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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Claims 3, 8, and 10 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; as such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Claims 6-7 and 10-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for being indefinite. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; as such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pgs. 7-11 regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and the rejection of claim(s) 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wink and Brooks cannot be combined as proposed because “there is no component in Brooks system that operates in response to electronic input”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not appear to recite an “electronic input” or any component that operates in response to electronic input. Therefore, the arguments are not directed to the claim as written. Furthermore, the prior art rejection does not rely on Brooks for teaching the structure of the invention; rather, Brooks is merely used for teaching the function of controlling the dump truck bed based on vehicle speed, and, thus, modifying the dump truck controller taught by Wink with the control function taught by Brooks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink of US 20220410856 A1, filed 08/30/2022, hereinafter “Wink”, in view of Brooks of US 5452942 A, filed 08/02/1993, hereinafter “Brooks”.
Regarding claim 1, Wink teaches:
A method, performed by a hydraulic subsystem controller of a dump truck, of controlling a bed of the dump truck, comprising: (See at least [0012]: “…A tip-over prevention method for a load carrying vehicle. The method includes providing a load carrying vehicle having a chassis, a braking system, and a cargo body…” & [0066]: “As is depicted in FIG. 1, the TAD 20 is operationally connected to a hydraulic bypass valve 50. To raise the dump trailer 40, the hydraulic bypass valve 50 is moved to the closed position, which is depicted in FIG. 4…”)
obtaining, from a sensor, a lean angle of the dump truck; (See at least [0109]: “The tilt controller 1012 receives or reads the current lateral tilt and the current vertical tilt from the tilt detector 1008. A lateral tilt threshold and a vertical tilt threshold can be pre-programmed into the tilt controller 1012 or can be read by the tilt controller 1012 (e.g., if the thresholds are output by the tilt detector 1008 itself).”)
obtaining, from a sensor, a position of the dump truck bed; (See at least [0084]: “…The bed position sensor 614 is depicted as a contact sensor which detects contact between the dump bed 608 and the chassis 620 which can be utilized to detect and/or determine if the dump bed 608 is lowered onto the chassis 620 or is raised therefrom…”)
comparing the sensed lean angle of the dump truck to a predetermined lean angle; (See at least [0121]: “…The dump bed tilt controller 1010 constantly reads the current lateral tilt detected by the tilt detector 932 and compares the current lateral tilt with the preset dump bed 906 lateral tilt threshold…” & [0070]: “…therefore, the TAD 20 and/or controller can be set to signal the hydraulic bypass valve 50 to open when the TAD 20 detects a lateral tilt between 1 and 3 degrees. In one non-limiting form, the TAD 20 or controller can be programmed to signal the bypass valve 50 to open when the TAD 20 detects approximately 2 degrees of lateral tilt…”)
obtaining, from a sensor, a speed of the dump truck; (See at least [0131]: “The controller 1216 can read the vehicle speed from the vehicle speed detection module 1222…”)
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined lean angle, controlling the hydraulic subsystem to automatically lower the dump truck bed; and (See at least [0121]: “…In response to the dump bed tilt controller 1010 determining that the current lateral tilt exceeds the preset dump bed 906 lateral tilt threshold, the dump bed tilt controller 1010 signals an actuator 1020 of a bypass valve to open, which allows fluid to escape from the piston 910 and automatically lowers the dump bed 906 downwardly onto the chassis 928…” & [0070]: “…If a lateral tilt of the set value (e.g., 2 degrees or greater) is sensed and/or determined by the TAD 20, the “lower bed when tilt condition detected protocol” is initiated and the bed is lowered.”)
Wink does not explicitly teach:
comparing the sensed speed of the dump truck to a predetermined speed; and
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed speed of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined speed, controlling the hydraulic subsystem to automatically lower the dump truck bed.
Brooks teaches:
comparing the sensed speed of the dump truck to a predetermined speed; and (See at least col. 3, lines 65-66: “In normal operation, when the speed of dump truck 20, as measured by speedometer 14, reaches or exceeds a predetermined speed…”)
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed speed of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined speed, controlling the hydraulic subsystem to automatically lower the dump truck bed. (See at least cols. 3-4, lines 65-68 & 1-10: “In normal operation, when the speed of dump truck 20, as measured by speedometer 14, reaches or exceeds a predetermined speed, mechanical valve 13 opens air lines (a), allowing air from air tank 12 through air lines (a) into air cylinders 2 and 3 located within control device 1. For example, the predetermined speed may be 15 to 20 miles per hour. Air cylinders 2 and 3 then operate lever and wheel assemblies 4 and 5 such that manual control means 6 and 7 of hydraulic pump 10 and PTO 11 respectively, are forced to disengage. Once the manual control means 6 and 7 are disengaged, PTO 11 stops transmitting power to hydraulic pump 10 and hydraulic pump 10 loses pressure such that hoist 21 lowers dump bed 24.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Wink’s method with Brooks’s technique of comparing the vehicle speed to a predetermined speed and automatically lowering the dump truck bed when the bed is raised and the vehicle speed equals or exceeds the predetermined speed. Doing so would be obvious to “increase safety while at the same time permit low speed operations” and “ensure that the dump truck could not obtain high speed or high gear with the bed raised while maintaining the versatility needed for job site operations” (See cols. 1-2, lines 63-67 & 1-2 of Brooks).
Regarding claim 2, Wink and Brooks in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
further comprising, in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined lean angle, emitting a warning. (See at least [0072]: “The TAD 20 can be operationally connected to a user warning device 60 located in the tractor 25 cab. The warning device 60 receives a signal from the TAD 20 during the existence of a tilt condition to warn the driver…The warning buzzer 60 can be initiated anytime a tilt condition is detected by TAD 20, even if the bed is in a fully lowered position…”)
NOTE: Claim 2 recites the following contingent limitation: “…emitting a warning”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if its conditions are met. The limitation only needs to be performed if the dump truck bed is partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equals or exceeds the predetermined lean angle. Therefore, the BRI of claim 2 does not require the discussed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Wink and Brooks in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
further comprising: sensing user input; and changing the predetermined lean angle in response to the user input. (See at least [0083]: “…In one form, the tilt threshold can be programmed into the tip-over prevention controller 630 in a manner such that the value cannot be altered by a driver or operator. The specific tilt threshold value can be chosen depending upon the specific user and/or the specific application. For example, a trucking company which has many novice drivers may want a lower tilt threshold than a trucking company with expert drivers who frequently dump gravel on uneven terrain…”. See also [0027] regarding the predetermined tilt threshold being a lateral tilt threshold.)
Regarding claim 8, Wink teaches:
A controller configured to control a hydraulic subsystem of a dump truck, comprising: a memory; and processing circuitry operatively connected to the memory, and configured to (See at least [0080-0081]: “…The tip-over prevention controller 630 can form a portion of a processing subsystem including one or more computing devices having memory, processing, and communication hardware…The tip-over prevention controller 630 can be placed in electronic communication with the fluid release valve 612 and can activate and deactivate the fluid release valve 612…” & [0012]: “…A tip-over prevention method for a load carrying vehicle. The method includes providing a load carrying vehicle having a chassis, a braking system, and a cargo body…)
obtain, from a sensor, a lean angle of the dump truck; (See at least [0109]: “The tilt controller 1012 receives or reads the current lateral tilt and the current vertical tilt from the tilt detector 1008. A lateral tilt threshold and a vertical tilt threshold can be pre-programmed into the tilt controller 1012 or can be read by the tilt controller 1012 (e.g., if the thresholds are output by the tilt detector 1008 itself).”)
obtain, from a sensor, a position of the dump truck bed; (See at least [0084]: “…The bed position sensor 614 is depicted as a contact sensor which detects contact between the dump bed 608 and the chassis 620 which can be utilized to detect and/or determine if the dump bed 608 is lowered onto the chassis 620 or is raised therefrom…”)
compare the sensed lean angle of the dump truck to a predetermined lean angle; (See at least [0121]: “…The dump bed tilt controller 1010 constantly reads the current lateral tilt detected by the tilt detector 932 and compares the current lateral tilt with the preset dump bed 906 lateral tilt threshold…” & [0070]: “…therefore, the TAD 20 and/or controller can be set to signal the hydraulic bypass valve 50 to open when the TAD 20 detects a lateral tilt between 1 and 3 degrees. In one non-limiting form, the TAD 20 or controller can be programmed to signal the bypass valve 50 to open when the TAD 20 detects approximately 2 degrees of lateral tilt…”)
obtain, from a sensor, a speed of the dump truck; (See at least [0131]: “The controller 1216 can read the vehicle speed from the vehicle speed detection module 1222…”)
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined lean angle, control the hydraulic subsystem to automatically lower the dump truck bed; and (See at least [0121]: “…In response to the dump bed tilt controller 1010 determining that the current lateral tilt exceeds the preset dump bed 906 lateral tilt threshold, the dump bed tilt controller 1010 signals an actuator 1020 of a bypass valve to open, which allows fluid to escape from the piston 910 and automatically lowers the dump bed 906 downwardly onto the chassis 928…” & [0070]: “…If a lateral tilt of the set value (e.g., 2 degrees or greater) is sensed and/or determined by the TAD 20, the “lower bed when tilt condition detected protocol” is initiated and the bed is lowered.”)
Wink does not explicitly teach:
compare the sensed speed of the dump truck to a predetermined speed; and
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed speed of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined speed, control the hydraulic subsystem to automatically lower the dump truck bed.
Brooks teaches:
compare the sensed speed of the dump truck to a predetermined speed; and (See at least col. 3, lines 65-66: “In normal operation, when the speed of dump truck 20, as measured by speedometer 14, reaches or exceeds a predetermined speed…”)
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed speed of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined speed, control the hydraulic subsystem to automatically lower the dump truck bed. (See at least cols. 3-4, lines 65-68 & 1-10: “In normal operation, when the speed of dump truck 20, as measured by speedometer 14, reaches or exceeds a predetermined speed, mechanical valve 13 opens air lines (a), allowing air from air tank 12 through air lines (a) into air cylinders 2 and 3 located within control device 1. For example, the predetermined speed may be 15 to 20 miles per hour. Air cylinders 2 and 3 then operate lever and wheel assemblies 4 and 5 such that manual control means 6 and 7 of hydraulic pump 10 and PTO 11 respectively, are forced to disengage. Once the manual control means 6 and 7 are disengaged, PTO 11 stops transmitting power to hydraulic pump 10 and hydraulic pump 10 loses pressure such that hoist 21 lowers dump bed 24.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Wink’s controller with Brooks’s technique of comparing the vehicle speed to a predetermined speed and automatically lowering the dump truck bed when the bed is raised and the vehicle speed equals or exceeds the predetermined speed. Doing so would be obvious to “increase safety while at the same time permit low speed operations” and “ensure that the dump truck could not obtain high speed or high gear with the bed raised while maintaining the versatility needed for job site operations” (See cols. 1-2, lines 63-67 & 1-2 of Brooks).
Regarding claim 9, Wink and Brooks in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined lean angle, emit a warning. (See at least [0072]: “The TAD 20 can be operationally connected to a user warning device 60 located in the tractor 25 cab. The warning device 60 receives a signal from the TAD 20 during the existence of a tilt condition to warn the driver…The warning buzzer 60 can be initiated anytime a tilt condition is detected by TAD 20, even if the bed is in a fully lowered position…”)
Claim(s) 3-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink in view of Brooks and further in view of Snead of US 3921128 A, filed 05/28/1974, hereinafter “Snead”.
Regarding claim 3, Wink and Brooks in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
further comprising: sensing actuation of a manual override switch; and (See at least [0094]: “An override button 714 is depicted as being electrically connected to the braking system 710 (e.g., either directly, or indirectly via one or more controllers). When the braking system 710 has been engaged, a driver can depress the override button 714 and, while continually depressing the override button 714, may reverse the vehicle out of the unsafe tilt condition…”)
Wink and Brooks in combination do not explicitly teach:
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined lean angle and the manual override switch being actuated, refraining from automatically lowering the dump truck bed.
Snead teaches:
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined lean angle and the manual override switch being actuated, refraining from automatically lowering the dump truck bed. (See at least col. 4, lines 36-39: The master switch 47 may be a manual switch provided, for example, to deactivate the system when desired or to otherwise prevent operation of the system when it is not desired…” & col. 5, lines 15-24: “…the circuits will be energized in response to a roll of only 5.degree. for the maximum elevational position of the dump bed instead of 8.degree., as described above. In this raised condition of the bed, when the solenoid 28 is energized the valve 27 is opened to open the bypass circuit 27a between the hoist cylinder 13 and oil reservoir 20 permitting the oil to flow from the cylinder and lower the dump bed to alleviate the danger conditions; and this of course occcurs simultaneously with the sounding of the warning horn 33. This lowering of the dump bed will occur even though the hydraulic pump is operating.”)
NOTE: Snead teaches that the master switch can deactivate the operation of the system, which includes the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed when the truck roll angle is 5 degrees, as discussed above. Therefore, if the master switch is actuated, the system would not perform the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed even if the dump truck bed is raised and the lean angle exceeds the predetermined lean angle.
NOTE: Claim 3 recites the following contingent limitation: “…refraining from automatically lowering the dump truck bed”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if its conditions are met. The limitation only needs to be performed if the dump truck bed is partially raised, if the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equals or exceeds the predetermined lean angle, and if the manual override switch is actuated. Therefore, the BRI of claim 3 does not require the discussed limitation.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Wink and Brooks’s method with Snead’s technique of refraining from automatically lowering the dump truck bed when the dump truck is raised, the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equals or exceeds a predetermined lean angle, and the manual override switch is actuated. Doing so would be obvious “to deactivate the system when desired or to otherwise prevent operation of the system when it is not desired” (See col. 4, lines 37-39 of Snead).
Regarding claim 4, Wink, Brooks, and Snead in combination teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
wherein sensing actuation of a manual override switch is ongoing, and wherein the manual override switch must remain actuated to disengage the braking system. (See at least col. 12, lines 17-30: “An override button 714 is depicted as being electrically connected to the braking system 710 (e.g. either directly, or indirectly via one or more controllers). When the braking system 710 has been engaged, a driver can depress the override button 714 and, while continually depressing the override button 714, may reverse the vehicle out of the unsafe tilt condition. However, should the vehicle be placed in drive or a forward gear selected, the system 710 will again engage the braking system 710. When the vehicle is to a safe location, e.g. when the tilt detectors 704, 706, and 708 signal a current tilt is less than a preset tilt limit, the alarm will stop sounding, the driver may remove their hand from the override button 714, and can proceed to drive the vehicle as normal.”)
Although Wink and Brooks in combination do not explicitly teach an override button for preventing the automatic lowering of a dump truck bed, only that the override button keeps the braking system of the vehicle disengaged if it is continually depressed (See col. 12, lines 17-30 of Wink), Snead teaches a master switch that deactivates a system for automatically lowering a dump truck bed, as discussed above for claim 3 (See col. 4, lines 36-45 of Snead). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wink in view of Brooks to any function of the vehicle, such as the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed as taught by Snead, “to deactivate the system when desired or to otherwise prevent operation of the system when it is not desired” (See col. 4, lines 37-39 of Snead).
Regarding claim 5, Wink, Brooks, and Snead in combination teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Snead additionally teaches:
further comprising: sensing that the manual override switch is not actuated; and (See at least [0094]: “…the driver may remove their hand from the override button 714 and can proceed to drive the vehicle as normal”)
Wink additionally teaches:
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined lean angle, automatically lowering the dump truck bed. (See at least col. 1, lines 36-48: “The danger of roll over is even greater of course when the truck bed is raised to the dump position…The danger point for a vehicle with an elevated dump bed will occur at a lesser angle of tilt of course than it would for the situation where the bed is in the lowered position…when the danger situation is approaching with the raised bed, but also to automatically lower the bed to alleviate the dangerous condition” & col. 5, lines 15-24: “…the circuits will be energized in response to a roll of only 5.degree. for the maximum elevational position of the dump bed instead of 8.degree., as described above. In this raised condition of the bed, when the solenoid 28 is energized the valve 27 is opened to open the bypass circuit 27a between the hoist cylinder 13 and oil reservoir 20 permitting the oil to flow from the cylinder and lower the dump bed to alleviate the danger conditions…”)
NOTE: Claim 5 recites the following contingent limitation: “…automatically lowering the dump truck bed”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if its conditions are met. The limitation only needs to be performed if the dump truck bed is partially raised and the sensed lean angle of the dump truck equals or exceeds the predetermined lean angle. Therefore, the BRI of claim 5 does not require the discussed limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Wink and Brooks in combination all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: sense actuation of a manual override switch; and (See at least [0094]: “An override button 714 is depicted as being electrically connected to the braking system 710 (e.g., either directly, or indirectly via one or more controllers). When the braking system 710 has been engaged, a driver can depress the override button 714 and, while continually depressing the override button 714, may reverse the vehicle out of the unsafe tilt condition…”)
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised (See at least [0121]: “…In response to the dump bed tilt controller 1010 determining that the current lateral tilt exceeds the preset dump bed 906 lateral tilt threshold, the dump bed tilt controller 1010 signals an actuator 1020 of a bypass valve to open, which allows fluid to escape from the piston 910 and automatically lowers the dump bed 906 downwardly onto the chassis 928…” & [0070]: “…If a lateral tilt of the set value (e.g., 2 degrees or greater) is sensed and/or determined by the TAD 20, the “lower bed when tilt condition detected protocol” is initiated and the bed is lowered.”)
Brooks additionally teaches:
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed speed of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined speed (See at least cols. 3-4, lines 65-68 & 1-10: “In normal operation, when the speed of dump truck 20, as measured by speedometer 14, reaches or exceeds a predetermined speed, mechanical valve 13 opens air lines (a), allowing air from air tank 12 through air lines (a) into air cylinders 2 and 3 located within control device 1. For example, the predetermined speed may be 15 to 20 miles per hour. Air cylinders 2 and 3 then operate lever and wheel assemblies 4 and 5 such that manual control means 6 and 7 of hydraulic pump 10 and PTO 11 respectively, are forced to disengage. Once the manual control means 6 and 7 are disengaged, PTO 11 stops transmitting power to hydraulic pump 10 and hydraulic pump 10 loses pressure such that hoist 21 lowers dump bed 24.”)
However, Wink and Brooks in combination do not explicitly teach preventing the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed when the manual override switch is actuated.
Snead teaches:
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised…and the manual override switch being actuated, control the hydraulic subsystem to refrain from automatically lowering the dump truck bed. (See at least col. 4, lines 36-39: The master switch 47 may be a manual switch provided, for example, to deactivate the system when desired or to otherwise prevent operation of the system when it is not desired…” & col. 5, lines 15-24: “…the circuits will be energized in response to a roll of only 5.degree. for the maximum elevational position of the dump bed instead of 8.degree., as described above. In this raised condition of the bed, when the solenoid 28 is energized the valve 27 is opened to open the bypass circuit 27a between the hoist cylinder 13 and oil reservoir 20 permitting the oil to flow from the cylinder and lower the dump bed to alleviate the danger conditions; and this of course occcurs simultaneously with the sounding of the warning horn 33. This lowering of the dump bed will occur even though the hydraulic pump is operating.”)
NOTE: Snead teaches that the master switch can deactivate the operation of the system, which includes the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed when the truck roll angle is 5 degrees, as discussed above. Therefore, if the master switch is actuated to deactivate the system, the system would not perform the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed even if the dump truck bed is raised and the lean angle exceeds the predetermined lean angle.
Therefore, the combination of Wink, Brooks, and Snead would render obvious preventing the automatic lowering of a dump truck bed in response to any state of the vehicle, such as the vehicle speed exceeding a limit as taught by Brooks, when an override switch is actuated. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Wink and Brooks’s controller with Snead’s technique of deactivating the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed “to deactivate the system when desired or to otherwise prevent operation of the system when it is not desired” (See co. 4, lines 36-39 of Snead).
Regarding claim 11, Wink, Brooks, and Snead in combination teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to continuously sense actuation of the manual override switch, and wherein the manual override switch must remain actuated to disengage the braking system. (See at least col. 12, lines 17-30: “An override button 714 is depicted as being electrically connected to the braking system 710 (e.g. either directly, or indirectly via one or more controllers). When the braking system 710 has been engaged, a driver can depress the override button 714 and, while continually depressing the override button 714, may reverse the vehicle out of the unsafe tilt condition. However, should the vehicle be placed in drive or a forward gear selected, the system 710 will again engage the braking system 710. When the vehicle is to a safe location, e.g. when the tilt detectors 704, 706, and 708 signal a current tilt is less than a preset tilt limit, the alarm will stop sounding, the driver may remove their hand from the override button 714, and can proceed to drive the vehicle as normal.”)
Although Wink does not explicitly teach an override button for preventing the automatic lowering of a dump truck bed, only that the override button keeps the braking system of the vehicle disengaged if it is continually depressed (See col. 12, lines 17-30 of Wink), Snead teaches a master switch that deactivates a system for automatically lowering a dump truck bed, as discussed above for claim 10 (See col. 4, lines 36-45 of Snead). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wink in view of Brooks to any function of the vehicle, such as the automatic lowering of the dump truck bed as taught by Snead, “to deactivate the system when desired or to otherwise prevent operation of the system when it is not desired” (See col. 4, lines 37-39 of Snead).
Regarding claim 12, Wink, Brooks, and Snead in combination teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: sense that the manual override switch is not actuated; and (See at least [0094]: “…the driver may remove their hand from the override button 714 and can proceed to drive the vehicle as normal”)
Brooks additionally teaches:
in response to the dump truck bed being at least partially raised and the sensed speed of the dump truck equaling or exceeding the predetermined speed, control the hydraulic subsystem to automatically lower the dump truck bed. (See at least cols. 3-4, lines 65-68 & 1-10: “In normal operation, when the speed of dump truck 20, as measured by speedometer 14, reaches or exceeds a predetermined speed, mechanical valve 13 opens air lines (a), allowing air from air tank 12 through air lines (a) into air cylinders 2 and 3 located within control device 1. For example, the predetermined speed may be 15 to 20 miles per hour. Air cylinders 2 and 3 then operate lever and wheel assemblies 4 and 5 such that manual control means 6 and 7 of hydraulic pump 10 and PTO 11 respectively, are forced to disengage. Once the manual control means 6 and 7 are disengaged, PTO 11 stops transmitting power to hydraulic pump 10 and hydraulic pump 10 loses pressure such that hoist 21 lowers dump bed 24.”)
Claim(s) 7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink in view of Brooks and further in view of Srinivasan of US 20180198846 A1, filed 01/10/2017, hereinafter “Srinivasan”.
Regarding claim 7, Wink and Brooks in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Wink and Brooks in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising, in response to user input to change the predetermined lean angle: receiving a password;
verifying the password; and
wherein changing the predetermined lean angle in response to the user input comprises changing the predetermined lean angle only if the password is verified.
Srinivasan teaches:
further comprising, in response to user input to change the global maximum speed parameter: receiving a password; (See at least [0044]: “…In some embodiments, the write package includes a count of the parameters to be changed and a list of the parameters to be changed. For example, the authorized user updated the global maximum vehicle speed parameter…the write package includes an authentication password for accessing the ECU 110…”)
verifying the password; and (See at least [0052]: “…The write package buffering circuit 405 compares the authentication password in the write package with the password stored in the memory 402. If the two passwords do not match, the write package buffering circuit 405 discards the write package…”)
wherein changing the global maximum speed parameter in response to the user input comprises changing the global maximum speed parameter only if the password is verified. (See at least [0054-0055]: “The parameter commitment circuit 407 is structured to commit the parameters to be changed to the first memory 403 in response to determining that the key switch 140 is turned off…When the engine is turned on (e.g., the key switch 140 is turned on), the ECU 400 controls the operation of the engine according to the updated parameters stored in the first memory 403…”. See also [0052] regarding deleting the write package if the password is not verified.)
Although Srinivasan does not explicitly teach changing the predetermined lean angle, only the global maximum speed parameter, in response to user input only if a password is verified, Wink teaches changing the predetermined lean angle in response to user input. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the teachings of Srinivasan to any type of vehicle parameter, including the predetermined lean angle taught by Wink, to “lock parameters of the ECU 110 from being modified by unauthorized person” (See [0044] of Srinivasan).
Regarding claim 13, Wink and Brooks in combination all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Wink additionally teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: sense user input; and (See at least [0083]: “…In one form, the tilt threshold can be programmed into the tip-over prevention controller 630 in a manner such that the value cannot be altered by a driver or operator. The specific tilt threshold value can be chosen depending upon the specific user and/or the specific application. For example, a trucking company which has many novice drivers may want a lower tilt threshold than a trucking company with expert drivers who frequently dump gravel on uneven terrain…”. See also [0027] regarding the predetermined tilt threshold being a lateral tilt threshold.)
Wink and Brooks in combination do not explicitly teach:
change the predetermined speed in response to the user input.
Srinivasan teaches:
change the predetermined speed in response to the user input. (See at least [0044]: “…In some embodiments, the write package includes a count of the parameters to be changed and a list of the parameters to be changed. For example, the authorized user updated the global maximum vehicle speed parameter…” & [0054-0055]: “The parameter commitment circuit 407 is structured to commit the parameters to be changed to the first memory 403 in response to determining that the key switch 140 is turned off…When the engine is turned on (e.g., the key switch 140 is turned on), the ECU 400 controls the operation of the engine according to the updated parameters stored in the first memory 403…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Wink and Brooks’s controller with Srinivasan’s technique of changing the predetermined speed in response to user input. Doing so would be obvious to “lock parameters of the ECU 110 from being modified by unauthorized person” (See [0044] of Srinivasan).
Regarding claim 14, Wink, Brooks, and Srinivasan in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Srinivasan additionally teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to user input to change the predetermined speed: receive a password; (See at least [0044]: “…In some embodiments, the write package includes a count of the parameters to be changed and a list of the parameters to be changed. For example, the authorized user updated the global maximum vehicle speed parameter…the write package includes an authentication password for accessing the ECU 110…”)
verify the password; and (See at least [0052]: “…The write package buffering circuit 405 compares the authentication password in the write package with the password stored in the memory 402. If the two passwords do not match, the write package buffering circuit 405 discards the write package…”)
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to change the predetermined speed in response to the user input by changing the predetermined speed only if the password is verified. (See at least [0054-0055]: “The parameter commitment circuit 407 is structured to commit the parameters to be changed to the first memory 403 in response to determining that the key switch 140 is turned off…When the engine is turned on (e.g., the key switch 140 is turned on), the ECU 400 controls the operation of the engine according to the updated parameters stored in the first memory 403…”. See also [0052] regarding deleting the write package if the password is not verified.)
Conclusion
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 NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662