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 .
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.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites, “wherein adjusting the blade position further includes” however this limitation is not positively claimed in claim 12 from which claim 13 depends. Claim 12 discloses that “the sequence of operations including at least one of:”. This makes the “adjusting the blade position” limitation optional as long as one of the other operations are present. Claim 13 attempts to further claim this step without it being positively claimed making claim 13 indefinite. The claim will be examined as best understood, however appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (2014/0326471) in view of Kobayashi et al. (12,084,838).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 16, Zhu discloses system, method and controller for operating a motor grader from a first location to a second location comprising:
A motor grader (10) having:
A frame including a front frame (12) and a rear frame (14), the front frame and rear frames being articulated relative to one another
a plurality of the front wheels (58, 60) supporting the front frame (12) and a plurality of rear wheels (22) supporting the rear frame, one or more of the plurality of front wheels with a plurality of rear wheels being driven
a grading blade (30) extending from the frame toward the surface underlying motor grader
a user interface (118; pgph 0037) portion configured to obtain user input
a plurality of blade articulation structures (36,38,40) adapted to articulate the blade relative to the frame
a plurality of sensors (98, 102, 106)
an articulation mechanism (64,66)
steering mechanism (pgph 0026)
at least one power source linked to one or more of the wheels to provide propulsion input (pgph 0021)
a control system including at least one controller (94) configured to perform a procedure to move the motor grader from one position to another wherein the controller is configured to:
obtain a desired direction of motion of the motor grader from the first location to the second location (pgph 0008-0009)
determine a blade position via one or more of the sensors (pgph 0010)
perform an automatic sequence of operations based on the desired direction of motion and the blade position to reposition the one or more plurality of front wheels or plurality of rear wheels to the second location (pgph 0010) wherein the sequence of operations (pgph 0051-0056; 0030) includes at least one of:
adjusting the current relative articulation angle of the front and rear frames
adjusting the steering angle of the plurality of front wheels
adjusting the blade position
providing propulsion of one or more of the plurality of front wheels or rear wheels
While Zhu discloses the invention as described above it fails to specifically disclose that the sequence of operations is performed in response to a loss of traction event and done so to increase the traction of the motor grader from the first position to the second position. Like Zhu, Kobayashi et al also discloses a motor grader with a sensing unit that determines the articulation angle and wheel steering angle of the motor grader and performs automated actions based on the sensor information (column 10 line 34 through column 12 line 13). Unlike Zhu, Kobayashi et al. discloses that the automated processes can be in response to wheel slippage. In response to reduction in traction Kobayashi et al discloses that the slippage of the front wheels can be independently adjusted in response to sensed wheel slippage to suppress the loss of traction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the control system of Zhu to adjust for slippage situations when moving from the first position to the second position as taught by Kobayashi as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) such that the desired position and travel direction of the blade of Zhu is maintained even when slippage conditions exist.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the combination discloses that a desired position of the motor grader and blade is identified and the system is controlled to maintain it. Zhu discloses maintaining a desired cross slope across a working area and utilizes a sensor system to monitor and maintain the desired cross slope. The combination discloses monitoring the slip in addition to the position elements to account for slip/skid to thereby maintain the desired positions.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 17, the combination discloses that he plurality of sensors include one or more of a blade side shift sensor, a blade pitch sensor, a left leg sensor, a right blade sensor, a circle rotation center, a drawbar center shift sensor, a link bar pin position sensor, an articulation sensor, and the steering angle sensor, a drawbar IMU, a yoke IMU, a body IMU, and a blade IMU (pgph 0036) and that the determining the position of the blade includes receiving at least one signal from at least one of the named sensors (pgph 0043, 0049-0056).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses that the sensors can be associated with solenoids for receiving signals from the controller (pgph 0040 – Zhu).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses that the control system is configured to receive the at least one signal from the user interface including the desired direction of motion of the grader (Zhu - pgph 0037).
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses that the control system is configured with a plurality of machine configuration parameters (Zhu - pgph 0041-0043).
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses that repositioning of the wheels occurs during the sequence of operations (by adjusting the steering angle, articulation angle and/or blade position).
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses utilizing a user interface (pgph 0037) to select a mode of operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Newberry (7,766,104) also discloses sensors/control based on slippage conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671