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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/21/2023, 08/30/2024, 05/23/2025, and 06/27/2025 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GM-50128/2012, filed on 06/24/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 1 is the independent claims.
Claims 1-23 are pending
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 07/22/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-5580095 (“Fukumoto”) in view of US-6619693-B1 to Sproatt et. al. (“Sproatt”).
Regarding claim 1, Fukumoto teaches a method for supporting a carrier vehicle of a lifting device having a support system (Fukumoto Fig. 1 and ref 5), the carrier vehicle being parked on a piece of ground, (Fukumoto Fig. 4 & 5), wherein the support system includes:
supporting legs (Fukumoto ref 7), for supporting the carrier vehicle on the piece of ground, the supporting legs each having a vertically adjustable length (Fukumoto ref 7a),
a controller for actuating individual drives of the supporting legs using control commands, (Fukumoto ref 10) and
an inclination sensor for detecting an inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to a predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane, (Fukumoto ref 13 & 14)
wherein the method comprises: calculating a sequence of control commands for performing a activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device (Fukumoto ref 202 and col 3 lines 50-54 “sets an operation time t.sub.1 of each control valve 15, which is provided on each jack cylinder 7, in a step 202,”)
leveling the carrier vehicle and/or the lifting device by activating the individual drives of the supporting legs of all of the support system using the sequence of control commands to reduce the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane, (Fukumoto ref 203 and col 3 lines 50-54 “operates each control valve 15 for a period of t.sub.1 seconds in a step 203.”)
wherein, a activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using the sequence of control commands and control pulses (Fukumoto Fig. 5),
effecting a repetition of the calculating and the leveling in a loop (Fukumoto Fig. 5) until the detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device reaches or falls below a predefined threshold value to minimize the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or the lifting device (Fukumoto Fig. 5 ref. 201).
Fukumoto does not teach a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of supporting legs of the support system. However, Sproatt teaches a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of supporting legs of the support system (Sproatt Background (9) “The method for leveling the vehicle includes sequentially actuating the legs so that they move from their stowed position to their extended position… controller individually actuates the legs at the low end of the vehicle by individually extending each of the legs for a predetermined period of time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Fukumoto to incorporate the teachings of Sproatt such that the system includes a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of supporting legs of the support system. Doing so would allow for leveling of a vehicle on uneven terrain (Sproatt Background (2)).
Regarding claim 5, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches that the time-limited activation of the individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands (Fukumoto ref 202 and 205) is performed using control pulses with variable pulse duration (Fukumoto ref t.sub.1 & t.sub.2).
Regarding claim 6, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that a pulse duration of the control pulses is 0.05 seconds to 3.50 seconds.
Nevertheless, Fukumoto at least suggests the idea that the pulse duration of the control pulses is in seconds (Fukumoto col 3 lines 50-64). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the pulse duration in order to level the vehicle body on an inclined place in a short period of time (Fukumoto Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches that a variation of the pulse duration and a temporal overlap between successive control pulses is performed based on at least one of: parameters of the individual drives of the supporting legs, parameters of a geometry of the supporting legs, parameters of a position of the supporting legs, a number of supporting legs, the currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle of the lifting device, a currently predefined pulse duration, a position of axles of the carrier vehicle, a position of the lifting device arranged on the carrier vehicle, a torsional and bending stiffness and/or a twisting of the carrier vehicle, and the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. (Fukumoto Fig. 5 ref 202 and 205 and col 6 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 9, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches that the length of each of the supporting legs is made larger and/or smaller during the activating of the individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system. (Fukumoto Claim 1 "a controller for calculating extension/contraction amounts of said piston rods of said jack cylinders and controlling control valves provided on said jack cylinders in accordance with results of calculation.").
Regarding claim 13, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory compute readable medium, the computer program product comprising commands which, when executed by a processor, prompt the processor to execute the method according to claim 1 from a storage unit which to be brought into data connection with the processor. (Fukumoto Fig. 4 ref 103, program is executed by controller).
Regarding claim 14, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches a controller (Fukumoto ref. 10) for controlling a support system for carrying out the method according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: calculate a sequence of control commands for the sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system on the basis of a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device, and actuate the individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands for reducing the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane, wherein the sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using the sequence of control commands control pulses, and repeatedly performing in a loop the calculation of the sequence of control commands and the actuation of the individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands until the detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device reaches or falls below a predefined or predefinable threshold value, so as to minimize the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device. (Fukumoto Fig. 4 & 5, the control programs are being operated by the controller).
Regarding claim 15, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches a vehicle (Fukumoto Fig. 1), comprising the controller (Fukumoto ref. 10) according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the pulse duration of the control pulses is 0.25 seconds to 1.5 seconds.
Nevertheless, Fukumoto at least suggests the idea that the pulse duration of the control pulses is in seconds (Fukumoto col 3 lines 50-64). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the pulse duration in order to level the vehicle body on an inclined place in a short period of time (Fukumoto Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 14. Fukumoto further discloses that the vehicle is a carrier vehicle with a lifting device (Fukumoto Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. Fukumoto further discloses detecting an inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to a predefined or predefinable spatial direction and/or spatial plane (Fukumoto Background (13) “a two-axis inclination detector for detecting inclinations of the vehicle body in the front to rear and left to right directions thereof,”), wherein the currently detected inclination comprises the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device immediately prior to or during the calculating of the sequence of control commands (Fukumoto Fig. 5), wherein the effecting a repetition comprises effecting a repetition of the detecting, calculating and the leveling in a loop until the detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device reaches or falls below the predefined threshold value (Fukumoto Fig. 5); and wherein, during each repetition of the loop, the sequence of control commands is calculated based on the respective detected inclination, and a actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs is performed (Fukumoto Fig. 5).
Sproatt further discloses a time of actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs that is performed separately in a sequence (Sproatt Background (9) “The method for leveling the vehicle includes sequentially actuating the legs so that they move from their stowed position to their extended position… controller individually actuates the legs at the low end of the vehicle by individually extending each of the legs for a predetermined period of time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Fukumoto to incorporate the teachings of Sproatt such that the system includes a time of actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs that is performed separately in a sequence. Doing so would allow for leveling of a vehicle on uneven terrain (Sproatt Background (2)).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-20090244279 (“Walsh”).
Regarding claim 2, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach wherein, after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. However, Walsh teaches that after after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. (Walsh [0009] "leveling system controlling the jack drive to level the vehicle continuously during surveillance for maintaining the extended mast within a predescribed range").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Walsh such that after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. Doing so would ensure devices on top of the vehicle are carried stably (Walsh [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Walsh teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Fukumoto further discloses that when a detected inclination reaches or exceeds a predefined deviation during the monitoring, performing the effecting of the repetition of the calculating and the leveling in the loop. (Fukumoto Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Walsh teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Fukumoto further discloses that wherein, in the loop, the calculating follows a previous leveling, and the calculating includes a detection of a change in the inclination due to the previous leveling. (Fukumoto Fig. 5 ref 201 & 204).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-5258913 (“Baldauf”).
Regarding claim 8, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the activation of the individual drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. However, Baldauf teaches that the activation of the individual drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. (Baldauf col 2 lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Baldauf such that the activation of the individual drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. Doing so would ensure leveling operations are done without complex hydraulic devices (Baldauf col 1 lines 30-32).
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-10093286-B2 to Lehman et al (“Lehman”).
Regarding claim 19, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach storing the calculated control commands in a memory unit of the controller, the control commands being output by the controller according to the sequence of control commands, and preferentially controlling the supporting legs by selecting or weighting individual or several supporting legs. However, Lehman teaches storing the calculated control commands in a memory unit of the controller, the control commands being output by the controller according to the sequence of control commands (Lehman Background (19) “controller includes a user interface device, memory, a drive interface, and a processing unit. The user interface device is adapted to receive input from a user. The memory stores data and code, the data including an auto-deploy time value. The processing unit is operative to process the code and, responsive to an auto-deploy signal from the user interface, operative to provide control signals via the drive interface to continuously extend the jack for a time period corresponding to the auto-deploy time value”), and preferentially controlling the supporting legs by selecting or weighting individual or several supporting legs (Lehman Description (20) “Stabilization is provided by extending jacks 104 past the point where they first contact the ground in order to lift RV 102 beyond the ride height and take some of the weight of RV 102 off of the vehicle's suspension.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that the method further comprises storing the calculated control commands in a memory unit of the controller, the control commands being output by the controller according to the sequence of control commands, and preferentially controlling the supporting legs by selecting or weighting individual or several supporting legs. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-20140225431-A1 to Bass et. al. (“Bass”).
Regarding claim 21, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach calculating an overlap between successive control pulses. However, Bass teaches calculating an overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that the method further comprises calculating an overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 22 mirror the limitations recited in claim 21, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claim 21 above.
Claim(s) 10-12, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of Lehman and Bass.
Regarding claim 10, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the activating of the individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined overlap between successive control pulses. However, Lehman teaches that the activation of the individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is effected using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined or predefinable overlap between successive control pulses. (Lehman col 4 lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that the activation of the individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is effected using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined or predefinable overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Lehman does not explicitly teach overlap between successive control pulses. However, Bass teaches overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Lehman to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that there is a overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Lehman further discloses that a simultaneous activation of at most two individual drives is effected within the overlap between the successive control pulses. (Lehman col 4 lines 37-49 and "front jacks").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Lehman to Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that a simultaneous activation of at most two individual drives is effected within the overlap between the successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Bass further teaches overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that there is a overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass does not teach that a duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is between 0.01 seconds and 0.5 seconds.
Nevertheless, Bass at least suggests the idea that the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is seconds (Bass [0007] – [0008]). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses in order to ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass does not teach that the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is between 0.01 seconds and 0.1 seconds.
Nevertheless, Bass at least suggests the idea that the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is seconds (Bass [0007] – [0008]). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses in order to ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 23 mirror the limitations recited in claim 21, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claim 21 above.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 07/22/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicants’ remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
As explained in the response filed March 2, 2026, the Fukomoto reference contains no explicit teaching - or even a suggestion - that "a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using the sequence of control commands and control pulses calculated based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle 8 and/or of the lifting device 9," as required by independent claim 1. Instead, the Fukomoto reference teaches or at least strongly suggests that the control valves 15 (solenoid valves) of the jack cylinders 7 are collectively controlled by driving them at least at the same time (not in a sequence), and for the same time period of tl seconds (not using a sequence of control commands and control pulses calculated based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle 8 and/or of the lifting device) (see step 203 of Fig. 5). Similarly, the embodiment of Figs. 12 and 13 of the Fukumoto reference teaches actuation of a single jack cylinder to compensate for inclination, but also does not suggest sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all supporting legs of the support system.
However, this section of the Sproatt reference does not describe a leveling process but instead refers to initial deployment of the support legs, in which the support legs are lowered from the vehicle and brought into contact with the ground. There is no leveling step associated with this deployment of the support legs. In particular, the Sproatt reference clearly teaches that the sequential extension continues only until each leg makes contact with the ground (see column 7, lines 17 to 31). This simple deployment of the support legs is categorically different from the claimed sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system as required by independent claim 1. Moreover, this teaching clearly also does not involve any leveling using a sequence of control commands calculated based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device as also required by claim 1.
However, this section of the Sproatt reference also does not describe a leveling process involving sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs, as required by independent claim 1. In this regard, the Sproatt reference teaches a method in which a low end and a low side of the vehicle are addressed separately, actuating two legs at a time in an alternating scheme rather than sequencing through all of the legs as part of a unified command sequence (see column 8, lines 21 to 30). In contrast, claim 1 requires sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs. Moreover, this teaching of the Sproatt reference also does not suggest or involve any leveling process using a sequence of control commands calculated based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device, as further required by claim 1.
It is further worth emphasizing that the Sproatt reference does not teach or even suggest calculating a sequence of control commands for performing the sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs (particularly such calculating based on a currently detected inclination), and the subsequent execution of that sequence of control commands. Instead, the Sproatt reference teaches that "microprocessor 110 continues to execute adjustment iterations, monitoring the orientation signal from level sensor 90 after each adjustment of each leg to determine the position of the leg relative to the reference level plane" (see column 8, lines 39 - 44). Thus, the actuation process of the Sproatt reference is reactive (a series of adjustments after each of which the position of the leg is determined), rather than proactive (calculating the sequence of control commands, and then performing the sequential and time-limited activation using those control commands).
Office response:
To note, the jack cylinders are being referenced as the supporting legs while the control valves are being references as the individual drives. Fukumoto is not being used to teach “a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives”. Looking at Fig. 5 and paragraphs (10) – (11), it is clear that the control commands and control pulses are being calculated based on the inclination of the carrier vehicle (Fukumoto ((10) “The levelling control routine is executed in accordance with a flow chart of FIG. 5. In a step 201, the controller 10 judges whether an inclination angle .alpha. of the vehicle body 1a in the front to rear directions thereof is less than, e. g, a.smallcircle. and also judges whether an inclination angle .beta. of the vehicle body 1a in the left to fight directions thereof is less than a.smallcircle.. If the controller 10 judges that the inclination angles .alpha. and .beta. are respectively greater than a.smallcircle., it sets an operation time t.sub.1 of each control valve 15, which is provided on each jack cylinder 7, in a step 202, and operates each control valve 15 for a period of t.sub.1 seconds in a step 203.”). It is also clear from looking at Fig. 5 of Fukumoto that if ref 201 isn’t satisfied after the first iteration, ref 202-203 would run again, which is thus a sequence of control commands and control pulses.
The office respectfully disagrees that Sproatt does not describe a leveling process, especially when the cited passage applicant refers to states “method for leveling the vehicle includes…”. Col 2 lines 14-42 clearly show a leveling process (Sproatt Col 2 “The controller individually actuates the legs at the low end of the vehicle by individually extending each of the legs for a predetermined period of time. The main controller then individually actuates the legs at the low side of the vehicle, individually extending each in a similar fashion. The main controller continues alternating between upward adjustments of the low end and the low side until one of the end or the side are moved to a position above the reference level plane as indicated by the level sensor. During the next iteration, the high end or side is lowered instead of raised by individually retracting the legs at the high end or side for a predetermined period of time which is less than the time period used to raise the legs.”). This clearly shows that Sproatt teaches a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs (Note that Fukumoto has already discloses activation of individual drives of all the supporting legs). While the office respectfully disagrees that a sequence of control commands based on the currently detected inclination of the vehicle is not disclosed in Sproatt, since actuating the legs of is based on the orientation signal of the sensor compared to the reference level plane, Fukumoto is what is used to disclose “leveling using a sequence of control commands calculated based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device”.
Please see the updated mapping of Sproatt in the remarks. Sproatt clearly describes sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of the supporting legs (Sproatt Col 2 “The controller individually actuates the legs at the low end of the vehicle by individually extending each of the legs for a predetermined period of time. The main controller then individually actuates the legs at the low side of the vehicle, individually extending each in a similar fashion. The main controller continues alternating between upward adjustments of the low end and the low side until one of the end or the side are moved to a position above the reference level plane as indicated by the level sensor. During the next iteration, the high end or side is lowered instead of raised by individually retracting the legs at the high end or side for a predetermined period of time which is less than the time period used to raise the legs.”). If each leg is individually being extended for a predetermined period of time, that is by definition a sequential and time-limited activation. While the office does not necessarily agree that Sproat does not teach that all of the legs are sequentially and time activated, Fukumoto already discloses activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs (See Fukumoto mapping above and in the remarks). Furthermore, while the office respectfully disagrees that a sequence of control commands based on the currently detected inclination of the vehicle is not disclosed in Sproatt, since actuating the legs of is based on the orientation signal of the sensor compared to the reference level plane, Fukumoto is what is used to disclose “leveling using a sequence of control commands calculated based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device”.
Sproat does teach sequence of control commands for performing the sequential and time-limited activation nof individual drives of the supporting legs (Sproat Col 4 lines 36-43 “The operator provides input to user interface 102 (by actuating a switch such as level switch 66) which results in a signal to microprocessor 110. The signal may be a command to raise or lower one or more of legs 20, 30, 40, 50. Accordingly, microprocessor 110 will generate an appropriate signal to actuate an appropriate relay 130-135, which in turn drives solenoids 70 which control movement of legs 20, 30, 40, 50.” See the mapping of Sproat in the rejection and remarks as well.). Furthermore, while the office respectfully disagrees that a sequence of control commands based on the currently detected inclination of the vehicle is not disclosed in Sproatt, since actuating the legs of is based on the orientation signal of the sensor compared to the reference level plane, Fukumoto is what is used to disclose “leveling using a sequence of control commands calculated based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device”. The office is confused to the reactive vs proactive argument as the actuation process of the claim is also reactive, since the sequence of control commands are being determined based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered, and the rejections remain. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject matter, and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights