DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to submission of amendment on 08/19/2025.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
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 § 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 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, 2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iotti (US 20210300741 A1), in view of Ufheil (US 20010032031 A1).
As to claim 1, Iotti disclose(s) a multifunctional lifting vehicle comprising: [See below] - a fixed or rotating self-propelled frame having front supports and rear supports on wheels and/or stabilizers, [Fig 1 shows a telehandler (multifunctional lifting vehicle) with stabilizers, and wheels [See ¶-16, 20]. The telehandler may be fixed or rotatable [See ¶-18]] - a telescopic arm articulated to the frame and having an attachment device for mounting a piece of equipment, [Telescopic arm 12 is show attached to the carriage 10 [See ¶-16]. A quick coupling device 121 is attached to the arm [See ¶-17]] - a drive system for operating the telescopic arm carrying said piece of equipment, [Hydraulic cylinders [See ¶-17]] - a control system associated with said drive system, comprising a human-machine interface device, [Processing means controls the hydraulic cylinders, and interface [See ¶-21-23, 27]] - wherein said control system comprises an electronic control unit programmed to automatically determine a load diagram of the lifting vehicle according to a type of the piece of equipment connected to said telescopic arm, when the type of the piece of equipment connected to the telescopic arm belongs to a set of predetermined equipment stored in a memory associated with said control system, wherein the electronic control unit is also configured and programmed for: - detecting a new piece of equipment connected to said attachment device, - determining whether the new piece of equipment connected to said attachment device is part of said set of predetermined equipment stored in the memory [The attached accessory is detected automatically by a sensor on the quick coupling device 121 [See ¶-51]. When this is determined, the load diagram is determined based on the accessory [See ¶-48]; by determining the load diagram for an accessory, it is clear that a determination has been made as to whether the accessory is one for which an identifier has been recognized, i.e. is “part of said set of predetermined equipment stored in the memory”] … - displaying on the human-machine interface device a manual selection menu to select and/or input a plurality of operating and identification parameters of said unknown new piece of equipment, [The attached accessory may be manually input by the user [See ¶-51]. When this is determined, the load diagram is determined based on the accessory [See ¶-48]. A plurality of parameters ("operating and identification parameters") may be received from the user [See ¶-55-57]. A skilled artisan would understand that some identifier of the accessory must be input] - determining a new load diagram of the lifting vehicle defined as a function of said plurality of parameters of said new piece of equipment, wherein said new load diagram indicates a maximum load that can be applied to an end of the telescopic arm according to a position of the new piece of equipment, and - viewing said new load diagram. [Based on the user input parameters, the new load diagram is provided on the display [See ¶-66]. The determined load diagram includes maximum load [See ¶-66]] However, Iotti do(es) not disclose "determining that the new piece of equipment connected to said attachment device is an unknown new piece of equipment” and “- upon determining that the new piece of equipment connected to said attachment device is the unknown new piece of equipment, sending a non-recognition signal to the control system, after sending the non-recognition signal…" On the other hand, Ufheil discloses “determining that the new piece of equipment connected to said attachment device is an unknown new piece of equipment” and “- upon determining that the new piece of equipment connected to said attachment device is the unknown new piece of equipment, sending a non-recognition signal to the control system, …” Ufheil discloses a system wherein a work vehicle may not be able to determine an attached tool, and will instead allow a user to input the operating parameters, as shown in Fig 2 [See ¶-49]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iotti's telescopic vehicle system to incorporate the teachings of Ufheil's manual input branching logic. Motivation to do so would be to allow an operator to configure work tool configuration to be accessible each time the tool is attached to the work machine, as taught by Ufheil [See ¶-50].
As to claim 2, Iotti, Ufheil disclose(s) the lifting vehicle according to claim 1, herein the control system is configured to limit operation of the lifting vehicle within limits determined by said new load diagram. [Iotti, Based on the load diagram, the stabilizers and other elements are automatically operated based on the determined limits of the telehandler [See ¶-67-70, 75]]
As to claim 5, Iotti, Ufheil disclose(s) the lifting vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control system comprises a load sensor providing an indication of an intensity of a load applied to the telescopic arm, additional sensors detecting, respectively, an angle of inclination of the telescopic arm and an extension length of a telescopic portion of the telescopic arm, and other sensors ' detecting an extension of the stabilizers and rotation angle of the frame. [Iotti, The weight of the load may be measured by a sensor [See ¶-57]. The system may move the operating arm to a determined angle and length, and location [See ¶-74], accordingly the system must determine the angle and length of the telescopic arm, as well as the rotation angle of the turret (frame) from the sensors [See ¶-31]. Sensors determine the extension of the stabilizing arms [See ¶-23]]
As to claim 7, Iotti, Ufheil disclose(s) the method for determining a load diagram of a lifting vehicle according to claim 1, comprising: - autonomously defining the load diagram of the vehicle according to the type of the piece of equipment connected to the telescopic arm, when the connected piece of equipment belongs to a set of predetermined equipment stored in the memory associated with the control system of the lifting vehicle, [Iotti, The attached accessory is detected automatically by a sensor on the quick coupling device 121 [See ¶-51]. When this is determined, the load diagram is determined based on the accessory [See ¶-48]] - detecting that the unknown new piece of equipment has been connected to said attachment device and sending the non-recognition signal, [Ufheil, a system wherein a work vehicle may not be able to determine an attached tool, and will instead allow a user to input the operating parameters, as shown in Fig 2 [See ¶-49]] - displaying on the human-machine interface device the manual selection menu to select and/or input the plurality of operating and identification parameters of said unknown new piece of equipment for identification of the unknown new piece of equipment not included in the set of predetermined equipment storied in the memory, [Iotti, The attached accessory may be manually input by the user [See ¶-51]. When this is determined, the load diagram is determined based on the accessory [See ¶-48]. A plurality of parameters ("operating and identification parameters") may be received from the user [See ¶-55-57]. A skilled artisan would understand that some identifier of the accessory must be input] - determining the new load diagram of the lifting vehicle defined as the function of said plurality of parameters, wherein said new load diagram indicates the maximum load that can be applied to the end of the lifting arm according to the position of the new piece of equipment, and - viewing said new load diagram. [Iotti, Based on the user input parameters, the new load diagram is provided on the display [See ¶-66]. The determined load diagram includes maximum load [See ¶-66]]
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iotti (US 20210300741 A1), in view of Ufheil (US 20010032031 A1), in view of Froemming et al (US 20220196042 A1 thereafter "Froemming"), in view of Mezaael (US 20220300902 A1).
As to claim 3, Iotti, Ufheil disclose(s) the lifting vehicle according to claim 1, herein said parameters of the unknown new piece of equipment include designation, … maximum capacity, ... of the unknown new piece of equipment connected to the telescopic arm. [Iotti, A plurality of parameters ("operating and identification parameters") may be received from the user [See ¶-55-57]. A skilled artisan would understand that some identifier of the accessory must be input. The max load (maximum capacity) may be calculated [See ¶-45-46]] However, Iotti, Ufheil do(es) not disclose "weight, center of gravity position, … and load center position" On the other hand, Froemming discloses "weight, center of gravity position, … " Froemming discloses wherein a user may provide the mass (weight), and center of gravity of a work vehicle attachment [See ¶-36]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iotti's telescopic vehicle system, Ufheil's manual input branching logic to incorporate the teachings of Froemming's additional parameters. Motivation to do so would be to improve operation of the system and reduce stress on the hydraulic system, as taught by Froemming [See ¶-17]. However, Iotti, Ufheil, Froemming do(es) not disclose "and load center position" On the other hand, Mezaael discloses "and load center position" Mezaael discloses a system wherein a user may provide the pickup location for cargo to be transported [See ¶-20]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iotti's telescopic vehicle system, Ufheil's manual input branching logic, Froemming's additional parameters to incorporate the teachings of Mezaael's pickup location input. Motivation to do so would be to enable autonomous vehicles to meet the demand of cargo delivery, as taught by Mezaael [See ¶-1].
As to claim 4, Iotti, Ufheil, Froemming, Mezaael disclose(s) the lifting vehicle according to claim 3, herein the control system is configured to memorize entered parameters of the unknown new piece of equipment, so as to automatically calculate the new load diagram, if the unknown new piece of equipment is re-connected after use of the lifting vehicle with other equipment. [Ufheil, Once the user inputs the various parameters, the system stores them within the database [See ¶-49]. These settings are then able to be automatically retrieved when the work tool is re-attached to the work machine [See ¶-50]]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iotti (US 20210300741 A1), in view of Ufheil (US 20010032031 A1), in view of Froemming et al (US 20220196042 A1 thereafter "Froemming"), in view of Mezaael (US 20220300902 A1), in view of Westergaard (US 20210317634 A1).
As to claim 6, Iotti, Ufheil, Froemming, Mezaael do(es) not disclose "herein said parameters are entered by means of an electronic device located at a remote position with respect to the lifting vehicle. " On the other hand, Westergaard discloses "herein said parameters are entered by means of an electronic device located at a remote position with respect to the lifting vehicle. " Westergaard discloses a system wherein a telescopic handler may be operated by a remote control device ("electronic device located at a remote position") [See ¶-3-4, 30]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iotti's telescopic vehicle system, Ufheil's manual input branching logic, Froemming's additional parameters, Mezaael's pickup location input to incorporate the teachings of Westgaard's remote control. Motivation to do so would be because it would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The known technique of Westgaard's remote control would have predictably resulted in allowing the user to control the work vehicle from different perspectives and locations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at p.8 of applicant’s remarks that “there is no mention or even a suggestion in lotti of using an unknown piece of equipment, much less passing to the acquisition module functional parameters of said unknown piece of equipment for understanding the parameters of such unknown piece of equipment.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Iotti has not been relied upon for teaching the limitation being argued.
Applicant further argues at p. 8 of applicant’s remarks that “With regard to the Office's characterization of the plurality of parameters being entered by the operator as being connected to the calculation of the new load diagram based on new equipment in connection with paragraphs [0055]-[0057], Applicant respectfully submits this is a mischaracterization of lotti. These paragraphs relate to other operating parameters of the vehicle (i.e., stabilizing area, working area, and the load); and not of the accessory.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. The limitation recites, “displaying on the human-machine interface device a manual selection menu to select and/or input a plurality of operating and identification parameters of said unknown new piece of equipment.” Iotti teaches an interface by which an operator may enter/select an identifier of an accessory (par [0051]) and a “parameter relative to the load C to be moved, which can also be entered by means of an interface by the operator” (par [0057]), which constitute operating and identification parameters of a new piece of equipment. The parameter relating to the load to be moved by the accessory is indeed an operating parameter of the accessory in that it influences the operation of the accessory. This, in combination with the teachings of Ufheil relating to unknown equipment, renders the claimed limitation obvious, as set forth in the rejection above.
Applicant argues at p. 9 of applicant’s remarks that Ufheil “makes no mention or even a suggestion of calculating a new load diagram based on detection of a new piece of equipment. In fact, Ufheil is completely silent as to load diagrams in general.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Ufheil has not been relied upon for teaching the limitation being argued.
Applicant also argues that Ufheil “makes no mention of providing the non-recognition signal, as claimed.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. Ufheil teaches that “If, on the other hand, at step 54, ECM 25 determines that the particular tool identification code inputted through a tool recognition system or other operator selectable means is not stored in any database associated with the particular work machine, ECM 25 will then allow the operator to input all of the various operating parameters associated with that particular work tool into the memory associated with ECM 25, or some other database associated with the particular work machine” (par [0049]; Fig. 2). Therefore, a non-recognition signal is clearly sent to enable the operator to input various parameters.
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 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 Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached on 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153