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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/464, 069 filed on 09/08/2023.
• Claims 1-62 are cancelled, and claims 63-89 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 09/16/2025.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2025 and 02/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 66, 68, 80-81 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.
Claim 66 is rejected because the claim limitation reciting “ wherein the base vector comprises a vector from a location of the boom joint to a location of a bottom corner of the blade when a blade boom angle and a machine pitch are both 0 degrees”. It is not clear from the claim what the base vector is referring to. In mathematics and physics, a vector is a term that refers to a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, such as displacements, forces and velocity. It is not clear what quantity the base vector represent for and how to extend from the boom joint to a bottom corner of the blade when the blade boom angle and the machine pitch are 0 degrees? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any vector disclosed by the references.
Claim 68 is rejected because the claim limitation reciting “ wherein the current vector extends from a location of the boom joint at a current timepoint to a location of a lowest point of the blade at a current timepoint.”. It is not clear from the claim what the current vector is referring to. In mathematics and physics, a vector is a term that refers to a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, such as displacements, forces and velocity. It is not clear what quantity the current vector represent for and how to extend from the boom joint to a location of a lowest point of the blade? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any vector disclosed by the references.
Claims 80 and 81 are rejected because the claim limitation reciting “ the boom joint vector based at least in part on a difference between a center point of the EMV and a position of the boom joint.”. It is not clear from the claim what a difference between an EMV center and the position of the boom joint is referring to. Is it referring to the vector difference between an EMV center and the position of the boom joint or some other difference? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any difference disclosed by the references.
Claims 69 and 82 are rejected because their dependence on claim 68 and 80.
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) 63, 80-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALANTAR (US20220195693A1) in view of Wang (US10066367B1).
Regarding Claim 63:
KALANTAR teaches:
A method of operating an earth moving vehicle (EMV) comprising (i) a boom connected to the EMV at a boom joint, (ii) a blade connected to an end of the boom (KALANTAR, Fig.1 and para[25], “Dozing machine 100 includes a body 102 and a blade 104 (or other suitable implement) pivotably coupled to body 102 via a boom arm” )
PNG
media_image1.png
480
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the method comprising performing… operations comprising:(a) determining a trajectory of operation of the EMV; (KALANTAR, para[38], “a trajectory associated with the vehicle is determined”)
(b) dynamically determining a target depth of the blade for one or more points on the trajectory of operation by performing at least: (KALANTAR, para[73], “The control signals comprise instructions for adjusting the height of the implement to achieve the target terrain surface while also compensating for ditches and other disturbances in the terrain”, para[72], “As vehicle 1102 travels over the surface of a terrain, a trajectory 1112 is created representing an estimated profile of the surface of the terrain”) Examiner note: adjusting the height of the implement to achieve the target terrain surface while also compensating for ditches and other disturbances in the terrain is same as “dynamically adjusting the blade to maintain the target depth”.
(i) rotating a base vector using a rotation matrix to dynamically generate a current vector, wherein the current vector relates to a relative position of a plurality of locations on the EMV at a current timepoint; (KALANTAR, para[87], “RBody Nav denotes the rotation matrix from body to navigation frame.”, and para [100], “a real-time rigid-body approach”)
(ii) generating a blade position vector based at least in part on the current vector, (KALANTAR, para[87], “RBlade Nav denotes the rotation matrix from blade to navigation frame”)
and(iii) determining a current depth of the blade based at least in part on the blade position vector; (KALANTAR, para[65-66], “a ditch is detected in the terrain”, and Fig.9 and para[67], “To detect a ditch, a gradient ∇xbz(x) (first derivative) of the estimated profile bz(x) is first computed”)
and(c) dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade based at least in part on the target depth of the blade at the one or more points on the trajectory of operation. (KALANTAR, para[73], “The control signals comprise instructions for adjusting the height of the implement to achieve the target terrain surface while also compensating for ditches and other disturbances in the terrain”, para[72], “As vehicle 1102 travels over the surface of a terrain, a trajectory 1112 is created representing an estimated profile of the surface of the terrain”) Examiner note: adjusting the height of the implement to achieve the target terrain surface while also compensating for ditches and other disturbances in the terrain is same as “dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade based at least in part on the target depth of the blade at the one or more points on the trajectory of operation”.
KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches:
and (iii) an artificial intelligence controller… using the artificial intelligence controller,(, Col.4, lines 1-2, “administrator system may utilize fuzzy logic, machine learning…to assist)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Wang in order to include an artificial intelligence controller. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’s control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Wang’s artificial intelligence controller in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 80:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 63, further comprising dynamically generating the blade position vector by adding the current vector and a boom joint vector. (KALANTAR, para[87], “RBody Nav denotes the rotation matrix from body to navigation frame.”, para[88], “The joint angles are denoted Θ(t)=(θ1, θ2, θ3, θ4, θ5).) Examiner note: KALANTAR teaches the current vector RBody Nav and a boom joint vector Θ(t). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple summation in order to generate the blade position vector.
Regarding Claim 81:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 80. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 80, further comprising dynamically generating the boom joint vector based at least in part on a difference between a center point of the EMV and a position of the boom joint. (KALANTAR, para[88], “The joint angles are denoted Θ(t)=(θ1, θ2, θ3, θ4, θ5).)”, Fig.8 and para [63], “Vehicle… has a center of mass 810”) Examiner note: It is not clear from the claim what a difference between an EMV center and the position of the boom joint is referring to. Is it referring to the vector difference between an EMV center and the position of the boom joint or some other difference? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any vector disclosed by the references.
Regarding Claim 82:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 81. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 81, further comprising dynamically determining the center point of the EMV, or the position of the boom joint, or both. (KALANTAR, Fig.8 and para [63], “Vehicle… has a center of mass 810”)
Regarding Claim 83:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 63, wherein the current depth of the blade comprises a z- coordinate of the blade position vector. (KALANTAR, para [48], “a blade 704 is shown travelling along dozer path 708 on a terrain”, Fig.7 and para [87], “the blades own frame will be denoted by pBlade BLade(x, y, z) ”)
PNG
media_image2.png
835
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 64-67, 84-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALANTAR (US20220195693A1) in view of Wang (US10066367B1) and Puerto (US20210095438A1).
Regarding Claim 64:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Puerto teaches:
The method of claim 63, wherein dynamically determining the target depth of the blade comprises dynamically determining a lowest point of the blade. ( Puerto, Fig.3 depicts the current digging depth of the work machine is a dynamic depth of the lowest point of the work element at 27c along the ground profile of 30.)
PNG
media_image3.png
570
884
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR in view of Wang with these above teachings from Puerto in order to include wherein dynamically determining the target depth of the blade comprises dynamically determining a lowest point of the blade. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’s control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Puerto’ Automatic Depth Control System in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 65:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Puerto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 64, wherein dynamically determining the lowest point of the blade further comprises determining the base vector. (KALANTAR, para[77], “To each joint is attached a unit vector indicating motion along or around it”) Examiner note: It is not clear from the claim what the base vector is referring to. In mathematics and physics, vector is a term that refers to a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, such as displacements, forces and velocity. It is not clear what quantity the base vector represent for and how to extending from the boom joint to a bottom corner of the blade when the blade boom angle and the machine pitch are 0 degrees? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any vector disclosed by the references.
Regarding Claim 66:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Puerto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 65. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 65, wherein the base vector comprises a vector from a location of the boom joint to a location of a bottom corner of the blade when a blade boom angle and a machine pitch are both 0 degrees. (KALANTAR, para[77], “To each joint is attached a unit vector indicating motion along or around it”) Examiner note: It is not clear from the claim what the base vector is referring to. In mathematics and physics, vector is a term that refers to a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, such as displacements, forces and velocity. It is not clear what quantity the base vector represent for and how to extending from the boom joint to a bottom corner of the blade when the blade boom angle and the machine pitch are 0 degrees? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any vector disclosed by the references.
Regarding Claim 67:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Puerto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 66. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 65, further comprising retrieving the base vector from a memory.( KALANTAR, para [1116], “Computer 1502 includes a processor 1504 operatively coupled to a data storage device 1512 and a memory”)
Regarding Claim 84:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Puerto teaches:
The method of claim 63, wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises comparing the current depth of the blade and the target depth of the blade. (Puerto, claim 20, “changing the inclination of the boom as required to match the depth of the digging tool to the predetermined depth”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Puerto in order to include wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises comparing the current depth of the blade and the target depth of the blade. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’ control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Puerto’ Automatic Depth Control System in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 85:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , Puerto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 84. KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Puerto teaches:
The method of claim 84, wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises modifying a blade boom angle where the current depth of the blade is higher or lower than the target depth of the blade. (Puerto, claim 20, “changing the inclination of the boom as required to match the depth of the digging tool to the predetermined depth”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Puerto in order to include wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises modifying a blade boom angle where the current depth of the blade is higher or lower than the target depth of the blade. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’ control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Puerto’ Automatic Depth Control System in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 86:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , Puerto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 85. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 85, wherein the blade boom angle comprises an angle of the boom relative to a line parallel to a bottom plane of the EMV. (KALANTAR, para[29], “a blade pitch angle θ” and Fig.2 depicts the blade angle θ relative to a line parallel to a bottom plane of the EMV.)
PNG
media_image4.png
502
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 87:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , Puerto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 86. KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Puerto teaches:
The method of claim 86, wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises increasing the blade boom angle where the current depth of the blade is lower than the target depth of the blade. (Puerto, claim 20, “changing the inclination of the boom as required to match the depth of the digging tool to the predetermined depth”, para[47], “the system described may be utilized for other digging tools, such as saw blades, microtrenching blades”))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Puerto in order to include increasing the blade boom angle where the current depth of the blade is lower than the target depth of the blade. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’s control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Puerto’ Automatic Depth Control System in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 88:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , Puerto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 84. KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Puerto teaches:
The method of claim 84, wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises decreasing the blade boom angle where the current depth of the blade is higher than the target depth of the blade. (Puerto, claim 20, “changing the inclination of the boom as required to match the depth of the digging tool to the predetermined depth”, para[47], “the system described may be utilized for other digging tools, such as saw blades, microtrenching blades”))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Puerto in order to include decreasing the blade boom angle where the current depth of the blade is higher than the target depth of the blade. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’s control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Puerto’ Automatic Depth Control System in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Claim(s) 68-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALANTAR (US20220195693A1) in view of Wang (US10066367B1), further in view of Ruiz, “Use of Rotation Matrices to Plot a Circle of Equal Altitude.” Journal of maritime research 8 (2011): 51-58.
Regarding Claim 68:
KALANTAR in view of Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 63, …, wherein the current vector extends from a location of the boom joint at a current timepoint to a location of a lowest point of the blade at a current timepoint. (KALANTAR, para[77], “To each joint is attached a unit vector indicating motion along or around it”) Examiner note: It is not clear from the claim what the current vector is referring to. In mathematics and physics, a vector is a term that refers to a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, such as displacements, forces and velocity. It is not clear what quantity the current vector represent for and how to extend from the boom joint to a location of a lowest point of the blade? Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any vector disclosed by the references.
KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz teaches:
wherein dynamically generating the current vector further comprises multiplying the base vector by the rotation matrix to rotate the base vector, (Ruiz, page 53, OPi is a base vector, and Ry and Rx is the rotation matrix.)
PNG
media_image5.png
416
779
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Ruiz in order to include wherein dynamically generating the current vector further comprises multiplying the base vector by the rotation matrix to rotate the base vector. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’s control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Ruiz’s rotation matrices method in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 69:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 68. KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz teaches:
The method of claim 68, further comprising multiplying the base vector by the rotation matrix using matrix multiplication. (Ruiz, page 53, OPi is a base vector, and Ry and Rx is the rotation matrix.)
PNG
media_image5.png
416
779
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Ruiz in order to include multiplying the base vector by the rotation matrix using matrix multiplication. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’s control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Ruiz’s rotation matrices method in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 70:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR teaches:
where θ includes a net pitch angle (KALANTAR, Fig.2 and para[29], “a pitch angle of body …a blade pitch angle θ” and para[31], “the set of sensors for determining body kinematics may comprise an angular rotation sensor”) Examiner note: KALANTAR teaches determining blade boom angle and determined machine pitch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple summation in order to get a net pitch angle includes adding the determined blade boom angle and the determined machine pitch .
KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Ruiz teaches:
The method of claim 63, wherein the rotation matrix comprises:
PNG
media_image6.png
94
160
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Ruiz, page 53, “Where the rotation matrices are …
PNG
media_image7.png
114
238
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Ruiz in order to include wherein the rotation matrix includes the following matrix. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’s control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Ruiz’s rotation matrices method in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
Regarding Claim 71:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz,as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 70. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 70, further comprising dynamically determining the net pitch angle. (KALANTAR, Fig.2 and para[29], “a pitch angle of body …a blade pitch angle θ” and para[31], “the set of sensors for determining body kinematics may comprise an angular rotation sensor”) Examiner note: KALANTAR teaches determining blade boom angle and determined machine pitch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple summation in order to get a net pitch angle includes adding the determined blade boom angle and the determined machine pitch .
Regarding Claim 72:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 71. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 71, wherein the net pitch angle is dynamically determined based at least in part on a blade boom angle and a machine pitch. (KALANTAR, Fig.2 and para[29], “a pitch angle of body …a blade pitch angle θ” and para[31], “the set of sensors for determining body kinematics may comprise an angular rotation sensor”)
Regarding Claim 73:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 72. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 72, wherein the net pitch angle is dynamically determined by addition of the blade boom angle and a value relating to the machine pitch. (KALANTAR, Fig.2 and para[29], “a pitch angle of body …a blade pitch angle θ” and para[31], “the set of sensors for determining body kinematics may comprise an angular rotation sensor”) Examiner note: KALANTAR teaches determining blade boom angle and determined machine pitch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple summation in order to get a net pitch angle includes adding the determined blade boom angle and the determined machine pitch .
Regarding Claim 74:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 72. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 72, further comprising dynamically determining (i) the blade boom angle or (ii) the machine pitch, or both (i) and (ii), from sensor data received from one or more sensors of the EMV. (KALANTAR, Fig.2 and para[29], “a pitch angle of body …a blade pitch angle θ” and para[31], “the set of sensors for determining body kinematics may comprise an angular rotation sensor”)
Regarding Claim 75:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 74. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 74, wherein the one or more sensors comprise inclinometers. (KALANTAR, para[37], “an IMU is mounted on the implement”, and para [98], “using the … IMU as an inclinometer.”)
Regarding Claim 76:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 72. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 72, further comprising dynamically determining the machine pitch based at least in part on an angle between a bottom plane of the EMV relative to a direction of gravity. (KALANTAR, para[29], “a pitch angle of body 206 with respect to a horizontal.”) Examiner note: KALANTAR teaches a pitch angle of body 206 with respect to a horizontal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to convert pitch angle related to the vertical direction as the direction of gravity.
PNG
media_image4.png
502
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 77:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 72. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 72, further comprising dynamically determining the blade boom angle based at least in part on an angle formed by the boom relative to a line parallel to a bottom plane of the EMV. (KALANTAR, para[29], “a blade pitch angle θ” and Fig.2 depicts the blade angle θ relative to a line parallel to a bottom plane of the EMV.)
Regarding Claim 78:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 77. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 77, further comprising dynamically determining a center point of the EMV using the one or more sensors of the EMV. ( KALANTAR, Fig.8 and para [63], “Vehicle… has a center of mass 810”, and para[37], “The GPS sensors mounted on the body form a main-auxiliary pair and run the RTK (real-time kinematic) algorithm”)
Regarding Claim 79:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, Ruiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 78. KALANTAR teaches:
The method of claim 78, further comprising dynamically determining the center point of the EMV based at least in part on one or more of: a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, or real-time GPS positioning data of the EMV, or any combination thereof, received from the one or more sensors of the EMV. ( KALANTAR, Fig.8 and para [63], “Vehicle… has a center of mass 810”, and para[37], “The GPS sensors mounted on the body form a main-auxiliary pair and run the RTK (real-time kinematic) algorithm”) Examiner note: KALANTAR teaches GPS sensor mounted on the vehicle and location of center mass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do a simple calculation to get the latitude, longitude of the EMV . One of ordinary skill in the art could use the google map to find the altitude from the latitude, longitude of the EMV (https://www.howtogeek.com/782462/how-to-find-elevation-on-google-maps/)
Claim(s) 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALANTAR (US20220195693A1) in view of Wang (US10066367B1), further in view of Puerto (US20210095438A1) and Tu (CN106522074A).
Regarding Claim 89:
KALANTAR in view of Wang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 63. KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Puerto teaches:
The method of claim 63, wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises adjusting the current depth (Puerto, claim 20, “changing the inclination of the boom as required to match the depth of the digging tool to the predetermined depth”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR with these above teachings from Puerto in order to include wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises adjusting the current depth. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR’ control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Puerto’ Automatic Depth Control System in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
KALANTAR does not explicitly teach, but Tu teaches:
based at least in part on one or more detected qualities of one or more materials.( Tu, para [15], “Quality inspection: The compacted road surface is inspected for quality”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KALANTAR in view of Puerto with these above teachings from Tu in order to include wherein dynamically adjusting the current depth of the blade further comprises adjusting the current depth based at least in part on one or more detected qualities of one or more materials. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KALANTAR in view of Puerto’ control system for adjusting the height of an implement of a vehicle with Tu’s teaching in order to prevent the instability and oscillation of an implement of a vehicle in the graded terrain.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 . Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-62 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
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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667