Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/25/26 has been entered
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-15, and 17-19, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert (WO2021/081655) in view of Bidwell (US Patent No. 3,022,850) in further view of Vasant (US Patent No. 7,243,746) in further view of Trahan et al (US Patent No. 6,354,023)
Regarding claim 1, Hebert teaches a civilian tracked vehicle comprising:
A carrier frame; (26 figure 1B)
A mounting frame; (32 figure 1B)
A tipping trough mounted on the mounting frame and tiltable (36 figure 1B)
A control unit for controlling at least one operating function of tracked vehicle which brings about tilting of the tipping trough, wherein (46 figure 1D page 15 paragraph 3 46 through which operator may command to control lifting unit 38)
Herbert does not explicitly teach however Bidwell teaches A direction control device for manually controlling steering and travel direction functions of the tracked vehicle (26 figure 2)
Bidwell also teaches the direction control device comprising an actuation element (20 figure 2) mounted on the control column so as accessible by a user, the actuation element (20 figure 2) being configured for manipulation by the user to control forward and backward movement
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Bidwell to teach A direction control device for manually controlling steering and travel direction functions of the tracked vehicle. the direction control device comprising an actuation element mounted on the control column so as accessible by a user, the actuation element being configured for manipulation by the user to control forward and backward movement. The motivation would be to control simultaneously steering acceleration with one switch (Bidwell column 1 line 15-25)
Herbert and Bidwell does not explicitly teach however Vasant teaches a directional control device for manually controlling a forward and reverse travel function (figure 10 column 5 line 30-60 joystick provides input signals to drive a desired selected motions… forward reverse)
Vasant also teaches the forward and backward movement controls the forward and reverse travel direction function. (figure 10 column 5 line 30-60 joystick provides input signals to drive a desired selected motions… forward reverse)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert and Bidwell based on the teachings of Vascant to teach a directional control device for manually controlling a forward and reverse travel function the forward and backward movement controls the forward and reverse travel direction function. The motivation would be to drive vehicle and turn on spot and easy to use joystick (Vasant column 2 line 1-10 and column 3 line 1-15)
Regarding claim 2, Herbert teaches wherein the mounting frame is arranged rotatably relative to the carrier frame about a rotation axis extending in a vertical direction of the tracked vehicle (8 figure 1A parge 8 paragraph 1 rotatable about axis 8)
Regarding claim 3, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches wherein the common operating device (10 figure 2) has a base unit (12 figure 2) and the control column (14 figure 2) is constructed in a pivotable moveable manner for pivoting about a first pivot axis (23 and 24 figure 2) relative to the based unit of the common operating device (10 figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach wherein the common operating device has a base unit and the control column is constructed in a pivotable moveable manner for pivoting about a first pivot axis relative to the based unit of the common operating device. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract)
Herbert and Trahan do not explicitly teach however Bidwell teaches Trahan’s common operating device is used in order to control a steering function of the tracked vehicle (26 figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert and Trahan based on the teachings of Bidwell to teach Trahan’s common operating device is used in order to control a steering function of the tracked vehicle. The motivation would be to control simultaneously steering acceleration with one switch (Bidwell column 1 line 15-25)
Regarding claim 4, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches wherein the control column (14 figure 2) is constructed in a pivotable movable manner relative to the base unit (12 figure 2) about a second pivot axis position at and angle relative to the first pivot axis (forward/backward angle figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach wherein the control column is constructed in a pivotable movable manner relative to the base unit about a second pivot axis position at and angle relative to the first pivot axis. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract)
Herbert and Trahan do not explicitly teach however Bidwell teaches Trahan control column is used in order to control an acceleration and/or braking function of the civilian tracked vehicle (26 figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert and Trahan based on the teachings of Bidwell to teach Trahan control column is used in order to control an acceleration and/or braking function of the civilian tracked vehicle. The motivation would be to control simultaneously steering acceleration with one switch (Bidwell column 1 line 15-25)
Regarding claim 6, Herbert teaches the control unit has for each operating function (46 figure 1D)
Herbert does not explicitly teach however Bidwell teaches the actuation element is a first actuation element (20 figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Bidwell to teach the actuation element is a first actuation element. The motivation would be to control simultaneously steering acceleration with one switch (Bidwell column 1 line 15-25)
Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches a second actuation element (button 26 figure 2 column 8 line 50-60) mounted on the control column so as to be accessible by the user, the second actuation element being manipulated by the user in order to control a respective operating function (column 8 line 50-60 tiller 90 or Herbert bed 300 lowered down)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach a second actuation element mounted on the control column so as to be accessible by the user, the second actuation element being manipulated by the user in order to control a respective operating function. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Herbert teaches the control unit (46 figure 1D)
Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches has at least one third actuation element mounted on the control column so as to be accessible by the user, the at least one third actuation element being configured for manipulated by the user to activate or deactivate at least one operating function (button 21 figure 2 and column 8 line 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teaches has at least one third actuation element mounted on the control column so as to be accessible by the user, the at least one third actuation element being configured for manipulated by the user to activate or deactivate at least one operating function. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Herbert teaches further including a drivers seat and the common operating device is arranged on the drivers seat (44 figure 1D)
Regarding claim 10, Herbert teaches a drivers cab arranged on the mounting frame (18 figure 1B).
Regarding claim 11, Herbert teaches wherein the drivers cab is arranged on the mounting frame in a manner offset relative to the tipping trough (18 figure 1A offset cab).
Regarding claim 12, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches wherein the first element comprises a toggle switch or button (20 figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach wherein the first element comprises a toggle switch or button. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches The second actuation element comprises a racker switch or button (26 button figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach The second actuation element comprises a racker switch or button. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches A third actuation element comprising buttons (21 buttons figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach A third actuation element comprising buttons. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches Wherein the at least one third actuation element is configured to block at least one operating function (21 button figure 2 column 8 line 60-65 and column 9 line 1-10 stops movement of front blade [examiner interprets this to be the at least on operating function] when none of four buttons are pressed column 7 line 20-35)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach Wherein the at least one third actuation element is configured to block at least one operating function. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches Wherein the drivers seat includes an armrest (52 figure 1) and the common operating device is arranged on the armrest (14 figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Trahan to teach the drivers seat includes an armrest and the common operating device is arranged on the armrest. The motivation would be to control an array of functions of work vehicle (Trahan abstract).
Regarding claims 18-19, see the rejection to claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Bidwell teaches wherein the actuation element (20 figure 2) is disposed on a portion of the control column directly accessible by a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Bidwell to teach wherein the actuation element is disposed on a portion of the control column directly accessible by a user. The motivation would be to control simultaneously steering acceleration with one switch (Bidwell column 1 line 15-25)
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert (WO2021/081655), Bidwell (US Patent No. 3,022,850) Vasant (US Patent No. 7,243,746) and Trahan et al (US Patent No. 6,354,023) in view of Morris (US PG Pub No. 2009/0055058)
Regarding claim 8, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Morris teaches a fourth actuation element mounted on the control column so as to be accessible by the user, the fourth actuation element being configured to actuate an acoustic function of the tracked vehicle (36 figure 3 paragraph 34 horn control button 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herbert based on the teachings of Morris to teach a fourth actuation element mounted on the control column so as to be accessible by the user, the fourth actuation element being configured to actuate an acoustic function of the tracked vehicle. The motivation would be to alert others outside.
Regarding claim 16, Herbert does not explicitly teach however Trahan teaches wherein the fourth actuation element comprises a button (36 figure 3 paragraph 34 horn control button 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herber based on the teachings of Trahan to teach wherein the fourth actuation element comprises a button. The motivation would be to alert others outside.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights