DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on February 27th 2026. Claims 1-10,13-14,16-17,19-20, 61 and 62 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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10, 14, 16, 17 and 20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. ( US 2021/0148085) and Zemenchik (US 2020/0107490)
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 and 18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0148085) and Zemenchik (US 2020/0107490).
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) 1-10, 13, 14, 16-17,19-20 and 61-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendrick (US 2009/0082929 in view of Kim et al. (US 20210148085) in view of Stanhope et al. (US 2020/0000005) in further view of Zemenchik (US 2020/0107490.)
Regarding claim 1, Kendrick teaches a computer-implemented method of operating a ripper attached to a machine, comprising:
(a) setting, by a computer, a depth of the ripper to an initial depth (Para. [0017]… position measurement sensor 29 may be configured to generate a position measurement indicative of a cutting depth of ground engaging work tool 18);
(b) monitoring, by the computer, a ground speed and an acceleration rate of the machine (Para. [0018]…controller 30 may include means for monitoring, recording, storing, indexing, processing, determining, and/or communicating the location and speed of machine 12); and
(c) calculating, by the at least one computer, a target depth of the ripper, wherein the target depth is dependent at least in part on the acceleration rate of the machine (Para. [0022]…controller 30 may increase the cutting depth of ground engaging work tool 18 and, subsequently decrease speed of machine 12. Controller 30 may decrease the cutting depth of
ground engaging work tool 18 and, subsequently increase speed of machine 12, when the rate of change of productivity is less than zero);
Kendrick fails to teach calculating, by the at least one computer, a target depth of the ripper, based at least in part on a machine learning algorithm.
However, Kim teaches calculating, by the at least one computer, a target depth of the ripper, based at least in part on a machine learning algorithm, (Para. [0072]…the trajectory generator 220 may generate the initial excavation trajectory by performing a pre-learned prediction algorithm (machine learning algorithm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system for a mobile excavation machine as taught by Kendrick with the system for controlling construction machinery as taught by Kim to improve the fuel economy, durability and work efficiency of the construction machinery (Para. [0004]).
Further, Kendrick fails to teach wherein the target depth is dependent at least in part on the roll of the machine, the pitch of the machine, or both.
However, Stanhope teaches wherein the target depth is dependent at least in part on the acceleration rate of the machine and the roll of the machine, the pitch of the machine, or both. (Stanhope, Para. [0020]…based on the relative positioning of the first and second ground engaging tools on the implement's frame, the penetration depth differential may, in tum, be indicative of pitching of the frame in a longitudinal direction and/or rolling of the frame in a lateral direction. For example, if the penetration depth of the first ground engaging tool is greater than the penetration depth of the first ground engaging tool, the controller may determine that the implement frame has pitched and/or rolled relative to a desired orientation or levelness of the frame relative to the ground.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system for a mobile excavation machine as taught by Kendrick in view of Kim with the method of monitoring the frame levelness of an agricultural implement as taught by Stanhope to create a level and uniform layer of tilled soil across the field to form a proper seedbed for subsequent planting operations (Stanhope, Para. [0002]).
Further, Kendrick fails to teach (d) automatically adjusting, by the at least one computer, the depth of the ripper to the target depth, to maintain a target ground speed of the machine.
However, Zemenchik teaches (d) automatically adjusting, by the at least one computer, the depth of the ripper to the target depth, to maintain a target ground speed of the machine (Para. [0042]…The agricultural implement controller 48 may then output a signal indicative of instructions to control the actuator(s) coupled to the ground engaging
tool(s) based on the target penetration depth, the target downforce, the target ground speed, or a combination thereof..)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system for a mobile excavation machine as taught by Kendrick in view of Kim and Stanhope with the method for controlling an agricultural tillage implement as taught by Zemenchik to increase crop yield from harvesting operations (Para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, wherein the automatically adjusting the depth of the ripper comprises raising the ripper to a first target depth if the acceleration rate has a negative value (Kendrick, Para. [0022]…controller 30 may increase the cutting depth of ground engaging work tool 18 and, subsequently decrease speed of machine 12).
