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. 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 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 9,988,787) . As concerns claim 1, 9 and 16, Wang shows a system (600) , comprising: a vehicle (602) comprising a body (606) , a blade (604) , and an attachment member (608) that couples the blade to the body, wherein the attachment member is configured for lift movement (pitch) , wherein the lift movement is defined as a rotation along a horizontal axis with respect to the body (Fig. 6) , wherein the blade is configured for swing movement (yaw) , wherein the swing movement is defined as a rotation along an axis orthogonal to an axis of the lift movement with respect to the attachment member (Fig. 6) ; and a plurality of sensors (616, 618, 628) mounted on the vehicle (Fig. 6) , wherein at least one first sensor (616) of the plurality of sensors is configured to determine attitude measurements of the blade with respect to an inertial reference frame, wherein at least one second sensor (628) of the plurality of sensors is configured to determine attitude measurements of the attachment member with respect to the inertial reference frame, and at least one processor (1302) coupled to or integrated in the at least one first sensor (1310) , wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine at least one parameter (1314) of the blade based on the attitude measurements of the blade and the attitude measurements of the attachment member, wherein the at least one parameter includes a swing angle (yaw angle) of the blade relative to the attachment member (Fig. 11 & 13) . As concerns claim 2 , 10 and 17 , Wang shows wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one third sensor (618) , wherein the at least one third sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to determine attitude measurements of the body with respect to the inertial reference frame, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the at least one parameter based on the attitude measurements of the body, wherein the at least one parameter comprises a relative heading of the blade with respect to the body (Fig. 11 & 13) . As concerns claim 3 , 12 and 19 , Wang shows wherein the attitude measurements of the blade comprise a pitch angle of the blade, wherein the attitude measurements of the attachment member comprise a pitch angle of the attachment member and a roll angle of the attachment member (Fig. 11 & 13) . As concerns claim 4 and 20 , Wang shows wherein each of the plurality of sensors comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU sensors) , accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or a tilt sensor. As concerns claim 5 and 1 8 , Wang shows wherein the at least one first sensor is physically coupled to a portion of the blade (Fig. 6) , wherein the at least one second sensor is physically coupled to a portion of the attachment member (Fig. 6) , wherein the at least one third sensor is physically coupled to a portion of the body (Fig. 6) . As concerns claim 6, Wang shows wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the swing angle (1314) of the blade based on the equation: T= sin( theta 3 ) / (cos( phi 2 ) 2 * sin (phi 2 ) 2 + sin( theta 2 ) 2 ) 1/2 wherein theta 2 represents a pitch angle of the attachment member, phi 2 r epresents a roll angle of the attachment member, and theta 3 represents a pitch angle of the blade (Fig. 11 & 13) . As concerns claim 7 , Wang shows wherein the attitude measurements of the body include a pitch angle, roll angle, and heading of the body with respect to the inertial reference frame (Fig. 11 & 13) . As concerns claim 8 , Wang shows wherein to determine the relative heading of the blade, the at least one processor is configured to: determine attitude measurements of an intermediate frame (frame structure of blade) of the blade with respect to the inertial reference frame, wherein the intermediate frame corresponds to a frame in which the blade has completed the lift movement and the swing movement without any tilt movement; determine a rotation of the intermediate frame with respect to the inertial reference frame; determine the heading of the blade with respect to the inertial reference frame based on the rotation of the intermediate frame and the attitude measurements of the blade; and determine the relative heading of the blade based on a difference between the heading of the body and the heading of the blade (Fig. 11 & 13) . As concerns claim 11 , Wang shows determining attitude measurements of the body with respect to the inertial reference frame, wherein the attitude measurements include a heading of the body; determining the lift movement of the attachment member; determining a rotation of the attachment member relative to the body; determining a rotation of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the swing angle; determining a rotation of the blade relative to the body from the rotation of the blade with respect to the attachment member and the rotation of the attachment member relative to the body; and determining a relative heading of the blade in the frame of the body based on rotation of the blade relative to the body (Fig. 11 & 13) . 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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. alone . As concerns claims 13-15, Wang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein determining rotation of the attachment member relative to the body comprises: determining a first quaternion of rotation corresponding to the lift movement of the attachment member; determining a second quaternion of rotation corresponding to movement of the body with respect to a reference frame local to the vehicle; and determining a third quaternion of rotation of the attachment member from the first quaternion of rotation and the second quaternion of rotation , wherein determining the rotation of the blade relative to the body comprises: determining a fourth quaternion of rotation based on the swing angle of the blade; and determining a fifth quaternion of rotation of the blade from the third quaternion of rotation and the fourth quaternion of rotation , and wherein determining the relative heading of the blade comprises: determining a heading of the blade from the fifth quaternion of rotation of the blade; determining a heading of the body; and determining the relative heading of the blade based on a difference between the heading of the blade and the heading of the body. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to use quaternion s of rotation in mathematical calculations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized quaternion s for various calculations associated with the movement of the body, the blade and the attachment member of the vehicle for the expected benefit of providing a versatile and efficient way of handling rotations in three-dimensional space. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using quaternions of rotation for various calculations associated with the movement of the body, the blade and the attachment member of the vehicle would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wang to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Green (US 10,968,606) shows a method for estimating yaw of a dozer blade coupled to a dozer by a c-frame. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3653 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 6:30-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nicole Coy can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5405 . 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. /MATTHEW R BUCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679