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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 10/10/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 1, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 4, 12, 14, 17, and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 1, and 19-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/10/2025 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. While the applicant argues that the term “free swing mode” should be limited to the uninhibited rotation of a grapple as cited in [0117] the examiner notes that the claims do not limit the machine to a grapple until dependent claim 6 and the specification does not specifically seem to create a special definition for the term “free swing mode” that would limit it to the argued scope without amending the claim language to reflect such which was suggested by the examiner during the interview held 10/01/2025. Paragraph [0067] of applicant’s specification states “By pressing the free swing joystick button 316, the operator may communicate to the system 300 to stop the automatic or semi-automatic loading mode and move to a manual loading mode. In other words, by pressing the free swing joystick button 316 the operator may toggle between one or more of the manual mode, the semi-automatic mode, and automatic mode [0067]” which makes it appear that the free swing mode can be broadly interpreted as the ability for the operator to partially take over some kind of manual control until a condition is met/the mode is ended. The specification also states “When the grapple 148 is in free swing mode, the grapple 148 may rotate about the grapple pivot axis 152 due to momentary activation of the rotate function without being rotated by the swing machine 146 and without being prevented from rotating by the swing machine 146 [0066]” and “a grapple free swing mode on/off button 338 [0070]” which appears to define a more specific term “grapple free swing mode” which would appear to be narrower than “free swing mode” as claimed. Since the claim language does not recite the “grapple free swing mode” or even limit the end effector to the grapple the examiner maintains the under BRI the applied interpretation is appropriate and the rejection is being maintained. Additionally examiner has cited additional references that they believe would teach the limitation as argued by applicant. Therefore applicants arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained as shown in the updated rejections 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]).
Ono also teaches:
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]) until the working tool reaches the first position and disables the free swing mode 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 [0147]).
Friend does not explicitly teach, however Ono teaches:
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]);
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]).
Ono also teaches:
activating, via the controller, a free swing function 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 [0146]); and
deactivating, via the controller, the free swing function 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 [0147]).
Friend does not explicitly teach, however Ono teaches:
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]);
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]).
Ono also teaches:
activating, via the controller, a free swing function 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 [0146]); and
deactivating, via the controller, the free swing function 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 [0147]).
Friend does not explicitly teach, however Ono teaches:
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]);
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.
Hatton (US 8,979,148) discloses A fly jib for a crane having a load block includes a variable length beam to which a load can be connected. A rotation mechanism is connected to the variable length beam, and is connectable to the load block so that said rotational mechanism can selectively rotate the variable length beam with respect to the load block. A balance mechanism is connected to the variable length beam, the balance mechanism automatically keeps the variable length beam in a horizontal position.
Haataja (US 6,517,131) discloses A unit (10) having a boom (12) and rotary device (14). The rotary device includes a first bracket (22), a second bracket (24) movably mounted to the first bracket and a third bracket (54) connected to the second bracket by a driven shaft (34). A motor (40) is mounted on a motor bracket (38) mounted to the second bracket. A drive gear (46) is mounted on the motor and engages a driven gear (48) mounted on the driven shaft. A friction plate (56) is located on the driven shaft adjacent the third bracket. When a load (102) is connected to the third bracket, the weight of the load pulls the third bracket downward into contact with the friction plate. The frictional contact between the third bracket and the friction plate causes the third bracket and the load to rotate when the drive shaft is rotated.
Torgerson (US 7,234,605) discloses A grappling carriage that is relatively lightweight and adapted to forcefully close first and second grapple legs with a log or a bundle of logs contained therein. The grappling carriage has a self-contained power supply that is remotely controlled by the operator. The grappling carriage is sufficiently lightweight to operate in a variety of cabling topographies given the relatively lighter weight of the unit.
Friis (US 2020/0087122) discloses an assembly for rotating a suspended load around a substantially vertical axis, the assembly comprising an inner rim configured to have a fixed relationship with the suspended load to be rotated, an outer rim engaging the inner rim in a manner so that the inner and outer rims are configured to perform rotational movements relative to each other during rotation of the suspended load, and a drive unit for performing the relative rotational movement between the inner and outer rims. The assembly of the present invention may be secured to a lifting yoke for lifting wind turbine related components, such as entire wind turbine towers, wind turbine tower sections, nacelles, rotor blades or containers.
Markwell (US 2019/0375615) discloses A rotator apparatus (10, 100, 200) for rotationally positioning a suspended load (16). A flywheel (44, 144) can be directly or indirectly driven by a motor (40, 140). Vanes (50, 150) on a fan (45) or on the flywheel can be used to provide additional rotational control through air resistance/braking. A controller (20, 24, 120, 124) can provide wired or wireless control. Thrusters (52) can provide additional rotational impetus or resistance. One or more load cells (54, 232, 234) can provide load sensing. Cameras (28) can be used to visualize the load and can record load moving operations and details of the load for logistics tracking and safety. The attachment part (202) and/or the load support (216) can be connected to the body via a respective pivot (204, 214). The apparatus can include replaceable or rechargeable batteries (206, 210), such as within in a removable container (230), preferably supported by at least one drawer (231), which drawer may be mounted on telescopic drawer slides (212). The replaceable or rechargeable batteries (206, 210) can be provided as a cassette arrangement whereby the batteries plug in and are removable as a unit. At least one hook (157) for suspending a load from the rotator can include a groove or recess (158) to restrict or prevent load rotation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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