FINAL REJECTION
The Final Rejection is responsive to the communication filed June 1, 2026/
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-8, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eaglestone (US 2017/0240397).
Eaglestone discloses;
Claim 1. A utility vehicle (1) comprising: a main frame (8); a movable subframe (14) coupled with the main
frame; a work tool (30) coupled with the movable subframe by a rotational attachment (38), an actuator
(52) coupled with the rotational attachment, wherein the work tool is configured to rotate, by the
rotational attachment actuated by the actuator, relative to the movable subframe about an axis (axis of
46) that is parallel to a central longitudinal axis (not illustrated) of the main frame; a position detection
sensor (Par. 0050) operable to detect data related to an orientation of the work tool relative to a direction of gravity; a non-transitory computer-readable memory (intrinsically disclosed in Par. 0027-0028) storing operation information connected to an electronic processor (disclosed as "controller"), where the electronic processor is configured to: receive a first work tool position data (Par. 0050) from the position detection sensor about a first position of the work tool (Par. 0050), send a work tool rotation signal to the actuator, move, by the actuator, the work tool to a second position (Par. 0050), based on the first work tool position data, wherein the second position comprises a position substantially level with gravity (Par. 0027-0050 and Fig. 1-4).
Claim 5. The utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein the work tool comprises a set of forks (30) (Par. 0044
and Fig. 1).
Claim 6. The utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein electronic processor is further configured to receive a
second position data from the position detection sensor about the second position of the work
tool (Par. 0052).
Claim 7. The utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein the position detection sensor is coupled with the main
frame (Par. 0050) and the work tool further comprises a second position detection sensor (Par. 0050).
Claim 8. An attachment control system (Par. 0027) for a utility vehicle comprising: a first position detection sensor (gyroscope, Par. 0050) for attachment to the utility vehicle; a second position detection sensor (accelerometer, Par. 0032) for attachment to a work tool of the utility vehicle; a non-transitory computer- readable memory (intrinsically disclosed in Par. 0027-0028) storing operation information; and an electronic processor (disclosed as controller) configured to: receive a first work tool position data (Par. 0050) from the position detection sensor about a first position (Par. 0050) of the work tool relative to a direction of gravity, automatically move, by an actuator (52), the work tool to a second position (Par. 0050), based on the first work tool position data (Par. 0027-0050 and Fig. 1-4).
Claim 11. The attachment control system of claim 8, wherein the work tool comprises a set of
forks (30) (Par. 0044 and Fig. 1).
Claim 12. The attachment control system of claim 8, wherein the work tool is rotatable about an axis (axis of 46) generally parallel to a wheelbase of the utility vehicle (Par. 0050 and Fig. 3).
Claim 13. The attachment control system of claim 8, wherein the second position comprises a rotation
about an axis (axis of 46) parallel to a wheelbase of the utility vehicle (Par. 0050 and Fig. 3).
Claim 14. A method of controlling a work tool (30) on a utility vehicle (1), the method comprising:
detecting, by a position detection sensor (gyroscope), a first position of the work tool (Par. 0050),
generating, by a (interpreted as "the") position detection sensor, a first work tool position data (Par.
0050), receiving, by a controller (disclosed as "controller"), the first work tool position data from the
position detection sensor about the first position of the work tool, sending, by the controller, a signal to
an actuator (52) to adjust an orientation of the work tool, and moving, by the actuator connected with a
rotational attachment (38) coupling the utility vehicle with the work tool, the work tool to a second
position (Par. 0050) based on the first work tool position data, wherein the second position comprises a
position substantially level with gravity and wherein the moving comprises rotating the work tool about an axis (axis of 46) that is generally parallel to a wheelbase of the utility vehicle (Par. 0027-0050
and Fig. 1-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaglestone in view
of Strutynsky S 9,708,791).
Eaglestone is silent to;
Claim 2. The utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein the utility vehicle comprises a wheel loader, a skid loader,
a compact track loader, a wheel loader, backhoe loader, or a tractor.
Claim 15. The method of claim 14 further comprising displaying, on a display, a status of the second
position of the work tool.
However, Strutynsky discloses a utility vehicle (618), and further discloses the utility vehicle is a
tractor with a monitor (616) to present real-time data to an operator and facilitate adjustments by the
operator (Col. 16, Ln. 15-20 and Fig. 6).
Therefore, in view of Strutynsky's teaching, 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 Eaglestone's disclosure
to include the cited teachings of Strutynsky with a reasonable expectation of success to include a tractor
to for vehicle operation on soil and rough terrane, and to present real-time data to an operator and
facilitate adjustments by the operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “Office's mapping improperly equates a vehicle attitude sensor with a work tool position detection sensor relative to gravity, which are not the same.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though the prior art uses the term “vehicle attitude sensor” instead of “position detection sensor operable to detect data related to an orientation of the work tool relative to a direction of gravity” (i.e., a sensor that measures the work tool’s tilt or inclination relative to gravity), the prior art says the vehicle attitude sensor: detects lateral and fore-and-aft attitude, may include gyroscopes and accelerometers, sends output to a controller, the controller uses that signal to determine when the truck is not horizontal, and the controller actuates a hydraulic cylinder to rotate the carriage plate and keep the forks horizontal and parallel to the ground. This is functionally a gravity-referenced leveling system. Even though the sensor is described as a vehicle attitude sensor, the system is using the sensor data to determine whether the forks/carriage are horizontal relative to the ground, which is effectively the same kind of orientation relationship the claim recites. For these reasons, the rejection is deemed proper as the prior art teaches the recited limitations.
Applicant further argues that the prior art “Eagleston does not disclose the claimed "rotational attachment" structure. Eaglestone discloses a pin and slot mechanism that causes "the front carriage plate to rotate about the rotational mount with the pin sliding in an arcuate motion within the slot which acts to guide and restrain the pin during movement." (Eaglestone, [0049]). Contrary to Eaglestone, Applicant claims a rotational attachment coupling a movable subframe to a work tool. This is a distinct attachment interface enabling independent rotation of the work tool about the claimed axis.”
The argument is not found persuasive as the applicant has not articulated or claimed a structural difference that would distinguish the coupling of the prior art from the one claimed. Therefore, it is noted that the undefined/unclaimed features upon which applicant relies are not read into the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that the combination of Eagleston and Strutynsky does not teach “displaying, on a display, a status of the second position of the work tool”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Concerning applicant’s suggestion that the prior art’s is not analogous because it is directed to “trenching operations, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, since the prior art and the instant application are from the utility vehicles field, they are considered to be within the same filed of endeavor and therefore analogous.
Concerning applicant’s argument that Strutynsky does not explicitly teach showing the position of a work tool, it should be noted that the reference is being relied upon to show a display that shows an operator real-time parameters of a vehicle (e.g., the position of the work tool). Considering the ubiquitous nature of such displays, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having such information is a desirable feature that could be used, for example, to facilitate adjustments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zimmerman (‘592) discloses another utility vehicle that uses a sensor(s) 44 comprising one or more one or more accelerometers, inclinometers, gyroscopes and/or any other suitable inclination sensor(s) configured to monitor an angle of inclination by measuring its orientation relative to gravity.
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 SAUL J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7097. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
SAUL J. RODRIGUEZ
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights