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 Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/24/2024. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
© the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The mentioned claim limitation(s) is/are:
traveling device in claims 5, 6, and 7. Corresponding structure is found in the specification at [0044] (crawler traveling devices)
working device in claims 5, 6, and 7. Corresponding structure is found in the specification at [0045] (bucket, boom, lift links, control links, boom cylinder, front cylinder, and quick hitch).
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.
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. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zitterbart in view of US 20160057582 A1, hereinafter “Kunitake”, and US 20210123218 A1, hereinafter Matzelle.
Regarding claim 1, Zitterbart discloses A working vehicle (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the work device is a vehicle.) comprising:
a hitch to attach and detach an attachment thereto and therefrom (See [0067], the pivotable quick-changer, i.e. hitch, allows attaching and removing different attachments);
a receiver to receive one or more wireless signals which are transmitted periodically from one or more transmitters in or on one or more of the attachments, which include respective one or more pieces of identification information of the one or more attachments or more attachments or identification information of the one or more transmitters, and which are compliant with a near field communication standard (See [0067]-[0069], the excavator bucket, i.e. the attachment, comprises a first communication unit, i.e. transmitter, that communicates via radio and exchanges data with a second communication unit, i.e. receiver, at the quick changer, i.e. on the vehicle. This comprises receiving wireless signals from a transmitter. See [0072], the transmitted signals can comprise identification signals associated with the attachment tool.); and
a controller (See [0072], identification data is sent to the vehicle control, i.e. controller.); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to, when the attachment is attached to the hitch (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment):
if the controller succeeds in selecting one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver according to a first selection condition which is used to select the one of the one or more wireless signals that is received by the receiver, adapt operation of the hydraulic excavator based on the piece of identification information selected according to the first selection condition (See [0072], identification data, i.e. information, of the attachment on the hitch is used by the vehicle control to adapt or set the operation of the excavator to the attached tool. Identifying the tool is a selection condition, namely that the identification information corresponds to an attachment known by the system. See [0072] identification data provided by the attachment tool can be used to adapt or set operation of the hydraulic operator to the attachment tool.); and
if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition, select, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver when the working vehicle takes action according to a second selection condition and adapt operation of the hydraulic excavator based on the piece of identification information selected according to the second selection condition (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment or as soon as acceleration of the attachment takes place, i.e. when the working vehicle takes action. See Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the attachment is coupled, received signals are evaluated to identify the attachment. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. the working vehicle takes action, several signals including the identification signal are used to identify the attached tool. Examiner asserts that this occurs because the system has not conclusively identified the attached tool, i.e. failed to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information. The identification procedure is a predetermined condition.).
Zitterbart does not explicitly disclose including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a first preset period of time or control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment.
Kunitake renders obvious including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a first preset period of time (See [0096], the invention determines which base station is attached to the terminal by determining which signal sent by the the base station has the strongest, i.e. highest RSSI, signal.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart to include using the signal with highest RSSI to identify the attachment of Kunitake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accurately identify which attachment was attached, as suggested by Kunitake at [0096].
Normann renders obvious control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment (See [0026]-[0027], the control unit receives data corresponding to applications of work tools and work tools themselves. Hydraulic variables are changed by the control unit. Changing hydraulic configuration based on the tool/application pair is also changing based on the tool. See [0003]-[0005] the tool and application are used to adjust the pressure of hydraulic fluid.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart and Kunitake to include using the attachment identification to control the hydraulic system of Normann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because to supply appropriate pressure hydraulic fluid for the tool and task at hand, as suggested by Normann at [0003]-[0005].
Regarding claim 9, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Zitterbart further discloses when the attachment is attached to the hitch, select one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver according to the first selection condition (See [0072], identification data, i.e. information, of the attachment on the hitch is used by the vehicle control to adapt or set the operation of the excavator to the attached tool. Identifying the tool is a first condition, namely that the identification information corresponds to an attachment known by the system.); and
if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition, select, according to the second selection condition differing from the first selection condition, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver when the working vehicle takes action (Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the attachment is coupled, received signals are evaluated to identify the attachment. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. the working vehicle takes action, several signals including acceleration data are used to identify the attached tool. The condition involving acceleration data is a second condition. Examiner asserts that this occurs because the system has not conclusively identified the attached tool, i.e. failed to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information.).
Regarding claim 11, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann renders obvious the limitations of claim 9. Zitterbart further discloses the second selection condition includes a condition in which the controller selects a piece of identification information included in a specific wireless signal which is one of two or more of the one or more wireless signals that include a same piece of identification information and that have been received by the receiver a predetermined number of times or more within a predetermined period of time (See [0042]-[0045], the system uses two separate acceleration signals from a single attachment tool to determine the plausibility that it is attached.).
Regarding claim 13, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Zitterbart further discloses further comprising an attaching switch to be operated to attach the attachment to the hitch (See [0028] and [0034], the system comprises a coupling sensor, i.e. attaching switch, that is operated to detect when an attachment tool is coupled to the connection region. The coupling sensor is operated as part of the attachment procedure, i.e. to attach the attachment to the hitch.).
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to select, according to the first selection condition, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver when the attaching switch is operated or when the attaching switch has been operated continuously for a predetermined period of time (See [0034], the coupling sensor is used to determine the instantaneous coupling state of the attachment tool. This is used as part of the identification procedure. See [0014] and [0016], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment. This is when the coupling switch is operated.).
Regarding claim 14, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann renders obvious the limitations of claim 13. Zitterbart further discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to select, according to the second selection condition, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver in at least one of (i) a third time period which ends when the attaching switch is operated or when the attaching switch has been operated continuously for the predetermined period of time or (ii) a fourth time period which starts when the attaching switch is operated or when the attaching switch has been operated continuously for the predetermined period of time (See [0016], the movement whose corresponding acceleration signal is used in the identification procedure is the one that occurs automatically on the coupling procedure, which corresponds to when the coupling sensor, i.e. attaching switch, is operated.). Regarding claim 15, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Zitterbart further discloses wherein each of the one or more transmitters is a beacon transmitter to transmit an advertisement signal including a piece of identification information of the attachment in or on which the transmitter is provided (See [0067]-[0069], the excavator bucket, i.e. the attachment, comprises a first communication unit, i.e. beacon transmitter, that communicates via radio and exchanges data with a second communication unit, i.e. beacon receiver, at the quick changer, i.e. on the vehicle. See [0072], the transmitted signals can comprise identification signals associated with the attachment tool. This means the signal is an advertisement signal including identification information of the attachment.); and
the receiver is a beacon scanner to receive the advertisement signal (See [0067]-[0069], the excavator bucket, i.e. the attachment, comprises a first communication unit, i.e. beacon transmitter, that communicates via radio and exchanges data with a second communication unit, i.e. beacon receiver, at the quick changer, i.e. on the vehicle. See [0072], the transmitted signals can comprise identification signals associated with the attachment tool. This means the signal is an advertisement signal including identification information of the attachment.).
Regarding claim 16, Zitterbart discloses An attachment usage system to use one or more attachments on a working vehicle (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the work device is a vehicle. See [0067], the pivotable quick-changer, i.e. hitch, allows attaching and removing different attachments.) comprising:
a hitch on the working vehicle to attach and detach an attachment thereto and therefrom (See [0067], the pivotable quick-changer, i.e. hitch, allows attaching and removing different attachments);
one or more transmitters in or on one or more of the attachments to periodically transmit one or more wireless signals which include respective one or more pieces of identification information of the one or more attachments or identification information of the one or more transmitters and which are compliant with a near field communication standard (See [0067]-[0069], the excavator bucket, i.e. the attachment, comprises a first communication unit, i.e. transmitter, that communicates via radio and exchanges data with a second communication unit, i.e. receiver, at the quick changer, i.e. on the vehicle. This comprises receiving wireless signals from a transmitter. See [0072], the transmitted signals can comprise identification signals associated with the attachment tool.);
a receiver in or on the working vehicle to receive the one or more wireless signals transmitted from the one or more transmitters (See [0067]-[0069], the excavator bucket, i.e. the attachment, comprises a first communication unit, i.e. transmitter, that communicates via radio and exchanges data with a second communication unit, i.e. receiver, at the quick changer, i.e. on the vehicle. This comprises receiving wireless signals from a transmitter. See [0072], the transmitted signals can comprise identification signals associated with the attachment tool.); and
a controller (See [0072], identification data is sent to the vehicle control, i.e. controller.); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to, when the attachment is attached to the hitch (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment):
if the controller succeeds in selecting one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver according to a first selection condition, adapt operation of the hydraulic excavator based on the selected piece of identification information (See [0072], identification data, i.e. information, of the attachment on the hitch is used by the vehicle control to adapt or set the operation of the excavator to the attached tool. Identifying the tool is a predetermined condition, namely that the identification information corresponds to an attachment known by the system. Adapting or setting the operation of the excavator to match the attached tool is performance of a predetermined process based on the information. This process can only take place if the identification data is successfully transmitted, i.e. successfully selected. See [0072] identification data provided by the attachment tool can be used to adapt or set operation of the hydraulic operator to the attachment tool.); and
if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition, select one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver when the working vehicle takes action and adapt operation of the hydraulic excavator based on the selected piece of identification information (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment or as soon as acceleration of the attachment takes place, i.e. when the working vehicle takes action. See Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the attachment is coupled, received signals are evaluated to identify the attachment. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. the working vehicle takes action, several signals including the identification signal are used to identify the attached tool. Examiner asserts that this occurs because the system has not conclusively identified the attached tool, i.e. failed to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information. The identification procedure is a predetermined condition. See [0072] identification data provided by the attachment tool can be used to adapt or set operation of the hydraulic operator to the attachment tool.).
Zitterbart does not explicitly disclose including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a first preset period of time or control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment.
Kunitake renders obvious including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a preset period of time (See [0096], the invention determines which base station is attached to the terminal by determining which signal sent by the the base station has the strongest, i.e. highest RSSI, signal.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart to include using the signal with highest RSSI to identify the attachment of Kunitake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accurately identify which attachment was attached, as suggested by Kunitake at [0096].
Zitterbart combined with Kunitake does not explicitly disclose control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment.
Normann renders obvious control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment (See [0026]-[0027], the control unit receives data corresponding to applications of work tools and work tools themselves. Hydraulic variables are changed by the control unit. Changing hydraulic configuration based on the tool/application pair is also changing based on the tool. See [0003]-[0005] the tool and application are used to adjust the pressure of hydraulic fluid.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart and Kunitake to include using the attachment identification to control the hydraulic system of Normann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because to supply appropriate pressure hydraulic fluid for the tool and task at hand, as suggested by Normann at [0003]-[0005].
Claims 2-4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zitterbart, Kunitake, and Normann in view of US 20210123218 A1, hereinafter Matzelle.
Regarding claim 2, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Normann renders obvious control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment based on the piece of identification information (See [0026]-[0027], the control unit receives data corresponding to applications of work tools and work tools themselves. Hydraulic variables are changed by the control unit. Changing hydraulic configuration based on the tool/application pair is also changing based on the tool. See [0003]-[0005] the tool and application are used to adjust the pressure of hydraulic fluid.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart and Kunitake to include using the attachment identification to control the hydraulic system of Normann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because to supply appropriate pressure hydraulic fluid for the tool and task at hand, as suggested by Normann at [0003]-[0005].
Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann does not explicitly disclose a user interface, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, after selecting one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver according to the second selection condition when the working vehicle takes action, cause the user interface to output information indicating a question of whether the attachment corresponding to the selected piece of identification information is attached, and, after information indicating a positive answer to the question is inputted via the interface.
Matzelle, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious a user interface (See [0020], the system comprises a human-machine interface, i.e. user interface.), and
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, after selecting one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver according to the predetermined condition when the working vehicle takes action, cause the user interface to output information indicating a question of whether the attachment corresponding to the selected piece of identification information is attached, and, after information indicating a positive answer to the question is inputted via the interface, perform the predetermined process based on the selected piece of identification information (See [0033]-[0036], a work tool is attached to the machine. The system identifies which tool is attached. See [0037], the operator can verify that the correct work tool attachment is attached and select the work tool on the display the correct attachment is not selected.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart, Kunitake, and Normann to include a use interface allowing the user to verify the attachment of Matzelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in order to make sure the correct attachment is identified before taking action based on the identification, as suggested by Matzelle at [0037].
Regarding claim 3, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake, Normann, and Matzelle renders obvious the limitations of claims 2. Normann renders obvious control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment based on the piece of identification information (See [0026]-[0027], the control unit receives data corresponding to applications of work tools and work tools themselves. Hydraulic variables are changed by the control unit. Changing hydraulic configuration based on the tool/application pair is also changing based on the tool. See [0003]-[0005] the tool and application are used to adjust the pressure of hydraulic fluid.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart and Kunitake to include using the attachment identification to control the hydraulic system of Normann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because to supply appropriate pressure hydraulic fluid for the tool and task at hand, as suggested by Normann at [0003]-[0005].
Matzelle renders obvious when information indicating a negative answer to the question is inputted via the user interface, cause the user interface to output prompt information requesting to input the piece of attachment information of the attached attachment, and, after the piece of attachment information is inputted via the user interface (See Fig. 5, [0033], and [0036]-[0037], the work tool identification list has the work tool identified as most likely attached at the top. The selection step provides the operator an opportunity to verify that the correct attachment is identified by selecting the attachment from the list. Selection of a different tool is information indicating a negative answer. Splitting the one-step process of selecting the correct tool, with the most likely attachment listed first, into a two-step process of asking whether the correct tool is attached followed by allowing the user to provide the correct attachment information is an obvious variant.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart, Kunitake, and Normann to include a user interface allowing the user to verify the attachment, including a two-step process on the user interface, as suggested by Matzelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in order to make sure the correct attachment is identified before taking action based on the identification, as suggested by Matzelle at [0037].
Regarding claim 4, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake, Normann, and Matzelle renders obvious the limitations of claim 2. Matzelle renders obvious wherein the user interface includes a display to display information on a screen thereof (See [0004], the work tool identification list is displayed on an operator interface, i.e. the interface comprises a display that displays information.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann to include a user interface with display allowing the user to verify the attachment, including a two-step process on the user interface, as suggested by Matzelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in order to make sure the correct attachment is identified before taking action based on the identification, as suggested by Matzelle at [0037].
Regarding claim 10, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann renders obvious the limitations of claim 9. Zitterbart further discloses wherein the second selection condition includes a condition in which the controller selects a piece of identification information included in a specific wireless signal which is one of one or more of the one or more wireless signals with a received signal strength higher than a predetermined value (See [0015], signal strength can be used in place of acceleration data as the second condition.).
Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann does not explicitly disclose including vibration information indicating that the attachment is vibrating.
Matzelle, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses including vibration information indicating that the attachment is vibrating (See [0031], the motion detector measures vibration to determine if a work tool is likely detached.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for attachment identification for a work machine disclosed by Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann to include using vibration data of Matzelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow allow more accurate determination of the connected attachment, as suggested by Matzelle at [0031].
Regarding claim 12, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann discloses the limitations of claim 9. Zitterbart discloses perform the predetermined process (See [0072], identification data, i.e. information, of the attachment on the hitch is used by the vehicle control to adapt or set the operation of the excavator to the attached tool. Adapting or setting the operation of the excavator to match the attached tool is performance of a predetermined process based on the information.).
Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann does not explicitly disclose if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the second condition, cause the user interface to output prompt information requesting to input the piece of attachment information of the attached attachment; or
when the piece of attachment information is inputted via the user interface, control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment based on the inputted piece of attachment information.
Matzelle, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the second selection condition, cause the user interface to output prompt information requesting to input the piece of attachment information of the attached attachment (See [0037], the selection step allows the user to verify the correct attachment is identified, i.e. is specifically useful when the correct identification is not selected. The user interface displays the work tool identification list, i.e. prompt information, that the user uses to input the attachment information.); and
when the piece of attachment information is inputted via the user interface, control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment based on the inputted piece of attachment information (See [0037], the selection step allows the user to verify the correct attachment is identified, i.e. is specifically useful when the correct identification is not selected. The user interface displays the work tool identification list, i.e. prompt information, that the user uses to input the attachment information. It would be obvious to use the identification of the attachment to adapt or set operation of the work machine.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for attachment identification for a work machine disclosed by Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann to include using the user interface to verify the attached tool of Matzelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow allow more accurate determination of the connected attachment, as suggested by Matzelle at [0037].
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zitterbart, Kunitake, and Normann in view of WO 2006109571 A1, hereinafter Sugaya.
Regarding claim 5, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann and renders obvious discloses the limitations of claim 1. Zitterbart further discloses a vehicle body (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the work device is a vehicle and comprises a body.); and
a traveling device and a working device including a hydraulic or electric actuator to actuate the one or more of the attachments which are on the vehicle body (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the vehicle comprises wheels, i.e. traveling devices, and an excavator boom, i.e. working device. See [0007], the work device can be a hydraulic excavator, i.e. use a hydraulic actuator.);
wherein the hitch is connected to the working device (See Fig. 1 and [0067]-[0068], the quick changer, i.e. hitch, is connected to the boom, i.e. working device.); and
the controller is configured or programmed to, if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition when the attachment is attached to the hitch, select, according to the second selection condition, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver when the at least one of the traveling device or the working device takes action (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment or as soon as acceleration of the attachment takes place, i.e. when the working device takes action. See Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the attachment is coupled, received signals are evaluated to identify the attachment. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. the working device takes action, several signals including the identification signal are used to identify the attached tool. Examiner asserts that this occurs because the system has not conclusively identified the attached tool, i.e. failed to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information. The identification procedure is a predetermined condition.).
Normann does not explicitly disclose a traveling device including a hydro-static transmission.
Sugaya renders obvious a traveling device including a hydro-static transmission (See [0001], a hydro-static transmission traveling system for hydraulic excavators is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the working vehicle with attachment identification system disclosed by Zitterbart combined with Kunitake and Normann to include a hydro-static transmission for movement, as suggested by Sugaya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a hydrostatic transmission traveling system suitable for various operations, as suggested by Sugaya at [0012].
Regarding claim 6, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake, Normann, and Sugaya renders obvious the limitations of claim 5. Zitterbart further discloses a travel operator to be operated to actuate the traveling device (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the vehicle comprises wheels, i.e. traveling devices. Vehicles inherently comprise means to actuate the means of transportation, i.e. travel operators.); and
a work operator to be operated to actuate the working device (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the vehicle comprises an excavator boom, i.e. working device. Excavators inherently comprise means of actuating the boom, i.e. a work operator.);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition when the attachment is attached to the hitch, select, according to the second selection condition, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver while at least one of the travel operator or the work operator is operated (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment or as soon as acceleration of the attachment takes place, i.e. when the working device takes action. See Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the attachment is coupled, received signals are evaluated to identify the attachment. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. the working device takes action, several signals including the identification signal are used to identify the attached tool. Examiner asserts that this occurs because the system has not conclusively identified the attached tool, i.e. failed to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information. The identification procedure is a predetermined condition.).
Regarding claim 7, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake, Normann, and Sugaya renders obvious the limitations of claim 6. Zitterbart further discloses a travel operator to be operated to actuate the traveling device (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the vehicle comprises wheels, i.e. traveling devices. Vehicles inherently comprise means to actuate the means of transportation, i.e. travel operators); and
a work operator to be operated to actuate the working device (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the vehicle comprises an excavator boom, i.e. working device. Excavators inherently comprise means of actuating the boom, i.e. a work operator);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: cause a memory to store the one or more pieces of identification information included in the one or more wireless signals after the receiver receives the one or more wireless signals (See Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. the working device takes action, several signals including the identification signal are used to identify the attached tool. Identification information must be stored for the device to associate acceleration information with each attachment tool.); and
if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition when the attachment is attached to the hitch, select, according to the second selection condition, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of one or more of the one or more wireless signals that are received by the receiver during a period from a first point in time to a second point in time, the first point in time being a first time period before when at least one of the travel operator or the work operator is operated, the second point in time being a second time period after when the at least one of the travel operator or the work operator stops being operated (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment or as soon as acceleration of the attachment takes place, i.e. when the working device takes action. See Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the attachment is coupled, received signals are evaluated to identify the attachment. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. the working device takes action, several signals including the identification signal are used to identify the attached tool. Examiner asserts that this occurs because the system has not conclusively identified the attached tool, i.e. failed to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information. The identification procedure is a predetermined condition. Acceleration of the boom inherently takes place between when the boom is first actuated, i.e. operated, and when it stops being operated.).
Regarding claim 8, Zitterbart combined with Kunitake, Normann, and Sugaya renders obvious the limitations of claim 5. Zitterbart discloses a power output to allow power to be outputted (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the vehicle comprises a moving excavator boom. Power must be outputted to an actuator to actuate the boom.); and
a power operator to be operated to allow power to be outputted through the power output (See Fig. 1 and [0060], the vehicle comprises a moving excavator boom. Power must be outputted to an actuator to actuate the boom, indicating there is also a power operator, i.e. something that operates to allow the power to be outputted.); and
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition when the attachment is attached to the hitch, select, according to the second selection condition, one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver when the power operator is operated and power is outputted through the power output (See [0014], the identification of the attachment tool can take place directly after attachment or as soon as acceleration of the attachment takes place, i.e. when the power operator is operated. See Fig. 3 and [0077]-[0082], one of several attachment tools in the vicinity of the vehicle is attached. When the attachment is coupled, received signals are evaluated to identify the attachment. When the excavator boom moves, i.e. power operator is operated, several signals including the identification signal are used to identify the attached tool. Examiner asserts that this occurs because the system has not conclusively identified the attached tool, i.e. failed to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information. The identification procedure is a predetermined condition.).
Zitterbart combined with Kunitake, Normann, and Sugaya does not explicitly disclose a power output port to allow power to be outputted to the attachment attached to the hitch.
Nakamoto, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious a power output port to allow power to be outputted to the attachment attached to the hitch (See Abstract, the invention includes a port coupled to a power source of the work machine to supply power to the auxiliary device, i.e. attachment.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for attachment identification for a work machine disclosed by Zitterbart combined with Kunitake, Normann, and Sugaya to include the power output port of Nakamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow flexibility in attachments after the point of manufacture, as suggested by Nakamoto at Abstract.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues “The Examiner alleged that Applicant's recited "traveling device" and "working device" invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant notes that the alleged invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) was unintentional as Applicant's claimed invention was not intended to include any means-plus-function limitations. Applicant has amended the claims to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions (namely, "a traveling device including a hydro-static transmission" and "a working device including a hydraulic or electric actuator to actuate the one or more of the attachments"). Support for these amendments is found, for example, in paragraphs [0091] and [0177] of Applicant's specification. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Applicant's recited "traveling device" and "working device" do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and that Applicant's claims do not recite any features that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
As to (A), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Traveling device and working device use a generic placeholder (device) for some function (travel or work).
(B) Applicant argues “Claim 1-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with the Examiner's suggestion on page 10 of the Office Action, Applicant has amended claim 1, and similarly claim 16, to recite that "the controller is configured or programmed to []... control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment' to perform an action and clearly integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Support for this amendment is found, for example, in paragraph [0113] of Applicant's specification. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
101.”
As to (B), Examiner agrees that the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been overcome by the amendment.
(C) Applicant argues “Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, and 13-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Zitterbart. Claims 2-4, 10, and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zitterbart in view of Matzelle (US 2021/0123218). Claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zitterbart in view of Nakamoto (US 2023/0076084).
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of claims 1-16.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite:
A working vehicle comprising:
a hitch to attach and detach an attachment thereto and therefrom;
a receiver to receive one or more wireless signals which are transmitted
periodically from one or more transmitters in or on one or more of the
attachments, which include respective one or more pieces of identification
information of the one or more attachments or identification information of the
one or more transmitters, and which are compliant with a near field
communication standard; and
a controller; wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to, when the attachment
is attached to the hitch:
if the controller succeeds in selecting one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or
more wireless signals received by the receiver according to a first selection
condition which is used to select the one of the one or more wireless
signals that is received by the receiver including an RSSI highest among
the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most
frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a first preset period
of time, control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the
attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the
attachment based on the piece of identification information selected
according to the first selection condition; and
if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection
condition, select one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless
signals received by the receiver when the working vehicle takes
action according to a second selection condition which is used to
select the one of the one or more wireless signals that is received by
the receiver including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently
among the one or more wireless signals in a second preset period of time, and control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the
attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to
the attachment based on the piece of identification information
selected according to the second selection condition. (emphasis
added)
Applicant's claim 16 recites features that are similar to the features recited in Applicant's claim 1, including the above-emphasized features.
With the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Applicant's claims, Applicant has been able to provide working vehicles and attachment usage systems that make it possible to appropriately use an attachment on a working vehicle (see, for example, paragraph [0005] of Applicant's specification).
In the outstanding Office Action, the Examiner alleged that Zitterbart teaches all of the features recited in Applicant's claims 1 and 16.
Without admitting the propriety of the Examiner's allegations, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 16 in the manner set forth above. Support for these amendments is found, for example, in paragraphs [0100], [0105], [0113], [0120], [0123]- [0125], [0133], and [0137]-[0143] of Applicant's specification and Fig. 2 of Applicant's drawings.
For at least the following reasons, Zitterbart fails to teach or suggest all of the features recited in Applicant's amended claims 1 and 16.
With respect to the "predetermined condition" and "predetermined process"
recited in Applicant's original claims, the Examiner alleged that "Identifying the tool is a predetermined condition, namely that the identification information corresponds to an attachment known by the system. Adapting or setting the operation of the excavator to match the attached tool is performance of a predetermined process based on the information. This process can only take place if the identification data is successfully transmitted, i.e. successfully selected."
Applicant has amended claim 1, and similarly claim 16, to recite, "first (or second) selection condition which is used to select the one of the one or more wireless signals
that is received by the receiver including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a (first and second) preset period of time," instead of the "predetermined condition." Applicant has also amended the claims to recite to "control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment based on the piece of identification information selected according to the first (or second) selection condition," instead of the "predetermined process."
Zitterbart merely discloses a first communication unit arranged at an excavator bucket and a second communication unit arranged at a quick-changer communicating with each other using Bluetooth, both of which include acceleration sensors, and that an identification unit compares the acceleration signals from the first and second communication units, when the excavator boom is moved, to identify which attachment tools is equipped to the quick-changer.
Thus, as acknowledged by the Examiner during the telephone interview, Zitterbart clearly fails to teach, suggest, or hint at the features of "the controller is configured or programmed to, when the attachment is attached to the hitch: if the controller succeeds in selecting one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver according to a first selection condition which is used to select the one of the one or more wireless signals that is received by the receiver including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a first preset period of time, control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment based on the piece of identification information selected according to the first selection condition; and if the controller fails to select any of the one or more pieces of identification information according to the first selection condition, select one of the one or more pieces of identification information that is included in one of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver when
the working vehicle takes action according to a second selection condition which is used to select the one of the one or more wireless signals that is received by the receiver including an RSSI highest among the one or more wireless signals or is received by the receiver most frequently among the one or more wireless signals in a second preset period of time, and control start and stop of the supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment based on the piece of identification information selected according to the second selection condition," as recited in Applicant's amended claim 1, and similarly recited in Applicant's amended claim 16.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zitterbart.
The Examiner relied upon Matzelle and Nakamoto to allegedly cure the
deficiencies of Zitterbart. However, Matzelle and Nakamoto also fail to teach or suggest the features of Applicant's claims 1 and 16 discussed above. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Matzelle and Nakamoto fail to cure the deficiencies of Zitterbart described above.
In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 16 are allowable. Claims 2-15 depend upon claim 1, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons that claim 1 is allowable.”
As to (C), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. US 20050283295 A1 which relates to sensing operational characteristics of a work tool on a work vehicle.
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 AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT whose telephone number is (571)272-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/23/26
Prosecution Insights