DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 3/30/2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/14/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 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.
It is noted that the amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Brabec’s change from the inactive mode to the active mode requires reenabling the system (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 12-13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims require, after enabling the two-dimensional grade control system, and without disabling it, changing from the inactive mode to the active mode. Brabec discloses, in column 6, lines 7-14, the operator presses the trigger switch to enable the automatic depth control function, which is engaged only if the cutting edge is within the working depth window of the desired depth. Brabec further discloses, in column 6, lines 22-26, when the bucket is positioned outside the working depth window, the operator will need to dig deeper in order to engage the automatic depth control. Although Brabec discloses releasing the trigger switch when the operator is ready to manually dump a load, Brabec’s change from the inactive to the active mode does not require releasing the trigger switch. It is further noted that Brabec discloses performing multiple digging operations after the operator enables the system by entering one or more target depths. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Brabec does not disclose any period in which an automatic control system has remained enabled and has not entered a disabled state while transitioning between active and inactive modes (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, in order to perform automatic depth control, Brabec requires the activation of the trigger switch and the cutting edge of the bucket to be within the working depth window, and releasing the trigger switch is only required when the operator is ready manually dump a load. Therefore, Brabec discloses the system must remain enabled in order to perform the automatic depth control. It is further noted that Brabec discloses performing multiple digging operations after the operator enables the system by entering one or more target depths. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the recitations of a disabled state and not requiring a reenabling of the system preclude interpreting enabling the system as powering it on (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 56 of the Applicant’s Specification discloses the grade control system is turned on when the operator enables it. Paragraph 57 discloses disabling the grade control system by powering it off. The claims explicitly recite enabling the two-dimensional grade control system, however, disabling and/or reenabling are not required to be performed. It is further noted that this interpretation was not relied upon in the previous or current rejection.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 1/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, lines 14-22, “automatically controls … determine … places … and change” should read “automatically controls … determines … places … and changes”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 12-13, lines 1-3, “the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to…” should read “the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further causes the at least one processor to…” or “the memory device includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to…”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, lines 2-3, the limitation “the operator need not again engage a user interface … to re-enable” renders the claim indefinite because there is no initial recitation of the operator engaging a user interface in the claims, therefore, it is unclear when the re-enabling is performed. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 1 is directed to enabling the two-dimensional grade control system by an operator using a user interface.
Regarding claim 11, lines 23-24, the limitation “while the enabled … system has remained enabled and has not entered a disabled state” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the disabled state is related to the disabled state that defines the period in lines 22-23. It is further unclear if the period in which the enabled system has remained enabled and has not entered a [first?] disabled state is different from a time while the enabled system has remained enabled and subsequently entered a [second?] disabled state. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed, similar to claim 1, that claim 11 is directed to a single period in which the enabled two-dimensional grade control system has remained enabled and has not entered a disabled state.
Claims 3 and 12-19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brabec et al. (US 5,933,346), hereinafter Brabec.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, as best understood, Brabec discloses an apparatus comprising: a bladed work machine having a blade, the blade configured to engage a ground material (Brabec; fig. 1: excavator 10 and cutting edge 34); and a control system having a two-dimensional grade control system (Brabec; fig. 2: machine control system 36), the two dimensional grade control system comprising a memory device coupled with at least one processor (Brabec; fig. 2: system controller 44), the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to receive a signal from a user interface of the bladed work machine that enables the two- dimensional grade control system (Brabec; col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 3: The operator selects the depth-control mode of operation and enters data defining a desired depth by entering the appropriate commands on the control panel 46. Once the desired depth value has been entered, the excavator is ready to excavate to create a graded surface having that depth.), determine at least a portion of the blade of the bladed work machine is positioned inside an activation window, place the enabled two-dimensional control system in an active mode in response to the portion of the blade being determined to be positioned inside the activation window (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 11-13: automatic depth control is engaged only if the cutting edge 34 of the bucket 26 is within the working depth window 33 of the desired depth 35), wherein, in the active mode, the enabled two-dimensional grade control system automatically controls an orientation of the blade (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 16-21: FIG. 3A shows the bucket with its cutting edge 34 positioned at the desired grade 35 within the working depth window 33, which permits the automatic depth control function to engage and to control the movement of the bucket so that the cutting edge follows the desired grade during an excavation pass.), determine the blade of the bladed work machine is positioned outside the activation window, places the enabled two-dimensional control system in an inactive mode in response to the blade being determined to be positioned outside the activation window, wherein, in the inactive mode, the enabled two-dimensional grade control system remains enabled but does not automatically control the orientation of the blade (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 22-24: FIG. 3B shows the bucket positioned outside the working depth window 33. The automatic depth control function will not engage because the bucket is too high.), and change, during a period in which the enabled two-dimensional grade control system has remained enabled and has not entered a disabled state, while the enabled two-dimensional grade control system has remained enabled and not subsequently entered a disabled state, (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 24-26: The operator will need to dig deeper until the working depth window is reached in order to engage the automatic depth control.) the enabled two-dimensional grade control system from the inactive mode to the active mode in response to determining the portion of the blade that had previously been outside the activation window is positioned in the activation window, wherein the change of the enabled two-dimensional grade control system from the inactive mode to the active mode does not require a re-enabling of the two-dimensional grade control system (Brabec; col. 6, l. 65 to col. 7, l. 3: If the bucket 26 is sufficiently close to the desired depth 35 when the trigger switch is activated (within the working depth window 33), then the system controller 44 automatically constrains the movement of the bucket so that the cutting edge 34 of the bucket 26 grades to the desired depth).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Brabec discloses upon enabling of the two-dimensional grade control system, the operator need not again engage a user interface of the bladed work machine to re-enable the two-dimensional grade control system during a series of grading operations (Brabec; col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 13: The operator selects the depth-control mode of operation and enters data defining a desired depth by entering the appropriate commands on the control panel 46. Once the desired depth value has been entered, the excavator is ready to excavate to create a graded surface having that depth. The operator manually positions the bucket 26 and adjusts the bucket angle by controlling the bucket cylinder 28, stick cylinder 24, and/or boom cylinder 18 through the hydraulic valve controller 50 using the joysticks 49 … automatic depth control is engaged only if the cutting edge 34 of the bucket 26 is within the working depth window 33 of the desired depth 35; col. 6, ll. 22-26: FIG. 3B shows the bucket positioned outside the working depth window 33. The automatic depth control function will not engage because the bucket is too high. The operator will need to dig deeper until the working depth window is reached in order to engage the automatic depth control.).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Brabec discloses the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor further cause the at least one processor to allow the two-dimensional grade controller control system to remain enabled between periods in which the two-dimensional grade control system is, and is not, in the active mode (Brabec; col. 7, ll. 24-39: The operator inputs data through the control panel 46 to define the multiple depths. During the initial digging of the trench to the desired depth 60, the automatic depth control is engaged when the cutting edge of the bucket is within the working depth window at the bottom of the trench at depth 60. Then the bedding material 62 is dumped into the trench and leveled by the excavator using the automatic depth control set at the bedding depth 64. All the operator needs to do to engage the automatic depth control at depth 64 is to position the cutting edge of the bucket within 6 inches of that depth, and to then activate the trigger switch 48. After the pipe 66 is laid and the cover material 68 dumped on top, the excavator spreads and levels the cover material by automatic depth control to the depth 70. Finally, the layer of backfill material 72 is spread and automatically graded to the proper depth 74.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, as best understood, Brabec discloses the enabled two-dimensional grade control system automatically controlling the orientation of the blade (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 40-41: In the first type of automatic depth control, both the depth and bucket angle are automatically controlled) in response to the change of the enabled two- dimensional grade control system from the inactive mode to the active mode (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 17-21: cutting edge 34 positioned at the desired grade 35 within the working depth window 33, which permits the automatic depth control function to engage and to control the movement of the bucket so that the cutting edge follows the desired grade during an excavation pass).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, as best understood, Brabec discloses the changing of the two-dimensional grade control system from the inactive mode to the active mode comprises detecting a height of the blade relative to at least one of the activation window and a ground surface (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 17-21: cutting edge 34 positioned at the desired grade 35 within the working depth window 33, which permits the automatic depth control function to engage and to control the movement of the bucket so that the cutting edge follows the desired grade during an excavation pass).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, as best understood, Brabec discloses the determining at least the portion of the blade is positioned inside the activation window comprises determining an implement angle of the bladed work machine extends into the activation window (Brabec; col. 7; ll. 61-64: bucket angle is automatically controlled in slope-control mode if the bottom surface of the bucket is within a working angular window of the desired slope).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, as best understood, Brabec discloses the determining the blade is positioned outside the activation window comprises determining the implement angle does not extend into the activation window (Brabec; col. 8, ll. 3-7: If the bucket 26 is positioned outside the working angular window 84, so that the slope of its bottom surface 32 is more than a 10% slope different from the desired slope, then the automatic bucket angle control feature will not engage.).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, as best understood, Brabec discloses the implement angle is a slope of the blade (Brabec; col. 7; ll. 61-64: bucket angle is automatically controlled in slope-control mode if the bottom surface [i.e., the blade, because cutting edge 34 is the edge of the bottom surface of the bucket] of the bucket is within a working angular window of the desired slope).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, as best understood, Brabec discloses the implement angle is a slope of a C-frame of the bladed work machine (Brabec; col. 7; ll. 61-64: bucket angle is automatically controlled in slope-control mode if the bottom surface of the bucket is within a working angular window of the desired slope; fig. 6B: slope 86 is the angle of the implement and the implement is a bucket comprising a C-shaped frame).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, as best understood, Brabec discloses determining at least the portion of the blade is positioned inside the activation window comprises determining the blade satisfies a predetermined height above a predetermined location (Brabec; col. 6, ll. 17-21: cutting edge 34 positioned at the desired grade [with respect to the predetermined location of the ground] 35 within the working depth window 33, which permits the automatic depth control function to engage and to control the movement of the bucket so that the cutting edge follows the desired grade during an excavation pass).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights