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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 28 August 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered and are not persuasive . Examiner has fully considered arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 13-20 and agrees there is support in the specification for the physical structure of an electronic controller in the cited paragraphs [0007],[0009], [0032]-[0047], [0052]-[0059], and [0062]-[0066] and FIGS. 2, 3, 4, and 6. Examiner sustains 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation set forth in office action of 05/29/2025 the corresponding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 13-20 are withdrawn. Obviousness-type double patenting rejection is sustained. Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner sustains that Hoaby teaches application of a down force in a downward direction on the work tool and against the work surface and that utilizing the weight of the work group to apply a down force still reads on the claimed language. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection for claims 1-5 and reformulates rejection as a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “the” is missing from “the electronic controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a controller in claim 6
an operator interface in claim 13
an electronic controller in claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a controller:
" A controller 170, also known as an electronic control module or unit (ECM or ECU), provides centralized processing and control for work machine 100 in coordination with operator interface 106.", [¶ 32]
"FIG. 2 is a generalized block diagram of a representative control system 200 based on operations performed by controller 170 for work machine 100", [¶ 33, Fig.2]
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an operator interface:
" A controller 170, also known as an electronic control module or unit (ECM or ECU), provides centralized processing and control for work machine 100 in coordination with operator interface 106.", [¶ 32]
"FIG. 2 is a generalized block diagram of a representative control system 200 based on operations performed by controller 170 for work machine 100", [¶ 33, Fig.2]
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an operator interface:
" operator interface 106 may include control sticks 108 to receive input from the operator for generating electronic instructions for performing a mission by command or for accessing preprogrammed features or missions in semi-autonomous behavior. As shown, operator interface 106 may also include a monitor 110 that can provide feedback and status information to the operator through one or more of an analog, digital, and/or touchscreen display", [¶ 31, Fig.1]
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an electronic controller:
"A controller 170, also known as an electronic control module or unit (ECM or ECU), provides centralized processing and control for work machine 100 in coordination with operator interface 106. ", [¶ 32, Fig.2]
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/375,425 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Instant Application: 18/375,435
Reference Application: 18/375,425
1,
1
1, 5
1,2
6, 9
1,4
6
6
13
13
Although the independent claims 1, 6 and 13 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application recites substantially the same limitations of the claims 1, 6 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/375,425.
The instant application includes limitations receiving a benchmark orientation for the work tool as part of the level control during a job; receiving a request for down-force control on the work tool; receiving a target down force for the work tool as part of the down-force control during the job, the target down force being an amount of a force in a downward direction between the work tool and a work surface; causing positioning of the work tool at the benchmark orientation and application of the target down force and while maintaining the benchmark orientation, adjusting one or more forces applied by the linkage to change the down force. Which is taught by primary reference Hoaby; John et al. (US 20230024622 A1), (see art rejection of claim 1). It is obvious to provide a benchmark orientation for a work tool and down-force control and cause the positioning of the work tool at a proper orientation orient the work tool to improve the float operation comfort to the user as taught by Hoaby. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified claims of the 18/375,425 to include the teachings of Hoaby which teaches the benchmark orientation and down-force control in order to improve the comfort of the float operation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoaby; John et al. (US 20230024622 A1) in view of Koch; Roger D. et al. (US 20090159302 A1) and Tozawa; Shoji et al. (US 5826666 A)
Regarding Claim 1, Hoaby teaches, a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by an electronic controller within a work machine, a request for level control of a work tool attached to a linkage of the work machine(Fig. 4 depicts Control Device 408, which receives position and orientation commands from the operator input devices 402, see at least, ¶118-119, Fig. 4, Hoaby), the linkage including a boom pivotally joined to the work machine and a stick pivotally joined to the boom(Fig. 2 and 3 depicts the excavator 200 having the first lift arm structure 230 which is the linkage including a first portion 232 known as the boom, pivotally attached to the second portion 234 knowns as an arm or stick, see at least, ¶105, Fig 2 and 3, Hoaby); receiving a benchmark orientation for the work tool as part of the level control during a job (Fig. 16A block 956: cause the implement to align with a target orientation of the implement, see at least, ¶234);receiving a request for down-force control on the work tool; receiving a target down force for the work tool as part of the down-force control during the job; in response to input from an operator, causing, by the linkage; positioning of the work tool at an orientation relative to a work surface, and application of a down force in a downward direction on the work tool and against the work surface(Fig. 16A block 958, float the boom actuator to lower the bucket at a target orientation and target tamping speed or force, see at least, ¶231-236); receiving, from one or more sensors within the linkage, sensor data indicative of the orientation of the work tool and the down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the movement (Fig. 15 demonstrates process 900 for performing/adjusting a dynamic float operation at a desired implement/work tool position and orientation based on pressure feedback from one or more pressure sensors for a lift arm or other relevant work group (stick/boom), see at least, ¶222, Fig.15, Hoaby); determining that the down force differs from the target down force; and while maintaining compliance with the benchmark orientation, adjusting one or more forces applied by the linkage to change the down force in compliance with the target down force (Fig. 16A block 956 and 958, float the boom actuator to lower the bucket at a target orientation and tamping speed or force, see at least, ¶234-236).
Hoaby does not explicitly teach, receiving, by the electronic controller and via an operator interface, one or more signals requesting movement of at least the stick along a radial path; causing, in response to the one or more signals, movement of the stick along the radial path; and determining that the orientation differs from the benchmark orientation; adjusting, based at least in part on the sensor data, the orientation of the work tool to maintain compliance with the benchmark orientation;
Koch, directed to controlling work tools attached to a machine teaches, receiving, by the electronic controller and via an operator interface, one or more signals requesting movement of at least the stick along a radial path; causing, in response to the one or more signals, movement of the stick along the radial path(Fig. 3A and 3B depict the work machine moving along a path that extends radially from the machine as it performs the extending and then removing material as part of a digging operation, see at least, ¶28-29, Fig. 3A and 3B Koch).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hoaby’s floating operation to incorporate the teachings of Koch which teaches instructions to move the work tool along a path extending radially from the work machine; since they are both related to operating hydraulic excavation machines and incorporation of the teachings of Koch would increase the utility of the overall system during a float operation by adjusting the angle of the bucket to preventing spilling of the material outside of the bucket.
Tozawa, directed to method and apparatus for controlling construction machinery teaches, determining that the orientation differs from the benchmark orientation; adjusting, based at least in part on the sensor data, the orientation of the work tool to maintain compliance with the benchmark orientation(Controller 21 is capable of automatically maintaining the bucket at a constant angle by eliminating the error distance between feedback signals from angle sensors, see at least, ¶Col1 Line 42-67,Tozawa).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hoaby’s floating operation to incorporate the teachings of Tozawa which teaches determining that the orientation differs from the benchmark orientation; adjusting, based at least in part on the sensor data, the orientation of the work tool to maintain compliance with the benchmark orientation; since they are both related to operating hydraulic excavation machines and incorporation of the teachings of Tozawa would increase the accuracy utility of the overall system to maintain target orientation using the level control feedback loop.
Regarding Claim 2, Hoaby in view of Koch and Tozawa teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein maintaining the benchmark orientation for the work tool comprises: receiving, from one or more position and motion sensors within the linkage, location data indicative of an angle of the work tool relative to the work surface during the movement (Fig. 19 Block 1058, computing device receives the current orientation of the implement relative to a plane parallel to the ground or work surface, see at least, ¶278, Fig. 19, Hoaby); and modifying, based at least in part on the location data, a length of one or more of a boom actuator, a stick actuator, and a tool actuator during the movement of the stick to maintain an angle at the benchmark orientation for the work tool (Fig. 19 Block 1060 and 1056, if the angle of the implement exceeds a threshold, then process proceeds to block 1056 to command the actuators to align the bucket to the desired or benchmark orientation angle, see at least, ¶X, Hoaby).
Regarding Claim 3, Hoaby in view of Koch and Tozawa teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the one or more forces applied by the linkage comprises causing at least a boom actuator to change position (Fig. 22 digging sequence depicts block 1206 which cause the float arm actuator (boom actuator) to lower the implement and change position, see at least, ¶313, Hoaby).
Regarding Claim 4, Hoaby in view of Koch and Tozawa teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving tool data indicative of characteristics for the work tool, the characteristics including dimensions and weight for the work tool (Fig .15 block 908 depicts computing device receiving a pressure value of the boom actuator corresponding to the current load of the actuator by the floating weight of the arm. Sensor data corresponding to the angular measurements various lift arm components which measurements are related to the known dimensions and weights of relevant power machine components, see at least, ¶226, Fig.15, Hoaby).
Regarding Claim 5, Hoaby in view of Koch and Tozawa teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the target down force is an acceptable range for down force for the work tool (Fig. 15 block 910 depicts a computing device determining whether or not the relevant pressure value (down force) is within an acceptable range around a target threshold net retractive force on an actuator needed to maintain a desired lowering speed, see at least, ¶228, Fig.15, Hoaby).
Regarding Claim 6, Hoaby teaches, a control system within a work machine, comprising: one or more actuators positioned to impart forces on arms of the work machine (Fig.2 boom actuator 233B, arm actuator 233C, see at least, ¶23, ¶105, Fig.2, Hoaby); one or more sensors positioned within the arms, the one or more sensors being configured to detect positions of the arms (Fig.3 Angle Sensors 235, 237, and 239, see at least, ¶116, Hoaby) and the forces on the arms (Fig.13 Pressure sensor 810 to detect the pressure within the cylinder 812 of the actuator 802 , see at least, ¶203-210, Fig.13, Hoaby); a memory (Fig. 4 control device 408 can include other computing components such as memory, see at least, ¶128, Fig.4, Hoaby); a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more actuators, the one or more sensors, and the memory (Fig.4 Control Device 408, coupled to the Hydraulic system 403 containing one or more actuators, see at least, ¶124, Fig.4, Hoaby), the controller configured to: receive, from an operator interface within the work machine, a request for level control and a benchmark orientation for a work tool; receive, from the operator interface, a request for force control and a target down force for the work tool; cause the arms to apply a down force on the work tool at an orientation, the down force being in a downward direction on the work tool and against the work surface (Fig. 16A block 958, float the boom actuator to lower the bucket at a target orientation and target tamping speed or force, see at least, ¶231-236); receive, from the one or more sensors during the movement, sensor data indicative of the orientation of the work tool and the down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the movement (Fig. 15 demonstrates process 900 for performing/adjusting a dynamic float operation at a desired implement/work tool position and orientation based on pressure feedback from one or more pressure sensors for a lift arm or other relevant work group (stick/boom), see at least, ¶222, Fig.15, Hoaby); determine that the down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the movement is different from the target down force; and while maintaining compliance with the benchmark orientation, adjust at least one of the forces on the arms to change the down force in compliance with the target down force.
Hoaby does not explicitly teach, receive, from the operator interface, instructions to move the work tool along a path extending from the work machine and radially about a pivot joint of one of the arms; cause movement of the work tool along the path; and determine that the orientation differs from the benchmark orientation; adjust, based at least in part on the sensor data, an angle of the work tool to maintain compliance with the benchmark orientation.
Koch, directed to controlling work tools attached to a machine teaches, receive, from the operator interface, instructions to move the work tool along a path extending from the work machine and radially about a pivot joint of one of the arms; cause movement of the work tool along the path (Fig.1 depicts the stick 106 pivotally attached to the boom 104 and the worktool 110 pivotally attached to the extendable stick 108 and 102 pivots relative to the body 101 radially from the body, see at least ¶17-18) and (Fig. 3A and 3B depict the work machine moving along a path that extends radially from the machine as it performs the extending and then removing material as part of a digging operation, see at least, ¶28-29, Fig. 3A and 3B Koch).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hoaby’s floating operation to incorporate the teachings of Koch which teaches receive, from the operator interface, instructions to move the work tool along a path extending from the work machine and radially about a pivot joint of one of the arms; cause movement of the work tool along the path since they are both related to operating hydraulic excavation machines and incorporation of the teachings of Koch would increase the utility of the overall system during a float operation by adjusting the angle of the bucket to preventing spilling of the material outside of the bucket.
Tozawa, directed to method and apparatus for controlling construction machinery teaches, determine that the orientation differs from the benchmark orientation; adjust, based at least in part on the sensor data, an angle of the work tool to maintain compliance with the benchmark orientation(Controller 21 is capable of automatically maintaining the bucket at a constant angle by eliminating the error distance between feedback signals from angle sensors, see at least, ¶Col1 Line 42-67,Tozawa).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hoaby’s floating operation to incorporate the teachings of Tozawa which teaches determining that the orientation differs from the benchmark orientation; adjusting, based at least in part on the sensor data, the orientation of the work tool to maintain compliance with the benchmark orientation; since they are both related to operating hydraulic excavation machines and incorporation of the teachings of Tozawa would increase the accuracy utility of the overall system to maintain target orientation using the level control feedback loop.
Regarding Claim 7, Hoaby in view of Koch and Tozawa teaches, The control system of claim 6, wherein the target down force is an acceptable range for down force for the work tool (Fig. 15 block 910 depicts a computing device determining whether or not the relevant pressure value (down force) is within an acceptable range around a target threshold net retractive force on an actuator needed to maintain a desired lowering speed, see at least, ¶228, Fig.15, Hoaby).
Regarding Claim 12, Hoaby in view of Koch and Tozawa teaches, The control system of claim 6, wherein prior to receiving instructions to move the work tool along the path, the controller is further configured to: cause the work tool to be placed in a starting location at the benchmark orientation; and cause the arms to apply the target down force on the work tool (Fig. 22 depicts a flowchart process 1200 for performing a digging sequence along a dig path. At block 1206, the work tool is lowered by applying the target down force to the arm actuator to make contact with the ground at block 1208 which is the starting location at the benchmark orientation set in 1204. This is done prior to moving along the path to perform the digging cut in block 1212, see at least, ¶309-315, Fig.22, Hoaby).
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoaby; John et al. (US 20230024622 A1) in view of Koch; Roger D. et al. (US 20090159302 A1) and Tozawa; Shoji et al. (US 5826666 A) as applied to claims 1-7 and 12 and further in view of FAIVRE; Joseph Leo (US 20120165962 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hoaby in view of Koch and Tozawa teaches, The control system of claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive an identification of the work tool; and receive tool data indicative of characteristics for the work tool, the characteristics including dimensions and weight for the work tool (Fig .15 block 908 depicts computing device receiving a pressure value of the boom actuator corresponding to the current load of the actuator by the floating weight of the arm. Sensor data corresponding to the angular measurements various lift arm components which measurements are related to the known dimensions and weights of relevant power machine components, see at least, ¶226, Fig.15, Hoaby).
Hoaby and Koch and Tozawa do not explicitly teach receive an identification of the work tool.
Faivre, directed to machine implement controllers teaches, receive an identification of the work tool (see at least, ¶12, Faivre).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hoaby and Koch and Tozawa’s method of collecting known dimensions and weights to incorporate the teachings of Faivre which teaches receive an identification of the work tool since they are both related to work machines using various implement attachments and incorporation of the teachings of Faivre would increase the utility of the overall invention by increasing probability that machine operators can correctly and proficiently manage machine controls for a variety of tools and attachments.
Regarding Claim 10, Hoaby in view of Koch, Tozawa and Faivre teaches, The control system of claim 8.
Faivre, directed to machine implement controllers further teaches wherein the controller receives the identification of the work tool wirelessly from the work tool (Fig.1 depicts the tool identification sensor 161 mounted to the end of the stick 113 which automatically detects the current work tool based on the electronic sensor embedded within the current work tool. The controller 130 identifies the current work tool based on a wireless signal received from the sensor 161, ¶54, Fig.1, Faivre).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Hoaby in view of Koch, Tozawa and Faivre to further incorporate the teachings of Faivre which teaches wherein the controller receives the identification of the work tool wirelessly from the work tool since they are both related to work machines using various implement attachments and incorporation of the teachings of Faivre would increase the utility of the overall invention by increasing probability that machine operators can correctly and proficiently manage machine controls for a variety of tools and attachments.
Regarding Claim 11, Hoaby in view of Koch, Tozawa and Faivre teaches, The control system of claim 8.
Faivre, directed to machine implement controllers further teaches, wherein the controller receives the identification of the work tool from the operator interface (Fig.1 depicts the implement selector switch 160 which may be toggled by an operator of the machine to identify the selected work tool 112 attachment to the machine 100, ¶25, Fig.1, Faivre).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Hoaby in view of Koch and Faivre to further incorporate the teachings of Faivre which teaches wherein the controller receives the identification of the work tool from the operator interface since they are both related to work machines using various implement attachments and incorporation of the teachings of Faivre would increase the utility of the overall invention by allowing machine operators to correctly and proficiently manage machine controls for a variety of tools and attachments.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoaby; John et al. (US 20230024622 A1) in view of Koch; Roger D. et al. (US 20090159302 A1)and Tozawa; Shoji et al. (US 5826666 A) as applied to claims 1-7 and 12 and further in view of Horton; Lee A. (US 20170030048 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Hoaby in view of Koch, Tozawa and Faivre teaches, The control system of claim 8.
Hoaby in view of Koch and Faivre do not explicitly teach , wherein the tool data includes a tool center-of-gravity.
Horton, directed to alignment tools for mounting and removing excavator attachments teaches, wherein the tool data includes a tool center-of-gravity (Figs 6-9 depict center of gravity of the excavator attachment, see at least, ¶29-31, Fig. 6-9, Horton).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Hoaby in view of Koch and Faivre’s to incorporate the teachings of Horton which teaches wherein the tool data includes a tool center-of-gravity since they are both related to work machines using various attachments and incorporation of the teachings of Horton would increase the utility of the overall system so that an operator can properly attach the attachment/implement/work tool to the arm/stick using the center of gravity information.
Claims 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoaby; John et al. (US 20230024622 A1) in view of Koch; Roger D. et al. (US 20090159302 A1) and JOHANSSON; Magnus et al. (US 20180305890 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hoaby teaches, a work machine, comprising: a linkage including a boom pivotally interconnected with a stick (Fig. 2 and 3 depicts the excavator 200 having the first lift arm structure 230 which is the linkage including a first portion 232 known as the boom, pivotally attached to the second portion 234 knowns as an arm or stick, see at least, ¶105, Fig 2 and 3, Hoaby); sensors, associated with the linkage, configured to detect positions and forces within the boom and the stick (Fig.3 Angle Sensors 235, 237, and 239, see at least, ¶116, Hoaby) and (Fig.13 Pressure sensor 810 to detect the pressure within the cylinder 812 of the actuator 802 , see at least, ¶203-210, Fig.13, Hoaby); a work tool coupled to the stick (Fig.2 the implement carrier 272, which holds a work tool such as a bucket (not pictured) is attached to the linkage assembly 276 which is operably coupled to the arm 234 (stick) , see at least, ¶203-210, Fig.13, Hoaby); an operator interface configured to receive inputs for controlling the work machine and to display outputs relating to operation of the work machine (Fig.3 operator input devices 256, receive inputs for controlling the work machine and display devices are in the cab to display outputs relating to the operation of the work machine, see at least, ¶111-112, Fig.3, Hoaby); an electronic controller communicatively coupled to at least the sensors and the operator interface (Fig.4 Control Device 408 communicably coupled to the Operator Input Device, and the Hydraulic System 403 which includes the pressures sensors as described in more detail in Fig. 13, see at least, ¶118, Fig. 4 and ¶203, Fig. 13, Hoaby), the electronic controller configured to: receive, from an operator interface within the work machine, one or more commands to cause motion by the work tool along a path; cause, by the linkage, the motion by the work tool along the path (Fig. 22, block 1212 depicts causing the arm to retract and move long the digging path, ¶319, Fig.22, Hoaby); receive, from the sensors within the linkage, sensor data indicative of forces on at least the boom and the stick during the motion (Fig.13 depicts an actuator 802 connected to a pressure sensor 810 and Fig.14 block 856 uses the pressure sensors and determined position and orientation to determine an appropriate value for hydraulic pressure and adjusting the hydraulic pressure accordingly to maintain a uniform lowering speed during float operations, see at least, ¶217, Fig.14, Hoaby); adjust, based at least in part on the sensor data, a position of the work tool to have a level orientation (Fig. 19, flow chart describes orientation control of the implement during a digging sequence, block 1058 computing device receives a current orientation of the implement, block 1060 determines if the orientation is level, if it is not level block 1056 adjusts the position of the work tool to have the desired level orientation , ¶273-278, Fig.19, Hoaby); calculate, at least in part from the sensor data, a down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion; determine that the down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion is outside a down-force range; and while adjusting the work tool to have the level orientation, adjust the down force on the work tool and against the work surface to be within the down-force range.
Hoaby does not explicitly teach, to cause motion by the work tool along a path extending from the work machine and radially about a pivot joint of the stick as part of a job and calculate, at least in part from the sensor data, a down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion; determine that the down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion is outside a down-force range; and while adjusting the work tool to have the level orientation, adjust the down force on the work tool and against the work surface to be within the down-force range.
Koch, directed to controlling work tools attached to a machine teaches, to cause motion by the work tool along a path extending from the work machine and radially about a pivot joint of the stick as part of a job (Fig.1 depicts the stick 106 pivotally attached to the boom 104 and the worktool 110 pivotally attached to the extendable stick 108 and 102 pivots relative to the body 101 radially from the body, see at least ¶17-18) and (Fig. 3A and 3B depict the work machine moving along a path that extends radially from the machine as it performs the extending and then removing material as part of a digging operation, see at least, ¶28-29, Fig. 3A and 3B Koch).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hoaby’s floating operation to incorporate the teachings of Koch which teaches to cause motion by the work tool along a path extending from the work machine and radially about a pivot joint of the stick as part of a job since they are both related to operating hydraulic excavation machines and incorporation of the teachings of Koch would increase the utility of the overall system during a digging operation by scooping the most amount of dirt in a radial direction in order to fill the bucket efficiently.
Johansson, directed to determining the vertical position of at least a point of a ground portion using a work machine including an implement teaches, calculate, at least in part from the sensor data, a down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion (Fig. 2 depicts S10, determining a contact force (down force) between the ground 40 and the implement 14 (work tool), see at least, ¶73, Fig.2, Johansson); determine that the down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion is outside a down-force range (Fig. 2 depicts S12, determining whether or not the contact force is within the predetermined contact force value range, see at least, ¶73, Fig.2, Johansson); and while adjusting the work tool to have the level orientation, adjust the down force on the work tool and against the work surface to be within the down-force range (Fig.1 illustrates the work machine in a leveling operation which the implement 14 is moved in relation to the ground 36 at a level orientation in order to smooth the ground surface, the method may further comprise moving the implement 14 until the contact force value N is within the predetermined contact force value range, see at least, ¶67 and 76, Fig.1, Johansson).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Hoaby and Koch’s excavation operation to incorporate the teachings of Johansson which teaches calculate, at least in part from the sensor data, a down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion; determine that the down force on the work tool and against the work surface during the motion is outside a down-force range; and while adjusting the work tool to have the level orientation, adjust the down force on the work tool and against the work surface to be within the down-force range since they are both related to operating excavation machines and incorporation of the teachings of Johansson would increase the utility of the overall system by enabling an accurate leveling operation through detection of an accurate vertical position of the ground being worked on.
Regarding Claim 19, Hoaby in view of Koch and Johansson teaches, The work machine of claim 13, wherein electronic controller is further configured to: receive, from the operator interface, a request for level control at the level orientation for the work tool (Fig. 19 describes a digging sequence where in block 1052, the computing device can receive a user input indicative or orientation including an operator entering desired bucket orientation, see at least, ¶273, Hoaby) and a request for down-force control within the down-force range (Fig. 15 a float operation which is part of digging sequence is interpreted as a request for down-force control and the down-force range is measured by block 910 which measures the pressure values of the float operation to be within an acceptable range, see at least, ¶228, Fig. 15, Hoaby).
Regarding Claim 20, Hoaby in view of Koch and Johansson teaches, The work machine of claim 19, wherein the request for level control includes the level orientation for the work tool during the motion along the path (Fig. 22 block 1212 causes the arm to retract along the digging path while performing bucket automatic bucket leveling which controls the orientation of the work tool, see at least, ¶318 – 319, Fig.22, Hoaby).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoaby; John et al. (US 20230024622 A1) in view of Koch; Roger D. et al. (US 20090159302 A1) and JOHANSSON; Magnus et al. (US 20180305890 A1) as applied to claims 13 and 19-20 and further in view of FAIVRE; Joseph Leo (US 20120165962 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Hoaby in view of Koch and Johansson teaches, The work machine of claim 13, wherein the electronic controller is further configured to: receive tool data indicative of characteristics for the work tool, the characteristics including dimensions and weight for the work tool (Fig .15 block 908 depicts computing device receiving a pressure value of the boom actuator corresponding to the current load of the actuator by the floating weight of the arm. Sensor data corresponding to the angular measurements various lift arm components which measurements are related to the known dimensions and weights of relevant power machine components, see at least, ¶226, Fig.15, Hoaby).
Hoaby, Koch and Johansson do not explicitly teach receive an identification of the work tool.
Faivre, directed to machine implement controllers teaches, receive an identification of the work tool (see at least, ¶12, Faivre).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hoaby, Koch, and Johansson’s method of known dimensions and weights to incorporate the teachings of Faivre which teaches receive an identification of the work tool since they are both related to work machines using various implement attachments and incorporation of the teachings of Faivre would increase the utility of the overall invention by increasing probability that machine operators can correctly and proficiently manage machine controls for a variety of tools and attachments.
Regarding Claim 15, Hoaby in view of Koch, Johansson and Faivre teaches, The work machine of claim 14, further comprising one or more actuators, associated with the linkage, configured to move the linkage and the work tool, the one or more actuators being one of hydraulic or electric (Fig.4 shows the control system 400 including a hydraulic actuation system 403, for moving the linkage and the work tool, see at least, ¶118, Fig. 4, Hoaby).
Regarding Claim 16, Hoaby in view of Koch, Johansson and Faivre teaches, The work machine of claim 14.
Faivre, directed to machine implement controllers further teaches wherein the electronic controller receives the identification of the work tool wirelessly from the work tool (Fig.1 depicts the tool identification sensor 161 mounted to the end of the stick 113 which automatically detects the current work tool based on the electronic sensor embedded within the current work tool. The controller 130 identifies the current work tool based on a wireless signal received from the sensor 161, ¶54, Fig.1, Faivre).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Hoaby in view of Koch, Johansson and Faivre to further incorporate the teachings of Faivre which teaches wherein the controller receives the identification of the work tool wirelessly from the work tool since they are both related to work machines using various implement attachments and incorporation of the teachings of Faivre would increase the utility of the overall invention by increasing probability that machine operators can correctly and proficiently manage machine controls for a variety of tools and attachments.
Regarding Claim 17, Hoaby in view of Koch, Johansson and Faivre teaches, The work machine of claim 14.
Faivre, directed to machine implement controllers further teaches, wherein the electronic controller receives the identification of the work tool from the operator interface (Fig.1 depicts the implement selector switch 160 which may be toggled by an operator of the machine to identify the selected work tool 112 attachment to the machine 100, ¶25, Fig.1, Faivre).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Hoaby in view of Koch and Faivre to further incorporate the teachings of Faivre which teaches wherein the controller receives the identification of the work tool from the operator interface since they are both related to work machines using various implement attachments and incorporation of the teachings of Faivre would increase the utility of the overall invention by allowing machine operators to correctly and proficiently manage machine controls for a variety of tools and attachments.
Regarding Claim 18, Hoaby in view of Koch, Johansson and Faivre teaches, The work machine of claim 14, wherein prior to receiving one or more commands to cause the motion by the work tool along the path, the electronic controller is further configured to: cause the work tool to be placed in a starting location corresponding to the level orientation; and cause the linkage to provide a predetermined down force within the down-force range on the work tool (Fig. 22 depicts a flowchart process 1200 for performing a digging sequence along a dig path. At block 1206, the work tool is lowered by applying the target down force within a smooth downforce range to the arm actuator to make contact with the ground at block 1208 which is the starting location at the level orientation set in 1204. This is done prior to moving along the path to perform the digging cut in block 1212, see at least, ¶309-315, Fig.22, Hoaby).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664