Regarding claim 3, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 2, wherein the automatically adjusting the depth of the ripper comprises lowering the ripper to a second target depth if the acceleration rate has a positive value (Kendrick, Para. [0022]….controller 30 may decrease the cutting depth of ground engaging work tool 18 and, subsequently increase speed of machine 12).
Regarding claim 4, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 3, wherein the first target depth is less than the initial depth, and wherein the second target depth is greater than the initial depth (Kendrick, Para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target depth for the ripper is calculated based at least in part on a coefficient and the acceleration rate (Kendrick, Para. [0026]…ground engaging work tool 18 depth, an increase or decrease in depth may result in less productivity. Further, the maximum productivity depth of ground engaging work tool 18 may be unique to machine 12, the configuration and condition of ground engaging work tool 18, and current worksite 10 conditions.)
Regarding claim 6, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 5, wherein the target depth increases when the acceleration rate has a positive value (Kendrick, Para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 6, wherein the target depth decreases when the acceleration rate has a negative value (Kendrick, Para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target depth of the ripper is calculated based at least in part on a product of the acceleration rate and a coefficient (Kendrick, Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 8 wherein the target depth has a proportional relationship to the acceleration rate (Kendrick, Para. [0026-0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of a claim 9, further comprising, prior to setting the depth of the ripper to the initial depth, determining the coefficient based at least in part on material of the ground (Kendrick, Para. [0020]…the point of maximum productivity may indicate a cutting depth at which machine 12 may remove the maximum amount of material given the current mechanical and terrain characteristics.)
Regarding claim 13, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning algorithm is tuned based at least in part on a hyperparameter (Kim, Para. [0072]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system for a mobile excavation machine as taught by Kendrick with the system for controlling construction machinery as taught by Kim to improve the fuel economy, durability and work efficiency of the construction machinery (Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a density level of the ground in a vicinity of the machine (Kendrick, Para. [0020]…the point of maximum productivity may indicate a cutting depth at which machine 12 may remove the maximum amount of material given the current mechanical and terrain characteristics.)
Regarding claim 16, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, wherein the machine includes an excavator, a grader, a loader, crawler, or a bulldozer (Kendrick, Fig. 1, machine 12).
Regarding claim 17, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, wherein the ripper is attached to a rear end of the machine (Kendrick, Fig 1. ground engaging work tool, 18) .
Regarding claim 19, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, further comprising raising the ripper when the ground speed is slower than a target ground speed (Kendrick, Para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 19, further comprising lowering the ripper when the ground speed is faster than the target ground speed (Kendrick, Para. [0022]).
Regarding claims 61 and 62, please refer to the rejection of claim 1 which is commensurate in scope.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendrick (US 2009/0082929) in view of Clar et al. (US 2014/0227957).
Regarding claim 18, Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik teach the method of claim 1, Clar teaches further comprising lowering the ripper on a slope when the ripper is going downhill (Para. [0048]…the load on the blade 11 may also be affected by the slope of the terrain upon which the machine 10 is moving. Accordingly, if desired, the accuracy of the implement load measurement may be increased by utilizing the implement load sensor system 42 in conjunction with a slope or inclination sensor such as pitch angle sensor 48. For example, if the machine 10 is moving uphill, the load on the blade 11 may be higher due to gravity as compared to a machine operating in the same conditions on flat terrain. Similarly, the load on the blade 11 may be lower for the same conditions when operating the machine in a downhill orientation. By determining the slope of the terrain, the controller 36 may more accurately determine changes in the load on the blade 11.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system for a mobile excavation machine as taught by Kendrick in view of Kim, Stanhope and Zemenchik with a system for determining a ripping path as taught by Clar to utilize a ripper mechanism to break-up or dislodge the hard material to reduce wear on the machine and enabling the machine to move the material in an efficient manner (Clar, Para. [0003]).
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 JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights