DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Y 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 made in response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/16/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, however, Applicant's amended claims are newly rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed in the corresponding section below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach, “causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive to control the platform to maintain the platform in a level orientation," because “the claimed slew drive cannot be mapped to the rotation bearing drive assembly” (Remarks at pg. 10-11). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
First, the language of Applicant’s claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite, and alternatively directed to an intended use (i.e. “causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive [intended to control the platform [further intended to maintain the platform in a level orientation]]”).
Second, the rotation bearing drive assembly 10 is a slew drive (see e.g. 15:47-51, reciting: “rotation bearing drive assembly 10 preferably comprises a slewing ring bearing and an integral hydraulic self-locking worm gear drive mechanism that forces platform support structure 12 to rotate a full 180-degrees.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A slew drive system for controlling an orientation of a platform, comprising:
a slew drive disposed between the platform and a boom and configured to change the orientation of the platform;
a first set of sensors disposed on the boom and detecting an angle of the boom;
a second set of sensors detecting a state of the slew drive;
at least one processor; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method of controlling the orientation of the platform, the method comprising:
obtaining the angle of the boom from the first set of sensors;
obtaining the state of the slew drive from the second set of sensors;
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom and the state of the slew drive; and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive to control the platform to maintain the platform in a level orientation."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“to control the platform”
“to maintain the platform in a level orientation”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A slew drive system for controlling an orientation of a platform, comprising:
a slew drive disposed between the platform and a boom and configured to change the orientation of the platform;
a first set of sensors disposed on the boom and detecting an angle of the boom;
a second set of sensors detecting a state of the slew drive;
at least one processor; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method of controlling the orientation of the platform, the method comprising:
obtaining the angle of the boom from the first set of sensors;
obtaining the state of the slew drive from the second set of sensors;
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom and the state of the slew drive; and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive and and
Claims 2-9 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 10 recites: "A slew drive system for controlling an orientation of a platform, comprising:
a slew drive disposed between the platform and a boom and configured to change the orientation of the platform;
a first set of sensors disposed at the boom detecting an angle of the boom;
a second set of sensors detecting a state of the slew drive; and
at least one processor; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method of controlling the orientation of the platform, the method comprising:
obtaining the angle of the boom from the first set of sensors;
determining a velocity of the boom;
obtaining the state of the slew drive from the second set of sensors;
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom, the velocity of the boom, and the state of the slew drive; and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive to control the orientation of the platform to a level orientation."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A slew drive system for controlling an orientation of a platform, comprising:
a slew drive disposed between the platform and a boom and configured to change the orientation of the platform;
a first set of sensors disposed at the boom detecting an angle of the boom;
a second set of sensors detecting a state of the slew drive; and
at least one processor; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method of controlling the orientation of the platform, the method comprising:
obtaining the angle of the boom from the first set of sensors;
determining a velocity of the boom;
obtaining the state of the slew drive from the second set of sensors;
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom, the velocity of the boom, and the state of the slew drive; and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive [intended to control the orientation of the platform to a level orientation]."
Claims 11-15 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 16 recites: “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of controlling an orientation of a platform, the method comprising:
obtaining an angle of a boom from a first set of sensors disposed on the boom;
obtaining a state of a slew drive from a second set of sensors disposed on the slew drive,
wherein the slew drive is disposed between the boom and the platform and is configured to change the orientation of the platform;
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom and the state of the slew drive; and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive to control the platform to a level orientation.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
“One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of controlling an orientation of a platform, the method comprising:
obtaining an angle of a boom from a first set of sensors disposed on the boom;
obtaining a state of a slew drive from a second set of sensors disposed on the slew drive,
wherein the slew drive is disposed between the boom and the platform and is configured to change the orientation of the platform;
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom and the state of the slew drive; and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive [intended to control the platform to a level orientation].”
Claims 17-20 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raymond (US 8,443,936).
Regarding claim 16, Raymond teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of controlling an orientation of a platform (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 13-19, and related text), the method comprising:
obtaining an angle of a boom from a first set of sensors disposed on the boom (see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text);
obtaining a state of a slew drive from a second set of sensors disposed on the slew drive (id.),
wherein the slew drive is disposed between the boom and the platform and is configured to change the orientation of the platform (e.g. at least rotation bearing drive assembly 10, see e.g. at least 14:63-15:51, Fig. 13-14, 18, and related text, reciting that the “rotation bearing drive assembly 10 preferably comprises a slewing ring bearing and an integral hydraulic self-locking worm gear drive mechanism that forces platform support structure 12 to rotate a full 180-degrees”);
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom and the state of the slew drive (see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text); and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive [intended to control the platform to a level orientation] (id.).
Regarding claim 20, Raymond discloses that the method further comprises controlling a boom velocity, a boom acceleration, and a boom jerk of the platform based at least in part on an angular rate, an angular acceleration, and an angular jerk associated with a joint or a boom section of the boom (7:16-63, 10:47-11:34, Fig. 1-2, 9-10, and related text).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond (US 8,446,936) in view of Mark (US 2018/0195589 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raymond discloses a slew drive system for controlling an orientation of a platform (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 9-19, and related text), comprising:
a slew drive disposed between the platform and a boom and configured to change the orientation of the platform (e.g. at least rotation bearing drive assembly 10, see e.g. at least 14:63-15:51, Fig. 13-14, 18, and related text, reciting that the “rotation bearing drive assembly 10 preferably comprises a slewing ring bearing and an integral hydraulic self-locking worm gear drive mechanism that forces platform support structure 12 to rotate a full 180-degrees”);
a first set of sensors disposed on the boom and detecting an angle (e.g. at least electronic leveling sensor 15, see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text);
a second set of sensors detecting a state of the slew drive (id.); and
at least one processor (e.g. at least platform control processor 17, see e.g. at least 11:2-10, Fig. 13, and related text); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method of controlling the orientation of the platform (id.), the method comprising:
obtaining the angle of the boom from the first set of sensors (see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text);
obtaining the state of the slew drive from the second set of sensors (id.);
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom and the state of the slew drive (see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text); and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive and control the platform and maintain the platform in a level orientation (id., controlling the platform via the rotation bearing drive assembly 10 while keeping the platform level).
Additionally, Mark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: [a first set of sensors disposed on the boom and detecting an angle] of the boom (e.g. at least angle detector 72, 74, see e.g. at least ¶ 41, 62, Fig. 2, 4-6, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by configuring a first set of sensors disposed on the boom and detecting an angle of the boom as taught by Mark in order to allow the rotation of the utility platform while preventing over rotation (Mark: ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Raymond teaches that the second set of sensors is configured to detect a rotational position of a slew drive bearing (Raymond: see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text); and
wherein the method further comprises determining the slew drive command based at least in part on the rotational position of the slew drive bearing (Raymond: see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Raymond teaches that a method further comprises:
determining a relative angle of an upper boom section of the boom relative to a lower boom section of the boom (Mark: see e.g. at least ¶ 35-39, Fig. 3, and related text); and
determining the slew drive command based at least in part on the relative angle (Raymond: see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text; Mark: see e.g. at least ¶ 35-39, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Raymond teaches:
a third set of sensors disposed on the boom (Raymond: 7:16-63, 10:47-11:34, Fig. 1-2, 9-10, and related text); and
wherein the at least one processor comprises a third-order controller (Raymond: id.),
wherein the method further comprises limiting a boom velocity, a boom acceleration, and a boom jerk of the platform based at least in part on an angular rate, an angular acceleration, and an angular jerk associated with a joint or a boom section of the boom (Raymond: id.).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Mark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark (US 2012/0211301 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Raymond teaches that the first set of sensors is configured to detect a gravity (Raymond: see e.g. at least 15:52-16:37, 17:49-18:26, Fig. 13, 19, and related text); and
wherein the method further comprises determining the slew drive command based on the gravity (id.).
Additionally, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: [that a first set of sensors is configured to detect a gravity] vector relative to an angle of a boom (e.g. at least sensor module 28, accelerometer, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 22, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
[wherein at least one controller is further [intended to determine a slew drive command based on the gravity vector relative to the angle of the boom]] (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by configuring that the first set of sensors is configured to detect a gravity vector relative to the angle of the boom; and wherein the at least one controller is further [intended to determine the slew drive command based on the gravity vector relative to the angle of the boom] as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Raymond teaches that the first set of sensors includes an accelerometer, a linear position sensor, or a pressure sensor (Clark: see e.g. at least ¶ 8-10, 22, Fig. 1-3, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: that a method further comprises:
determining a rotational velocity of a slew drive bearing (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 24, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
determining a slew drive command based on the rotational velocity] (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by determining a rotational velocity of the slew drive bearing; and determining the slew drive command based on the rotational velocity as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Regarding claim 6, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: that a method further comprises:
determining a velocity of the boom (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 24, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
determining the slew drive command based on the velocity of the boom] (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by configuring that the method further comprises: determining a velocity of the boom; and determining the slew drive command based on the velocity of the boom as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Regarding claim 8, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: that a method further comprises:
determining a relative velocity of the upper boom section relative to the lower boom section (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 24, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
determining the slew drive commanded based at least in part on the relative velocity (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by determining a relative velocity of the upper boom section relative to the lower boom section; and determining the slew drive commanded based at least in part on the relative velocity as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Regarding claim 18, Raymond discloses that the method further comprises:
determining the slew drive commanded based at least in part on the relative angle (Raymond: see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text).
Additionally, Mark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: determining a relative angle of an upper boom section relative to a lower boom section of the boom (Mark: see e.g. at least ¶ 35-39, Fig. 3, and related text);
[determining a slew drive commanded based at least in part on a relative angle] (Mark: see e.g. at least ¶ 35-39, Fig. 3, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by determining a relative angle of an upper boom section relative to a lower boom section of the boom; and determining the slew drive commanded based at least in part on the relative angle as taught by Mark in order to allow the rotation of the utility platform while preventing over rotation (Mark: ¶ 3).
Additionally, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: determining a relative velocity of the upper boom section relative to the lower boom section (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 24, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
determining the slew drive commanded based at least in part on the relative velocity (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by determining a relative velocity of the upper boom section relative to the lower boom section; and determining the slew drive commanded based at least in part on [the relative angle and] the relative velocity as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Claims 10-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond (US 8,446,936) in view of Clark (US 2012/0211301 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Raymond discloses a slew drive system for controlling an orientation of a platform (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 9-19, and related text), comprising:
a slew drive disposed between the platform and a boom and configured to change the orientation of the platform (e.g. at least rotation bearing drive assembly 10, see e.g. at least 14:63-15:51, Fig. 13-14, 18, and related text, reciting that the “rotation bearing drive assembly 10 preferably comprises a slewing ring bearing and an integral hydraulic self-locking worm gear drive mechanism that forces platform support structure 12 to rotate a full 180-degrees”);
a first set of sensors disposed at the boom detecting an angle of the boom (e.g. at least electronic leveling sensor 15, see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text);
a second set of sensors detecting a state of the slew drive (id.); and
at least one processor (e.g. at least platform control processor 17, see e.g. at least 11:2-10, Fig. 13, and related text); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method of controlling the orientation of the platform (id.), the method comprising:
obtaining the angle of the boom from the first set of sensors (see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text);
obtaining the state of the slew drive from the second set of sensors (id.);
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom, and the state of the slew drive (see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text); and
causing transmission of the slew drive command to the slew drive [intended to control the platform to a level orientation] (id.).
Additionally, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: determining a velocity of the boom (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 22, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom, the velocity of the boom, and the state of the slew drive (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by determining a velocity of the boom; determining a slew drive command based at least in part on the angle of the boom, the velocity of the boom, and the state of the slew drive as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Raymond teaches that the velocity of the boom is a boom angular velocity (Clark: see e.g. at least ¶ 8-10, 24, Fig. 1-3, and related text).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Raymond teaches that the state of the slew drive comprises an angular position and an angular velocity of a slew drive bearing (Clark: see e.g. at least ¶ 8-10, 24, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
wherein the method further comprises determining the slew drive command based on the angular position and the angular velocity of the slew drive bearing and the boom angular velocity (Raymond: see e.g. at least 11:2-10, 15:52-16:37, 18:7-12, Fig. 13, and related text; Clark: id.).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Raymond teaches that the first set of sensors includes an accelerometer, a linear position sensor, or a pressure sensor (Clark: see e.g. at least ¶ 8-10, 22, Fig. 1-3, and related text).
Regarding claim 17, Raymond teaches that the first set of sensors is configured to detect a gravity (see e.g. at least 15:52-16:37, 49-18:26, Fig. 13, 19, and related text); and
wherein the method further comprises determining the slew drive command based on the gravity (id.).
Additionally, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: [that a first set of sensors is configured to detect a gravity] vector relative to the angle of the boom (e.g. at least sensor module 28, accelerometer, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 22, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
[wherein the method further comprises determining a slew drive command based on the gravity vector relative to the angle of the boom] (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by configuring that the first set of sensors is configured to detect a gravity vector relative to the angle of the boom; and wherein the method further comprises determining the slew drive command based on the gravity vector relative to the angle of the boom as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Regarding claim 19, Clark teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: that a state of a slew drive comprises an angular position and an angular velocity of a slew drive bearing (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 22, Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
wherein a method further comprises determining the slew drive command based on the angular position and the angular velocity of the slew drive bearing (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by configuring that the state of the slew drive comprises an angular position and an angular velocity of a slew drive bearing; and wherein the method further comprises determining the slew drive command based on the angular position and the angular velocity of the slew drive bearing as taught by Clark in order to optimize a variety of objectives in leveling the platform including faster time to height, minimizing error, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring operator comfort and safety (Clark: ¶ 35-36).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Clark as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mourlam (US 10,913,643 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Mourlam teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: that a pressure sensor detects a hydraulic pressure indicative of an angle of a boom (see e.g. at least 6:17-46, Fig. 3-4, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by configuring that a pressure sensor detects a hydraulic pressure indicative of the angle of the boom as taught by Berry in order to reduce cones of uncertainty for various boom positions to improve accuracy and reliability of load monitoring (Mourlam: Abstract, 6:3-8).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Clark as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sykes (US 11,794,359 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Sykes teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Raymond including namely: that a first set of sensors comprises a gyroscope (see e.g. at least 22:30-23:11); and
wherein the method further comprises determining the velocity from an output of the gyroscope (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Raymond by configuring that the first set of sensors comprises a gyroscope; and wherein the method further comprises determining the velocity from an output of the gyroscope as taught by Sykes in order to provide responsive controls to respond to dynamic scenarios by including redundancy and increased accuracy (Sykes:1:25-42, 22:54-56).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 900-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662