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 is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/533,730 filed on 12/08/2023. Claims 2-3 have been withdrawn. Claims 14-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-13 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, subgroup B in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-3 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/7/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A work machine comprising:
a frame;
an operator cab mounted to said frame;
loader arms supported on said frame;
a quick attach coupler for securing an attachment to said loader arms;
an electrical output for connecting to an attachment;
a hydraulic coupler for connecting to an attachment;
a selector element positioned in said operator cab and configured to receive an input representative of a selection of one of a plurality of control modes;
control elements mounted in said operator cab and configured to be manipulated by a user to generate control signals, wherein said control elements include a pair of joysticks; and
a controller configured to receive a signal representative of said selection of one of said control modes and adjust function assignments of said control elements based at least in part on said selection,
wherein each of said function assignments connects one of said control elements to one of a plurality of functions of the work machine."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a selector element positioned in said operator cab and configured to receive an input representative of a selection of one of a plurality of control modes”
“a controller configured to receive a signal representative of said selection of one of said control modes and adjust function assignments of said control elements based at least in part on said selection”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“a quick attach coupler for securing an attachment to said loader arms;”
“an electrical output for connecting to an attachment;”
“a hydraulic coupler for connecting to an attachment;”
“a selector element positioned in said operator cab and configured to receive an input representative of a selection of one of a plurality of control modes;”
“control elements mounted in said operator cab and configured to be manipulated by a user to generate control signals, wherein said control elements include a pair of joysticks;”
“a controller configured to receive a signal representative of said selection of one of said control modes and adjust function assignments of said control elements based at least in part on said selection”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A work machine comprising:
a frame;
an operator cab mounted to said frame;
loader arms supported on said frame;
a quick attach coupler [intended for securing an attachment to said loader arms];
an electrical output [intended for connecting to an attachment];
a hydraulic coupler [intended for connecting to an attachment];
a selector element positioned in said operator cab and [intended to receive an input representative of a selection of one of a plurality of control modes];
control elements mounted in said operator cab and configured to be manipulated by a user [intended to generate control signals], wherein said control elements include a pair of joysticks; and
a processor configured to receive a signal representative of said selection of one of said control modes and adjust function assignments of said control elements based at least in part on said selection,
wherein each of said function assignments connects one of said control elements to one of a plurality of functions of the work machine."
Claims 4-13 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 4 recites: "The work machine of claim 1, further comprising actuators for lifting said loader arms, wherein a function assignment for controlling said actuators for lifting said loader arms is the same in all said control modes."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The work machine of claim 1, further comprising actuators [intended for lifting said loader arms, wherein a function assignment [intended for controlling said actuators [intended for lifting said loader arms is the same in all said control modes]]]."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendron (US 2006/0095186 A1) in view of Vandegrift (DE 10 2021 203343 A1. For purposes of this interview, Examiner will refer to the English language translation of this reference provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Hendron discloses a work machine (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, and related text) comprising:
a frame (e.g. at least frame 12, see e.g. at least ¶ 13, Fig. 1, and related text);
an operator cab mounted to said frame (e.g. at least cab 11, id.);
loader arms supported on said frame (e.g. at least boom 15, dipperstick 14, id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 13);
a quick attach coupler [intended for securing an attachment to said loader arms] (e.g. at least bucket pivot assembly 17, id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 14);
an electrical output [intended for connecting to an attachment] (e.g. at least controller 130, see e.g. at least ¶ 18, Fig. 2, and related text);
a hydraulic coupler [intended for connecting to an attachment] (e.g. at least bucket cylinder 13a, hydraulic work cylinders 15a, 18, 19, see e.g. at least ¶ 14, 16, 26, Fig. 1, and related text);
a selector element positioned in said operator cab and [intended to receive an input representative of a selection of one of a plurality of control modes] (e.g. at least mode toggle switch 110, see e.g. at least ¶ 18, Fig. 2, and related text, selecting a first and/or second operational mode);
control elements mounted in said operator cab and configured to be manipulated by a user [intended to generate control signals], wherein said control elements include a joystick (e.g. at least joystick 120, see e.g. at least ¶ 18, Fig. 2, and related text); and
a processor configured to receive a signal representative of said selection of one of said control modes and adjust function assignments of said control elements based at least in part on said selection (e.g. at least central controller 130, see e.g. at least ¶ 18, Fig. 2, and related text),
wherein each of said function assignments connects one of said control elements to one of a plurality of functions of the work machine (see e.g. at least ¶ 26, Fig. 1-2, and related text).
Additionally, Vandegrift teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Hendron including namely: [that control elements include] a pair of joysticks (e.g. at least joysticks 60, joystick devices 52, 54, MRF joystick devices 272, see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 63, Fig. 2, 7, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Hendron by configuring [that control elements include] a pair of joysticks as taught by Vandegrift in order to simultaneously control the movement and positioning of the work vehicle and boom assembly in a safe, precise, and efficient manner (Vendergrift: ¶ 4, 18).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Hendron teaches that a function assignment [intended for controlling said actuators [intended for lifting said loader arms is the same in all said control modes]]] (Hendron: see e.g. at least ¶ 18-20, 25-26, 30-34, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Hendron teaches that said control modes comprise –
a first mode comprising function assignments connecting said control elements to only electrical-related functions (Hendron: see e.g. at least ¶ 18-19, Fig. 1-2, and related text),
a second mode comprising function assignments connecting said control elements to hydraulic- and electrical-related functions (Hendron: see e.g. at least ¶ 25-26, 31, Fig. 1-2, and related text), and
a third mode comprising function assignments connecting said control elements to hydraulic-related functions, electrical-related functions, and said quick attach coupler (Hendron: id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 31-33).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Hendron teaches that said control elements comprise thumbwheels located on said joysticks (Vandegrift: ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Hendron teaches –
a drive assembly supporting said frame and configured to propel said frame (Hendron: e.g. at least propulsion system 200, see e.g. at least ¶ 31, Fig. 2, and related text; Vandegrift: e.g. at least trolley 276, see e.g. at least ¶ 63, Fig. 7, and related text); and
an engine or motor mounted on said frame and configured to power said drive assembly (Hendron: e.g. at least engine 50, id.; Vandegrift: e.g. at least motor, id.,).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Hendron teaches that said selector element comprises a display located in said operator cab and configured to display a plurality of graphics representative of said control modes (Vandegrift: see e.g. at least ¶ 27-30, 38, 46, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Hendron teaches that said display is configured to simultaneously display a graphic for each of said control modes (Vandegrift: see e.g. at least ¶ 27-30, 38, 46, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Hendron teaches that said display is configured to display a graphical representation of said function assignments associated with a selected control mode (Vandegrift: see e.g. at least ¶ 27-30, 38, 46, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Hendron teaches that said display is configured to display a graphical representation of climate controls and to receive inputs representative of an adjustment to climate settings (Vandegrift: see e.g. at least ¶ 27-30, 38, 46, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Hendron teaches that said display is configured to display a graphical representation of a sensitivity level of said pair of joysticks and to receive inputs representative of an adjustment to said sensitivity level (Vandegrift: see e.g. at least ¶ 46, Fig. 5, and related text).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Hendron teaches that said display is configured to display a graphical representation of a power button and to receive an input representative of an instruction to turn on an engine of the work machine (Vandegrift: see e.g. at least ¶ 27, Fig. 2, and related text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662