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 .
Drawings
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,
In claims 6 and 9, “a ripper”, “a movable blade”, “a grapple”, “a pipelayer drawworks”, “a track drive”, “a swing drive”, “a chipper”, “a tiller”, “a grinder”, “a sweeper”, and “a fan”. These features should be clearly shown in the figures in order to help the public understand the invention without having to read the specification.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura in view of Greenwood (GB2515453A).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 11, and 16, Ichimura discloses a piece of heavy construction and method of operating a piece of heavy construction, comprising: running an internal combustion engine (Diesel Engine; Figure 17) configured to generate power from combustion of fuel; transmitting electrical power from a source of electrical power (DM1, AC Generator ACG1, AC/DC Converter CR4; Figures 16-17) to a winch (Hoist); a winch (Hoist) coupled to the internal combustion engine (Diesel Engine) such that power generated by the internal combustion engine (Diesel Engine) is transmitted to the winch (Hoist) by a non-mechanical connection; a first electronic control unit (MC2), wherein the first electronic control unit (MC2) is configured to control operation of components (W1) of the piece of equipment other than the winch (Hoist); and a second electronic control unit (MC1), wherein the second electronic control unit (MC1) is independent of the first electronic control unit (MC2) and configured to control operation of the winch (Hoist), but fails to teach wherein the first electronic control unit is configured to control operation of components of the piece of equipment other than the winch including the internal combustion engine (claims 1 and 11); including the source of electrical power (claims 8 and 16).
Greenwood teaches a similar control system for a vehicle and further teaches wherein the first electronic control unit (140; Figure 1) is configured to control operation of components of the piece of equipment other than the winch including the internal combustion engine (claims 1 and 11) (121, 122, 123, 132; page 10, lines 1-2 and page 15, lines 10-12; controller 140 controls operation of internal combustion engine 121 which recharges battery 132 and operation of the powertrain 122,123 to drive the wheels 102,104); including the source of electrical power (claims 8 and 16) (121, 122, 123, 132; page 10, lines 1-2 and page 15, lines 10-12; controller 140 controls operation of electric engine 121 which recharges battery 132 and operation of the powertrain 122,123 to drive the wheels 102,104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piece of equipment of Ichimura to include the first electronic control unit as taught by Greenwood in order to reduce points of failure and provide a direct signal connection between the power source and components for quicker response to failures.
Regarding claim 5, Ichimura discloses wherein the non-mechanical connection is an electric connection (column 15, line 45 – column 16, line 29).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Ichimura discloses wherein the first electronic control unit (MC2) is configured to control operation of at least one of: a wheel drive (M2, Drive Wheel W1; Figures 16-17)
Regarding claim 14, Ichimura discloses wherein the internal combustion engine (Diesel Engine) is a diesel engine and the fuel is diesel.
Regarding claim 15, Ichimura discloses wherein the non-mechanical connection interrupts mechanical transmission of power from the internal combustion engine (Diesel Engine) to the winch (Hoist).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura, in view of Greenwood, and in further view of Schneider (US8151563B2).
Regarding claims 2-4, Ichimura discloses the above piece of equipment, but fails to teach wherein the non-mechanical connection is a hydraulic connection; wherein the winch is powered by an open-loop hydraulic system; wherein the winch is powered by a closed-loop hydraulic system.
Schneider teaches a similar piece of equipment and further teaches wherein the non-mechanical connection is a hydraulic connection (Figures 1-6); wherein the winch (6) is powered by an open-loop hydraulic system (Figures 1a-2e); wherein the winch (6) is powered by a closed-loop hydraulic system (Figures 3a-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piece of equipment of Ichimura to include the non-mechanical connection being a hydraulic system as taught by Schneider in order to be suitable in hazardous environments with reduced cost and be more suitable for heavier loads.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura, in view of Greenwood, and in further view of Rudy (10829347B2).
Regarding claims 7, 10, 12-13, and 17-18, Ichimura discloses the above piece of equipment, but fails to teach wherein the second electronic control unit includes a programmable logic controller; storing information regarding operation of the winch in the second electronic control unit; using the information stored in the second electronic control unit to detect an undesired condition of the operation of the winch; and upon detecting the undesired condition of the operation of the winch, generating an alarm indicating the detection of the undesired condition; storing information regarding operation of the winch in the second electronic control unit; and using the information stored in the second electronic control unit to control operation of the winch.
Rudy teaches a similar piece of equipment and further teaches wherein the second electronic control unit (20, 22; Figure 2; MC1 of Ichimura) includes a programmable logic controller (22, programmable computer); storing information (storage medium 26) regarding operation of the winch (Hoist; Figure 4) in the second electronic control unit (20, 22; Figure 2; MC1 of Ichimura); using the information stored in the second electronic control unit (20, 22; Figure 2; MC1 of Ichimura) to detect an undesired condition of the operation of the winch (Hoist; column 6, lines 17-27 and column 10, line 63 – column 11, line 13, a load detected compared and differs to an expected load); and upon detecting the undesired condition of the operation of the winch (Hoist), generating an alarm indicating the detection of the undesired condition (column 6, lines 17-27 and column 10, line 63 – column 11, line 13, an alert is provided when a load at attached to the winch is detected and differs to an expected load); storing information (storage medium 26) regarding operation of the winch (Hoist) in the second electronic control unit (20, 22; Figure 2; MC1 of Ichimura); and using the information stored in the second electronic control unit (20, 22; Figure 2; MC1 of Ichimura) to control operation of the winch (Hoist; column 12, line 53 – column 13, line 13, the control system controls operation of the hoist to prevent winding of the cable when a calculated distance is compared to a stored threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piece of equipment of Ichimura to include the programmable logic controller, storing of information, and alarm as taught by Rudy in order to control the winch when a stored threshold has been met or overcome to stop the winch from continuing of operation to prevent damage to the components of the winch, piece of equipment, or load.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 with respect to claims 1, 8, 11, and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 11, and 16, in the last four lines of page 6, pages 7-11, and first three lines of page 12, the applicant argued that the disclosure of Ichimura, Schneider, Rudy, and other cited references fail to teach wherein the first electronic control unit is configured to control operation of components of the piece of equipment other than the winch including the internal combustion engine (claims 1 and 11); including the source of electrical power (claims 8 and 16).
The examiner agrees that the disclosure of Ichimura, Schneider, and Rudy fail to teach wherein the first electronic control unit is configured to control operation of components of the piece of equipment other than the winch including the internal combustion engine (claims 1 and 11); including the source of electrical power (claims 8 and 16). However, the examiner construed that the disclosure of Greenwood teaches the limitation as described above. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment does not overcome the prior art.
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 HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/H.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights