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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 06/17/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 1, and 19-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and are not persuasive. Applciant argues that Ono does not disclose the amended limitations. Upon further review of Ono, they do explicitly teach “a hydraulic motor” as shown in the updated rejection below that rotates the grapple. While Ono also uses a brake to assist stopping the rotation, the hydraulic motor is deactivated to allow for the free swing and reactivated when needed to control the orientation along with using the brake to help more quickly and accurately stop the rotation. As presently constructed, the claims do not exclude additional motors/actuators such as the brake as taught by Ono as long as Ono provides the claimed limitations as shown below. If the applicant were to amend the claims to exclude the inclusion of a brake, Gately cited but not relied upon below would teach allowing a free swing mode without claiming a braking system. Therefore the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are rejected as shown below.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
The claims will be renumbered to correct the objection upon allowance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend et. al. (US 10,480,157), herein Friend in view of Ono (US 2019/0202671), herein Ono.
Regarding claim 1:
Friend teaches:
A forestry (a forest [col 3, lines 12-28]) work machine (one or more machines 10 [col 3, lines 12-28]) comprising:
a frame (fig. 2, base 16) supported by at least one ground engaging mechanism (fig. 2, crawler 17);
a boom (fig. 2, boom 25, dipper handle 40) coupled to the frame and configured to move relative to the frame (a boom 25 having a lower or first end 26 operative connected, such as by being fixedly mounted, to the base 16 [col 3, lines 40-48]);
a working tool (fig. 2, dipper 35) coupled to the boom (fig. 2, boom 25 and dipper handle 40) and configured to perform a work function (a digging operation [col 7, lines 26]);
a controller (fig. 2, controller 56) for controlling movement of the boom and working tool (The controller 56 may be a single controller or may include more than one controller disposed to control various functions and/or features of the rope shovel 15 [col 4, lines 55-58]); and
a sensor (One or more implement sensors [col 5, lines 55-56]) communicatively coupled to the controller, the sensor configured to detect a characteristic of the working tool (One or more implement sensors may be provided to monitor the position and status of the dipper 35 [col 5, lines 55-56]);
wherein, when the working tool is in a first position (The positions of dig locations for the dipper 35 [col 7, lines 13-21]), the sensor detects the characteristic of the working tool (The positions of dig locations for the dipper 35 may be set in any desired manner. In one example, the dig locations may be set by an operator manually moving the dipper to a desired location and actuating an input device such as a switch (not shown) within the operator station 20. [col 7, lines 13-21]) and communicates the characteristic to the controller (The signals from the sensors (e.g., swing sensor 62 and crowd sensor 65) indicative of the general position of the desired dig location may be stored by controller 56 [col 7, lines 13-21]);
wherein the controller stores the characteristic as a first set point (The signals from the sensors (e.g., swing sensor 62 and crowd sensor 65) indicative of the general position of the desired dig location may be stored by controller 56 to subsequently identify the desired dig location. [col 7, lines 13-21]);
wherein, when the working tool is displaced from the first position (an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 [col 7, lines 55-57]) and the controller receives a command to return the working tool to the first position (controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 55-57]; A machine may be operated remotely by an operator (i.e., remote control) in either a manual or semi-autonomous manner [col 7, lines 62-64), the controller operatively controls movement of the working tool to the first position based on the first set point (an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 and controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 55-57]);
wherein the controller moves the working tool via a semi-automatic mode (A machine operating semi-autonomously includes an operator, either within the machine or remotely, who performs some tasks or provides some input and other tasks are performed automatically and may be based upon information received from various sensors. [col 7, lines 50-59]), wherein during the semi-automatic mode the controller is configured to enable a free swing mode until the working tool reaches the first position (As an example, an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 [col 7, lines 50-59]) and disables the free swing mode once the working tool reaches the first position (and controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation. In another example, the dipper 35 may be moved automatically from the dig location to the dump location. [col 7, lines 50-59]).
Friend does not explicitly teach, however Ono teaches:
a hydraulic rotary actuator coupling the working tool to the boom (The upper frame 81 rotatably pivotally supports the lower frame 82 by a built-in hydraulic motor (unillustrated) [0051]);
wherein the characteristic of the working tool includes a rotational orientation of the working tool (the work vehicle 100 can quickly stop rotating timber or the like gripped by the claws 82a of the grapple 8 to the desired angle [0060]);
wherein the controller moves the working tool via a semi-automatic mode, wherein during the semi-automatic mode the controller is configured to enable a free swing mode (The grapple K10 is configured to freely rotate the claws K4 in this manner, thus allowing the direction of the timber to be freely changed using an operation technique [0146]) in which the actuator coupling the working tool to the boom is disengaged (can be rotated without power such as a hydraulic motor [0144]), such that the working tool is freely rotatable about a pivot axis without being pushed or stopped by the controller until the working tool reaches the first position (The grapple K10 is configured to freely rotate the claws K4 in this manner, thus allowing the direction of the timber to be freely changed using an operation technique. Further, since the claws K4 can be freely rotated, the direction of the timber can also be changed by human power. [0146]) and disables the free swing mode by re-engaging the actuator once the working tool reaches the first position (The brake K3 is used such that when the timber rotating in a state of being gripped by a freely rotatable grapple K100 reaches a desired position, the brake K3 stops the rotation of the timber at the desired position and maintains the position of the timber. It should be noted that the grapple K100 of the present embodiment is effective not only for the configuration in which the brake K3 is used to rotate the claws K4 without using power such as a hydraulic motor, but also for a configuration in which the brake K3 is used to rotate the claws K4 using power such as a hydraulic motor [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friend to include the teachings as taught by Ono with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of controlling a working machine. Ono teaches the benefit “to provide a safe device allowing even a less skilled operator to easily stop rotation of a grapple by forcibly stopping the rotation thereof by means of an external force and capable of preventing accidents due to rotation. Further, another object of the present invention is to be able to fix such a safe device in a necessary position. Furthermore, still another object of the present invention is to provide a lesser expensive device [Ono, 0012]”.
Regarding claim 2:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
wherein the sensor is configured to detect a second characteristic of the working tool at a second position and communicate the second position to the controller (Dump locations may be set in a similar manner or through the use of sensors associated with the dipper 35 and/or the haul trucks 80 [col 7, lines 36-38]);
wherein the controller stores the second characteristic as a second set point (Dump locations may be set in a similar manner or through the use of sensors associated with the dipper 35 and/or the haul trucks 80 [col 7, lines 36-38]);
wherein, when the working tool is displaced from the second position (the dipper 35 may be moved automatically from the dig location [col 7, lines 58-59]) and the controller receives a command to return the working tool to the second position (The controller 56 may generate at stage 160 command signals to move the dipper 35 along the identified or predetermined path towards the haul truck 80 [col 13, lines 36-38]), the controller operatively controls movement of the working tool to the second position based on the second set point (the dipper 35 may be moved automatically from the dig location to the dump location [col 7, lines 58-59]).
Regarding claim 3:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
wherein the controller operably moves the working tool via an automatic mode (Rope shovel 15 may be configured to be operated autonomously [col7, lines 39-40]), wherein during the automatic mode the controller automatically moves the working tool to the first position without manual intervention (controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 56-57]).
Regarding claim 5:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
wherein the characteristic of the working tool includes one or more of an open or closed status of the working tool (A door sensor 64 may be provided that generates door signals indicative of the status (i.e., open or closed) of the door 37 of the dipper 35 [col 6, lines 2-4]), a distance the working tool is relative to the frame (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative which does not require it to be mapped.), a position of the working tool relative to the frame (A hoist sensor 63 may be provided that generates hoist signals indicative of the height of the dipper 35 relative to the base 16 [col 5, lines 65-66]), and a height of the working tool relative to a ground surface (lowers or raises the height (i.e., the hoist) of the dipper 35 relative to a ground reference [col 3, lines 62-64]).
Regarding claim 7:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises one or more of a position sensor (a pose sensor 61 to sense the position and orientation (i.e., the heading, pitch, roll or tilt, and yaw) of the rope shovel 15 relative to the work site 100 [col 5, lines 26-28]), proximity sensor (the pose sensor 61 may take other forms such as those used with a perception based system, or may use other systems such as lasers, sonar, cameras, ranging radios, or radar to determine all or some aspects of the pose of rope shovel 15. [col 5, lines 44-47]), pressure sensor (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative which does not require it to be mapped.), motion sensor (the pose sensor 61 may take other forms such as those used with a perception based system, or may use other systems such as lasers, sonar, cameras, ranging radios, or radar to determine all or some aspects of the pose of rope shovel 15. [col 5, lines 44-47]), image sensor (the pose sensor 61 may take other forms such as those used with a perception based system, or may use other systems such as lasers, sonar, cameras, ranging radios, or radar to determine all or some aspects of the pose of rope shovel 15. [col 5, lines 44-47]), ultrasonic sensor (the pose sensor 61 may take other forms such as those used with a perception based system, or may use other systems such as lasers, sonar, cameras, ranging radios, or radar to determine all or some aspects of the pose of rope shovel 15. [col 5, lines 44-47]), or GPS sensor (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative which does not require it to be mapped.).
Regarding claim 8:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
further comprising a free swing function button disposed in communication with the controller, wherein when the free swing button is actuated, the controller is configured to transition the working machine into or out of a free swing mode (Rope shovel 15 may be configured to be operated autonomously, semi-autonomously, or manually [col 7, lines 39-40]; examiner notes that the system of Friend inherently must have a means (button) for switching between the manual and autonomous control modes.).
Regarding claim 10:
Friend teaches:
A method for moving material (material may be excavated or removed by a machine 10 such as a rope shovel 15 and loaded into a machine such as a haul truck 80 [col 3, lines 12-28]) via a forestry (a forest [col 3, lines 12-28]) work machine (one or more machines 10 [col 3, lines 12-28]) from a first area to a second area (command signals to move the material engaging work implement within the machine operation zone between a dig location and a dump location [col 2, lines 53-55]), the forestry work machine including a boom (fig. 2, boom 25, dipper handle 40), a working tool (fig. 2, dipper 35), and a controller (fig. 2, controller 56), the method comprising:
moving a working tool connected to the boom via the controller to a first position in the first area (controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 55-57]; A machine may be operated remotely by an operator (i.e., remote control) in either a manual or semi-autonomous manner [col 7, lines 62-64);
storing, via the controller, a first characteristic of the working tool at the first position as a first set point (The positions of dig locations for the dipper 35 may be set in any desired manner. In one example, the dig locations may be set by an operator manually moving the dipper to a desired location and actuating an input device such as a switch (not shown) within the operator station 20. [col 7, lines 13-21]);
collecting the material with the working tool (an operator providing instructions to operate the rope shovel 15 to perform a digging operation [col 7, lines 25-26]);
moving the working tool via the controller to a second position in the second area (the dipper 35 may be moved automatically from the dig location [col 7, lines 58-59]);
storing, via the controller, a second characteristic of the working tool at the second position as a second set point (Dump locations may be set in a similar manner or through the use of sensors associated with the dipper 35 and/or the haul trucks 80 [col 7, lines 36-38]); and
actuating the working tool via the controller to release the material in the second area (an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 [col 7, lines 55-56]);
wherein controllably moving the working tool to the first and second positions is done via an automatic mode or a semi-automatic mode (When operating autonomously or semi-autonomously, the planning system 70 may determine, and the controller 56 may generate, commands to direct the dipper 35 to the desired location or in a desired manner such as by controlling the rotation of the base 16 relative to the crawler 17, the movement of the dipper handle 40 relative to the boom 25, and/or the height of the dipper 35. Such commands may control any of the speed and acceleration (and deceleration) of each type of movement of the rope shovel 15 (i.e., rotation, crowd, and hoist). [col 8, lines 61-67]).
wherein, in the semi-automatic mode (When operating autonomously or semi-autonomously [col 8, lines 61-62]), the method comprises:
activating, via the controller, a free swing function when the working tool is not in the first or second set point (As an example, an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 [col 7, lines 50-59]); and
deactivating, via the controller, the free swing function once the working tool reaches the first or second set point (and controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation. In another example, the dipper 35 may be moved automatically from the dig location to the dump location. [col 7, lines 50-59]).
Friend does not explicitly teach, however Ono teaches:
a hydraulic rotary actuator coupling the working tool to the boom (The upper frame 81 rotatably pivotally supports the lower frame 82 by a built-in hydraulic motor (unillustrated) [0051]);
wherein the characteristic of the working tool includes a rotational orientation of the working tool (the work vehicle 100 can quickly stop rotating timber or the like gripped by the claws 82a of the grapple 8 to the desired angle [0060]);
activating, via the controller, a free swing function (The grapple K10 is configured to freely rotate the claws K4 in this manner, thus allowing the direction of the timber to be freely changed using an operation technique [0146]) when the working tool is not in the first or second set point (The grapple K10 is configured to freely rotate the claws K4 in this manner, thus allowing the direction of the timber to be freely changed using an operation technique. Further, since the claws K4 can be freely rotated, the direction of the timber can also be changed by human power. [0146]) in which the actuator coupling the working tool to the boom is disengaged (can be rotated without power such as a hydraulic motor [0144]), such that the working tool is freely rotatable about a pivot axis without being pushed or stopped by the controller; and
deactivating, via the controller, the free swing function by re-engaging the actuator once the working tool reaches the first or second set point (The brake K3 is used such that when the timber rotating in a state of being gripped by a freely rotatable grapple K100 reaches a desired position, the brake K3 stops the rotation of the timber at the desired position and maintains the position of the timber. It should be noted that the grapple K100 of the present embodiment is effective not only for the configuration in which the brake K3 is used to rotate the claws K4 without using power such as a hydraulic motor, but also for a configuration in which the brake K3 is used to rotate the claws K4 using power such as a hydraulic motor [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friend to include the teachings as taught by Ono with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of controlling a working machine. Ono teaches the benefit “to provide a safe device allowing even a less skilled operator to easily stop rotation of a grapple by forcibly stopping the rotation thereof by means of an external force and capable of preventing accidents due to rotation. Further, another object of the present invention is to be able to fix such a safe device in a necessary position. Furthermore, still another object of the present invention is to provide a lesser expensive device [Ono, 0012]”.
Regarding claim 11:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
controllably moving the working tool via the controller towards the first area and in the first position based on the first set point (an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 and controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 55-57]);
automatically stopping the working tool from moving once the working tool is in the first position based on the first set point (returns the dipper to a dig location at which the rope shovel operator may perform a new digging operation [col 12, lines 25-26]);
controllably lowering the working tool via the controller and collecting the material with the working tool (a rope shovel operator may manually perform a digging operation [col 12, lines 21-22]);
controllably moving the working tool via the controller towards the second area and moving the working tool to the second position based on the second set point (the controller 56 semi-autonomously moves the dipper 35 into alignment with a haul truck 80 [col 12, lines 23-24]);
automatically stopping the movement of the working tool via the controller once the working tool reaches the second position (the controller 56 semi-autonomously moves the dipper 35 into alignment with a haul truck 80 [col 12, lines 23-24]); and
lowering the working tool and releasing the material into the second area (dumps the load from the dipper [col 12, lines 24-25]).
Regarding claim 13:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
wherein, in the automatic mode (Rope shovel 15 may be configured to be operated autonomously [col 7, line 39]), the method comprises:
enabling, via the controller, a rotate function that actively moves the working tool to the first or second set point (When operating autonomously or semi-autonomously, the planning system 70 may determine, and the controller 56 may generate, commands to direct the dipper 35 to the desired location or in a desired manner such as by controlling the rotation of the base 16 relative to the crawler 17, the movement of the dipper handle 40 relative to the boom 25, and/or the height of the dipper 35. Such commands may control any of the speed and acceleration (and deceleration) of each type of movement of the rope shovel 15 (i.e., rotation, crowd, and hoist). [col 8, lines 61-67]), and
disabling, via the controller, the rotate function when the working tool is in the first or second set point (If the dipper 35 is aligned with the dump location, dump command signals may be generated so that the load within the dipper 35 is dumped into haul truck 80 at stage 164 [col 13, lines 47-49]).
Regarding claim 15:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
wherein the storing the first characteristic or the second characteristic of the working tool in the controller comprises storing one or more of an open or closed status of the working tool (A door sensor 64 may be provided that generates door signals indicative of the status (i.e., open or closed) of the door 37 of the dipper 35 [col 6, lines 2-4]), a distance the working tool is relative to the frame (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative which does not require it to be mapped.), a position of the working tool relative to a frame of the forestry work machine (A hoist sensor 63 may be provided that generates hoist signals indicative of the height of the dipper 35 relative to the base 16 [col 5, lines 65-66]), and a height of the working tool relative to a ground surface (lowers or raises the height (i.e., the hoist) of the dipper 35 relative to a ground reference [col 3, lines 62-64]).
Regarding claim 16:
Friend teaches:
A method for moving a material into an area (material may be excavated or removed by a machine 10 such as a rope shovel 15 and loaded into a machine such as a haul truck 80 [col 3, lines 12-28]) via a forestry (a forest [col 3, lines 12-28]) work machine (one or more machines 10 [col 3, lines 12-28]), the forestry work machine including a working tool (fig. 2, dipper 35) and a controller (fig. 2, controller 56), the method comprising:
performing a first operation by controllably moving, via the controller, the working tool to a first location (controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 55-57]; A machine may be operated remotely by an operator (i.e., remote control) in either a manual or semi-autonomous manner [col 7, lines 62-64) and collect a first load of material (an operator providing instructions to operate the rope shovel 15 to perform a digging operation [col 7, lines 25-26]);
storing a first characteristic of the working tool at the first location as a first set point (an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 and controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 55-57]) in the controller (The positions of dig locations for the dipper 35 may be set in any desired manner. In one example, the dig locations may be set by an operator manually moving the dipper to a desired location and actuating an input device such as a switch (not shown) within the operator station 20. [col 7, lines 13-21]);
maintaining the working tool at the first set point until a command is given to move the working tool from the first set point (a rope shovel operator may manually perform a digging operation [col 12, lines 21-22]).
controllably moving, via the controller, the working tool to a second location (the dipper 35 may be moved automatically from the dig location [col 7, lines 58-59]) and recording a second characteristic of the working tool at the second location as a second set point in the controller (Dump locations may be set in a similar manner or through the use of sensors associated with the dipper 35 and/or the haul trucks 80 [col 7, lines 36-38]);
maintaining the working tool at the second set point until a command is received by the controller to move the working tool from the second set point (The controller 56 may determine at decision stage 163 whether the dipper 35 is sufficiently aligned with the dump location. If the dipper 35 is not sufficiently aligned with the dump location, the dipper 35 may continue to be moved towards the desired position and stages 160-163 repeated [col 13, lines 42-46]) and release the material at the second location (an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 [col 7, lines 55-56]);
moving the working tool via the controller from the second location to the first location based on the first set point (controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 56-57]); and
performing a second operation by controlling the working tool to collect a second load of material from the first area (controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 56-57]);
controllably moving the working tool via the controller by activating a free swing mode (As an example, an operator may dump a dipper of rope shovel 15 into haul truck 80 [col 7, lines 50-59]); and
automatically deactivating via the controller the free swing mode once the working tool reaches the first or second set point (and controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation. In another example, the dipper 35 may be moved automatically from the dig location to the dump location. [col 7, lines 50-59]).
Friend does not explicitly teach, however Ono teaches:
a hydraulic rotary actuator coupled to the working tool (The upper frame 81 rotatably pivotally supports the lower frame 82 by a built-in hydraulic motor (unillustrated) [0051])
wherein the first characteristic of the working tool includes a rotational orientation of the working tool (the work vehicle 100 can quickly stop rotating timber or the like gripped by the claws 82a of the grapple 8 to the desired angle [0060]);
wherein the second characteristic of the working tool includes a rotational orientation of the working tool (the work vehicle 100 can quickly stop rotating timber or the like gripped by the claws 82a of the grapple 8 to the desired angle [0060]);
controllably moving the working tool via the controller by activating a free swing mode (The grapple K10 is configured to freely rotate the claws K4 in this manner, thus allowing the direction of the timber to be freely changed using an operation technique [0146]) in which the actuator is disengaged, such that the working tool is freely rotatable about a pivot axis without being pushed or stopped by the controller (can be rotated without power such as a hydraulic motor [0144]); and
automatically deactivating via the controller the free swing mode by re-engaging the actuator once the working tool reaches the first or second set point (The brake K3 is used such that when the timber rotating in a state of being gripped by a freely rotatable grapple K100 reaches a desired position, the brake K3 stops the rotation of the timber at the desired position and maintains the position of the timber. It should be noted that the grapple K100 of the present embodiment is effective not only for the configuration in which the brake K3 is used to rotate the claws K4 without using power such as a hydraulic motor, but also for a configuration in which the brake K3 is used to rotate the claws K4 using power such as a hydraulic motor [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friend to include the teachings as taught by Ono with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of controlling a working machine. Ono teaches the benefit “to provide a safe device allowing even a less skilled operator to easily stop rotation of a grapple by forcibly stopping the rotation thereof by means of an external force and capable of preventing accidents due to rotation. Further, another object of the present invention is to be able to fix such a safe device in a necessary position. Furthermore, still another object of the present invention is to provide a lesser expensive device [Ono, 0012]”.
Regarding claim 19:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 16, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
further comprising rotating, via the controller, the working tool to the first or second set point (controller 56 may automatically return the dipper or bucket to a position to perform another digging operation [col 7, lines 56-57]).
Regarding claim 20:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 16, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend further teaches:
wherein the storing the first characteristic or the second characteristic of the working tool in the controller comprises storing one or more of an open or closed status of the working tool (A door sensor 64 may be provided that generates door signals indicative of the status (i.e., open or closed) of the door 37 of the dipper 35 [col 6, lines 2-4]), a distance the working tool is relative to a frame of the forestry work machine (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative which does not require it to be mapped.), a position of the working tool relative to the frame (A hoist sensor 63 may be provided that generates hoist signals indicative of the height of the dipper 35 relative to the base 16 [col 5, lines 65-66]), and a height of the working tool relative to a ground surface (lowers or raises the height (i.e., the hoist) of the dipper 35 relative to a ground reference [col 3, lines 62-64]).
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend et. al. (US 10,480,157), herein Friend in view of Ono (US 2019/0202671), herein Ono in further view of Gaudreault et. al. (US 6,135,175), herein Gaudreault.
Regarding claim 6:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend in view of Ono does not explicitly teach, however Gaudreault teaches:
wherein the working tool comprises a grapple (The feller head 104 is equipped with a grapple 126 [col 4, lines 45-46]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friend in view of Ono to include the teachings as taught by Gaudreault with a reasonable expectation of success. Gaudreault teaches the benefit of “The tree harvester includes a movable frame, a worktable assembly rotatably mounted to the movable frame and an upper frame rotatably mounted to the worktable assembly. The upper frame is provided with an articulated boom that includes a feller/grapple head. The worktable assembly includes a tree delimbing mechanism, a tree cutting mechanism and a log stacker. The operation of the worktable is advantageously automated so that the operator can use the boom while the worktable is processing a tree. The position of the worktable between the movable frame and the upper frame makes the tree harvester more compact than conventional tree harvester, while the independent rotation of the worktable assembly and of the upper frame with respect to the movable frame increases the flexibility of operation of the tree harvester. [Gaudreault, abstract]”.
Regarding claim 9:
Friend in view of Ono teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Friend in view of Ono does not explicitly teach, however Gaudreault teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to prioritize an instruction received from the free swing function button over an input received from the sensor (The control station also preferably includes manual override features allowing the user to manually operate the various tree processing devices and the turntables 22 and 92 [col 4, lines 59-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friend in view of Ono to include the teachings as taught by Gaudreault with a reasonable expectation of success. Gaudreault teaches the benefit of “The tree harvester includes a movable frame, a worktable assembly rotatably mounted to the movable frame and an upper frame rotatably mounted to the worktable assembly. The upper frame is provided with an articulated boom that includes a feller/grapple head. The worktable assembly includes a tree delimbing mechanism, a tree cutting mechanism and a log stacker. The operation of the worktable is advantageously automated so that the operator can use the boom while the worktable is processing a tree. The position of the worktable between the movable frame and the upper frame makes the tree harvester more compact than conventional tree harvester, while the independent rotation of the worktable assembly and of the upper frame with respect to the movable frame increases the flexibility of operation of the tree harvester. [Gaudreault, abstract]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gately (US 2013/0121769) discloses a free moving joint connecting the descendent extensible boom and the pipe gripping assembly. The free moving joint allows unhindered movement of the pipe gripping assembly. The free moving joint may be a rotational joint. Advantageously, the free moving or rotation joint allows free movement or rotation of the gripping assembly relative to the descendent extensible boom. Thus, the gripping assembly (and therefore the pipe to be laid) may be adjusted so as to be aligned along a theoretical design or gradient line of a trench. Alignment of the gripping assembly may be achieved by any suitable guide means, for example a laser providing a line along which pipes are to be laid. When the male end of a pipe to be laid is secured into the female end of a pipe already in the trench, the gradient and/or position of the pipe to be laid (which is secured in the pipe gripping assembly) can be adjusted using the free moving or rotational joint, which is responsive to movement of the horizontal and vertical booms.
Mitchell (US 4,426,110) discloses Various forms of grapples of the continuous rotation type are provided and are considered most desirable when used as log grapples. However, such continuous rotation log grapples heretofore known utilize rotator (hydraulic motor) devices which have first stationary components thereof supported from corresponding crane booms and second rotatable components thereof from which the corresponding grapple jaw structures are supported with at least a major portion of the weight of the grapple jaw structures and the loads supported therefrom being transmitted to the associated crane boom through the rotator. This type of continuous rotation grapple assembly therefore requires that the rotator be extremely heavily constructed in order to withstand the axial loading thereon and, accordingly, the expense of hydraulic log grapples of the continuously rotatable type heretofore has been unnecessarily high and the need to provide a heavily constructed rotator for supporting the load of the grapple jaw structure and the load supported therefrom effectively reduces the maximum useful load which may be supported from the associated crane boom. Accordingly, a need exists for a continuous rotation log grapple assembly of an improved design whereby the rotator thereof is free of any loading thereof by the attendant grapple assembly and the load being supported by the grapple assembly.
Van Amelsfoort (US 2008/0179482) discloses A swivel for use in a rotator is disclosed. The swivel includes an inner member having a cylindrical portion and an annular outer member arranged around the inner member and rotatably connected thereto via a bearing. At least one of the inner member and the outer member is provided with an annular fluid channel, one of the members having a fastening flange with an upper and a lower flange surface. The flange includes attachment structure configured to fix the flange to a support structure. A first fluid path extends through the flange from a first opening in a circumferential face of the fastening flange, to the fluid channel. A second fluid path at least partially extends through the inner member in a substantially axial direction from the fluid channel to a second opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
