. a lockout on a blade lower function in non-working blade position); a machine speed sensor (At least at Par. [0023]; sensor, 206 providing machine status information) configured to provide a machine speed of the mobile construction equipment; and a controller (At least Par. [0023]; interlock control system, 200) having a work tool work mode, in which the work tool is movable to the at least one working position, the controller being configured, in a work tool inhibit mode, in which the work tool is not movable to the at least one work position, to receive the machine speed (At least at Par. [0003, 0023, 0024, 0033]; vis a vis an operational status), and, if the machine speed exceeds a work activation limit (Par. [0023]; speed sensor, speed measurement, activating/deactivating interlock system based on threshold value from sensors, Par. [0027]; speed parameter; Par. [0032]; avoiding blading at a greater threshold speed]), at least one of: disable the work tool work mode (At least at Par. [0032/0034]; using interlock system for avoiding blading at a greater threshold speed or while in traveling mode]) so as to prevent the work tool from moving to the at least one work position, or provide an indication to an operator of the mobile construction equipment that the machine speed exceeds the float activation limit.
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float/non-float position or float/float inhibit mode as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 2, the primary reference, Gentle discloses that if the machine speed does not exceed the work activation limit, the controller is configured to enable the work tool mode so as to allow the work tool to move to the at least one work position (At least at Par. [0027]; leveraging a speed parameter to identify that the machine is in a blading mode).
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float mode/position blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, Gentle discloses that the controller is configured to: determine whether the controller has received a request for the work tool to be moved to the at least one work position, and if the request has been received, move the work tool to the at least one float position (At least at Par. [0028-0029, 0032]; wherein an experienced operator may be authorized for complex utilization of a machine and the interlock system permits a range of states for control in an operating mode, permission for an operator to interact with operator controls to utilize functionalities of the machine).
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float request/position as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, Gentle discloses that the controller is configured to apply a work function active machine speed limit to the mobile construction equipment so as to limit the machine speed to the work function active machine speed limit while the work tool is in the at least one work position (At least at Par. [0032]; when the machine is in an operating mode, the interlock system applies a gear limitation to limit the transmission to less than a threshold gear or machine speed limitation to limit the engine to less than a threshold speed to avoid blading at greater than a threshold speed).
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float active function as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 9, the primary reference, Gentle, discloses that the controller has a work tool inhibit override in which the controller is configured to override the work tool inhibit mode and enter the work tool mode so as to allow the work tool to move to the at least one work position (At least at Par. [0028-0029, 0032]; wherein an experienced operator may be authorized for complex utilization of a machine and the interlock system permits a range of states for control in an operating mode, permission for an operator to interact with operator controls to utilize functionalities of the machine).
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float request/position as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 14, Gentle discloses a method for transitioning a work tool of a mobile construction equipment between at least one work position, in which the work tool works with respect to a surface on which the mobile construction equipment is operating (At least motor grader machine and implement/blade disclosed in Par. [0002]), and at least one non-work position, in which the work tool does not work with respect to the surface (At least at Par. [0003, 0024; 0033]; wherein the interlock system may perform: 1. A blade side shift lockout function in a working position of the blade or 2. a lockout on a blade lower function in non-working blade position), the mobile construction equipment having a controller (interlock control system, 200), the method comprising: in a work tool work inhibit mode of the controller, in which the work tool is not movable to the at least one work position (At least at Par. [0003, 0023, 0024, 0033]; vis a vis an operational status), receiving, by the controller, a machine speed of the mobile construction equipment; and if the machine speed does not exceed a work activation limit, enabling, by the controller, a work tool work mode, in which the work tool is movable to the at least one work position; or if the machine speed exceeds the work activation limit, at least one of: disabling, by the controller, the work tool work mode so as to prevent the work tool from moving to the at least one work position (Par. [0023]; speed sensor, speed measurement, activating/deactivating interlock system based on threshold value from sensors, Par. [0027]; speed parameter; Par. [0032]; avoiding blading at a greater threshold speed]), or providing an indication to an operator of the mobile construction equipment that the machine speed exceeds the float activation limit.
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float/non-float position or float/float inhibit mode as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 15, the primary reference, Gentle, discloses that if the machine speed does not exceed the work activation limit: determining, by the controller, whether the controller has received a work request for the work tool to be moved to the at least one work position, and if the work request has been received, moving the work tool to the at least one work position (At least at Par. [0028-0029, 0032]; wherein an experienced operator may be authorized for complex utilization of a machine and the interlock system permits a range of states for control in an operating mode, permission for an operator to interact with operator controls to utilize functionalities of the machine).
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float request/position as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 16, the primary reference, Gentle, discloses applying a work active machine speed limit to the mobile construction equipment so as to limit the machine speed to the work active machine speed limit while the work tool is in the at least one work position ((At least at Par. [0032]; when the machine is in an operating mode, the interlock system applies a gear limitation to limit the transmission to less than a threshold gear or machine speed limitation to limit the engine to less than a threshold speed to avoid blading at greater than a threshold speed).
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float active function as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Regarding claim 19, the primary reference, Gentle, discloses overriding, by the controller, the work tool inhibit mode; and entering, by the controller, the work tool work mode so as to allow the work tool to move to the at least one work position (At least at Par. [0028-0029, 0032]; wherein an experienced operator may be authorized for complex utilization of a machine and the interlock system permits a range of states for control in an operating mode, permission for an operator to interact with operator controls to utilize functionalities of the machine).
However, Gentle does not expressly discuss the blade working mode as being a float function having a float request/position as the particular blading function within the interlock system lockout features or being performed and being subjected to the interlock system.
Nevertheless, Leidinger discloses a float position for a grader as part of a blade function of a blade for a motor grader (At least at the Abstract and Summary).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the existing lockout system features of Gentle by adding an adjustable float function for the blade of the disclosed motor grader, as taught by Leidinger, so that the functionality of the motor grader can be increased to include light snow plowing for greater usability. Further, float modes are well-known in the construction/work vehicle equipment arts as a typical function associated with a blading mode and it would have been obvious to have incorporated a number of known features related to the specifically disclosed tools of a ripper and a blade in Gentle since a float function is a typical blade function in this field of art.
Claim 20 is rejected as reciting substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 1 and 14, which have been rejected supra
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10-13, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, either taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach or suggest the specific float limits, determine that the override is active, or status of the float request inactivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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 (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669