DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the control unit, receiving unit, mobile operating unit, steering system and brake valve must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1, 7-10, 12. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, 12-14 each recite variations of “operating unit”, including “at least one operating unit” (Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 12). Claims 4, 5, 13, 14 each require “a master switch”. The operating unit and master switch both appear to refer to joystick (50). It is unclear how many joysticks are required and how the operating units and master switches reconcile.
Claim 1 introduces “at least two wheel axles” (Line 1), “at least one steerable wheel axle” (Lines 4-5) and “at least one wheel axle” (Line 5). Claim 7 introduces “at least one steerable wheel axle”. It is unclear how many wheel axles are required and how they reconcile.
Claim 1 introduces “a mobile under-carriage” (Line 1) and “an under-carriage” (Line 2) and then refers to “the under-carriage”. It is unclear how many under-carriages are required. Assuming there is only one, the Examiner suggests changing “an under-carriage” (Line 2) to --the under-carriage--.
Claim 1 recites “which is electrically connected to the at least one operating unit of the upper-carriage driver's cab and can be controlled via the latter for braking the under-carriage” (Lines 8-10). It is unclear whether “the latter” refers to the operating unit or the cab. If the applicant is referring to operating unit, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to --which is electrically connected to, and can be controlled by, the at least one operating unit of the upper-carriage driver's cab and can be controlled via the latter for braking the under-carriage--.
Claims 2-15 each recite the limitation “Mobile equipment” in their respective preambles with no article to indicate whether they are referring back to the mobile equipment introduced by claim 1 or are introducing an additional unit of mobile equipment. The Examiner suggestions amending the preambles of claims 2-15 by changing “Mobile equipment” to --The mobile equipment--.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the at least one operating unit is a master switch”. It is unclear how many master switches would be required if two or more operating units were present.
Claims 11-14 each recite limitations prefaced by “in particular”. It is unclear if these claim limitations are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites “configured to adapt operating inputs required to achieve a specific speed adjustment and/or steering effect to a current position of the mobile equipment”, requiring a plurality of operating inputs. Support for this limitation is found in paragraph [0029] of the specification, but only a single input is mentioned: The current angle of rotation of the upper-carriage relative to the under-carriage, which is claimed in the alternative in the claim. It is unclear what additional input is required by the claim. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “operating inputs” as requiring “at least one operating input”.
Claims 13-14 each introduce “an operating unit” in addition to the already-claimed “at least one operating unit” of antecedent claim 1. It is unclear how many operating units are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-7, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iserman (US 2,761,569) in view of Rathke et al (US 2019/0168562).
Italic text denotes alternative claim limitations that are not rejected under prior art.
As per claim 1, Iserman discloses a mobile equipment (Title), comprising a mobile under-carriage (12, 14) with at least two wheels (Fig. 1), an upper-carriage (16) which is rotatably mounted on an under-carriage (Col. 4, lines 28-32) and comprises an upper-carriage driver's cab (Col. 3, lines 29-31) in which at least one operating unit (34; Col. 4, lines 35-45) for operating a working function (Working function is parking brake application via switch 88; Col. 8, lines 38-45 / Alternate interpretation: Working function is vehicle acceleration, which may be carried out via switch 84; Col. 6, lines 66-73) of the mobile equipment is arranged, a steering system (82; Col. 6, lines 13-35) for steering at least one steerable wheel (Col. 6, lines 13-35) and a brake system (86; Col. 8, lines 22-35) with brake devices (Col. 8, lines 5-9) for braking at least one wheel (Col. 8, lines 5-9), wherein
the brake system comprises a brake valve (398) arranged in the under-carriage for setting a brake pressure for the brake devices (Col. 8, lines 12-35), which is electrically connected to the at least one operating unit of the upper-carriage driver's cab and can be controlled via the latter for braking the under-carriage (Col. 8, lines 12-35). Iserman does not disclose wheel axles.
Rathke et al discloses a vehicle crane comprising at least two wheel axles ([0023], [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheels of Iserman by mounting them on axles as taught by Rathke et al in order to provide adequate vehicle support.
As per claim 2, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein there is no accelerator pedal and/or no brake pedal in the upper-carriage driver's cab (84, 86), but acceleration and/or braking of the under-carriage can be carried out exclusively via the at least one operating unit of the upper-carriage driver's cab (84, 86; Col. 4, lines 35-49).
As per claim 3, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein the brake system does not comprise any hydraulic or pneumatic connection between the under-carriage and the upper-carriage (Col. 4, lines 5-32).
As per claim 4, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein the at least one operating unit is a master switch (34).
As per claim 5, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to the claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein two master switches (84, 86) are provided in the upper-carriage driver's cab, wherein a speed and/or acceleration of the under-carriage can be controlled by actuating a first master switch (84; Col. 6, line 66 -- Col. 7, line 3) and braking of the under-carriage can be controlled by actuating a second master switch (86; Col. 8, lines 22-35).
As per claim 6, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein the under-carriage comprises a drive motor (Col. 6, lines 48-55) which is electrically connected to the at least one operating unit and can be controlled via the latter to control a traveling speed of the under-carriage (84; Col. 6, line 48 -- Col. 7, line 3; Col. 9, lines 45-53).
As per claim 7, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1, wherein the steering system comprises a steering drive (210; Col. 6, lines 1-9) which is arranged in the under-carriage, is electrically connected to the at least one operating unit and can be actuated via the latter for controlling the steering of at least one steerable wheel (82; Col. 6, lines 13-35). Rathke et al discloses a steerable wheel axle ([0023], [0042]).
As per claim 13, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein the under-carriage can be both braked and accelerated via a single operating unit (84, 86; Col. 6, line 66 -- Col. 7, line 3; Col. 8, lines 22-35), in particular a master switch (84, 86).
As per claim 14, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein a gear for a forward travel (Col. 7, lines 28-41) or a reverse travel (Col. 7, lines 49-65) of the under-carriage can be selected by actuating an operating unit (80), in particular a master switch (80).
As per claim 15, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein the mobile equipment is a mobile crane (Fig. 1; Title).
7. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iserman (US 2,761,569) in view of Rathke et al (US 2019/0168562) and further in view of Pilz (EP 1306278)
As per claim 8, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 5. Iserman discloses actuation of the brake valve (Col. 8, lines 18-35), but does not disclose a control unit and wireless remote-control.
Pilz discloses a control device for a driving school vehicle wherein the brake valve is electrically connected to a control unit (20), which in turn is electrically connected to at least one receiving unit (22) and is configured to obtain wirelessly transmitted control signals from a mobile operating unit (12) for remote-controlled actuation of the brake valve ([0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle control system of Iserman by integrating wireless control capabilities into the vehicle as taught by Pilz in order to permit enhanced in-vehicle training (Pilz: [0005])
As per claim 9, Iserman, Rathke et al and Pilz disclose the mobile equipment according to the claim 8. Pilz further discloses wherein the control unit is electrically connected to a steering drive (31) arranged in the under-carriage and/or to a drive motor (31) arranged in the under-carriage and is configured to obtain wirelessly-transmitted control signals ([0048]) for controlling the drive motor and/or the steering drive via the at least one receiving unit (20; [0048]).
8. Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iserman (US 2,761,569) in view of Rathke et al (US 2019/0168562) and further in view of Lu et al (CN 111056454).
As per claim 10, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses comprising a drive motor (Alternate interpretation wherein vehicle acceleration is the working function, Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 48-55) arranged in the under-carriage for providing power for the working function of the mobile equipment (Col. 6, lines 48-55), and a control unit (18; Col. 6, lines 56-65), but does not disclose wherein the control unit which is configured to automatically adjust a rotational speed of the drive motor to a power requested by at least one actuator of the mobile equipment for performing the working function.
Lu et al discloses a system for controlling on-load driving postures of a crane comprising a drive motor ([0018]) arranged in the under-carriage for providing power for the working function of the mobile equipment ([0017], [0018]), and a control unit (300; [0025]) which is configured to automatically adjust a rotational speed ([0018]) of the drive motor to a power requested ([0018]) by at least one actuator ([0017]) of the mobile equipment for performing the working function ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the truck controller of Iserman by adding a low-speed mode as taught by Lu et al in order to permit safe vehicle movement while the crane is angularly offset from the driving direction.
As per claim 12, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1. Iserman further discloses wherein a speed of the under-carriage can be controlled (84; Col. 6, line 66 -- Col. 7, line 3) and/or the under-carriage can be steered (82; Col. 6, lines 13-35) via the at least one operating unit, wherein a control unit (18; Col. 6, line 56--Col. 7, line 3) connected to the at least one operating unit is configured to adapt operating inputs (Col. 6, line 66 -- Col. 7, line 3) required to achieve a specific speed adjustment (Col. 6, line 66 -- Col. 7, line 3) and/or steering effect. Iserman does not disclose a current position of the mobile equipment, in particular a current angle of rotation of the upper-carriage relative to the under-carriage.
Lu et al discloses a system for controlling on-load driving postures of a crane comprising wherein a speed of the under-carriage can be controlled ([0047]) and/or the under-carriage can be steered via the at least one operating unit, wherein a control unit (300; [0025]) connected to the at least one operating unit is configured to adapt operating inputs ([0047]) required to achieve a specific speed adjustment ([0047]) and/or steering effect to a current position ([0047]) of the mobile equipment, in particular a current angle of rotation of the upper-carriage relative to the under-carriage ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the truck controller of Iserman by adding a low-speed mode as taught by Lu et al in order to permit safe vehicle movement while the crane is angularly offset from the driving direction.
9. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iserman (US 2,761,569) in view of Rathke et al (US 2019/0168562) and further in view of Nakada et al (JP 2019-055880).
Italic text denotes alternative claim limitations that are not rejected under prior art.
As per claim 11, Iserman and Rathke et al disclose the mobile equipment according to claim 1, but do not disclose wherein a display unit is arranged in the upper-carriage driver's cab, on which a parameter relating to a current braking process and/or a current acceleration process of the under-carriage can be displayed, in particular graphically illustrated.
Nakada et al discloses a winch control device wherein a display unit (263a; [0056]) is arranged in the upper-carriage driver's cab, on which a parameter relating to a current braking process ([0056]) and/or a current acceleration process of the under-carriage can be displayed, in particular graphically illustrated ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote controls of Iserman by integrating their functions into an interactive display as taught by Nakada et al in order to improve the user experience and permit the display of additional information.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pivoting-carriage construction vehicles having remote cabin controls for redundant vehicle driving functions
Perkins (US 2,638,232).
Zeilman et al (US 2,674,333).
Antrag auf Nichtnennung (DE 2937449).
Liggett (US 4,318,451).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M BOWES whose telephone number is (571)270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
STEPHEN M. BOWES IV
Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/STEPHEN M BOWES/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights