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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuet (US 2008/0208416) in view of Taylor (US 2015/0176253).
Regarding claim 1:
Yuet teaches A mobile machine (machine 12, Fig. 1) for operation on a work surface (worksite 10), the mobile machine comprising:
a frame (see at least Fig. 1 ¶0011-0012);
a traction device mounted to the frame, the traction device being configured to move the mobile machine with respect to the work surface (traction device 22);
a surface-engaging implement mounted to the frame, the surface-engaging implement having an implement position movable between an operational position, in which the surface-engaging implement at least partially contacts the work surface, and a stowed position, in which the surface-engaging implement does not contact the work surface (see at least implement 18, Fig. 1, ¶0031. The Examiner notes that the machine of Fig. 1 has implement 18, contacting the ground and is configured to move the implement vertically, not contacting the work surface, which may be considered a “stowed position”.);
at least one actuator connecting the surface-engaging implement to the frame, the at least one actuator being configured to move the surface-engaging implement between the operational position and the stowed position (actuation component to move implement 18, see at least ¶0025);
a second sensor configured to provide a machine orientation of the mobile machine with respect to a horizon (inclination sensor, see at least ¶0006); and
a controller (controller 30) configured to receive the machine orientation, and, if the machine orientation exceeds a machine orientation threshold (see at least ¶0026, Fig. 3 S44), to at least one of:
if the implement position is the operational position, move the surface-engaging implement to the stowed position,
stop the mobile machine (see at least Fig. 3, 46), or
provide an indication to an operator of the mobile machine (see at least Fig. 3, 46).
Yuet further teaches a plurality of sensors for determining information regarding the machine and the surrounding environment (data module 28, 28a, 28b).
Yuet does not explicitly teach a sensing device configured to provide the implement position of the surface-engaging implement.
However, the Examiner notes that sensors for determining position of implements are well-known, conventional components of work machines, including the exemplary dozer-type as taught by Yuet (see at least ¶0002, 0012).
Alternately or in addition, Taylor teaches a system and method of rollover prevention of a work vehicle, including a sensor configured to provide the implement position of the surface-engaging implement (see at least ¶0048, sensors 142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the work vehicle rollover prevention system and method as taught by Yuet with the conventional implement position sensors as taught by Taylor in order to allow for conventional feedback and other control of the implement.
Regarding claim 2:
Yuet further teaches wherein the machine orientation comprises a roll angle of the mobile machine with respect to the horizon, and the machine orientation threshold comprises a roll angle threshold (see at least ¶0020).
Regarding claim 3:
Yuet further teaches wherein the machine orientation comprises a pitch angle of the mobile machine with respect to the horizon, and the machine orientation threshold comprises a pitch angle threshold (see at least ¶0020).
Regarding claim 4:
Yuet teaches the limitations as in claims 2-3 above and that other conventional sensors known in the art may be used (see at least ¶0018).
Yuet is silent as to the particular sensor type used to measure incline.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the rollover prevention system and method as taught by Yuet by utilizing any known inclination sensor type, including the exceedingly well-known IMU sensor as a matter of design choice, in order to accurately measure three dimensional inclination using a widely-available sensor type.
Regarding claim 5:
Yuet further teaches wherein the at least one actuator comprises a first hydraulic actuator configured to lift and lower the surface-engaging implement, and a second hydraulic actuator configured to tilt the surface-engaging implement (hydraulic control, see at least ¶0025. Claim limitations describe conventional dozer operation).
Regarding claim 6:
Yuet further teaches wherein moving the surface-engaging implement to the stowed position comprises at least one of:
lifting the surface-engaging implement, or
tilting the surface-engaging implement (hydraulic control, see at least ¶0025. Claim limitations describe conventional dozer operation).
Regarding claim 7:
Yuet further teaches wherein the indication comprises at least one of:
an audio alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert (see at least ¶0037).
Regarding claim 8:
Yuet further teaches wherein, if the machine orientation falls below the machine orientation threshold, the controller is configured to move the surface-engaging implement from the stowed position to the operational position (the Examiner notes that the instant claim limitations do not positively recite a connection between the machine orientation and moving the implement. In other words, if the orientation falls below a threshold, the machine will allow normal operation, including movement of the implement, therefore the reference meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 9:
Yuet further teaches wherein the machine orientation falls below the machine orientation threshold if a roll angle of the mobile machine with respect to the horizon falls below a roll angle threshold (see at least ¶0018).
Regarding claim 10:
Yuet further teaches wherein the machine orientation falls below the machine orientation threshold if a pitch angle of the mobile machine with respect to the horizon falls below a pitch angle threshold (see at least ¶0018).
Regarding claims 11-20, Yuet and Taylor teaches a method and controller as in claims 1-10 above
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619