DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 26-30, 32-34, and 36-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOY et al. (US 2021/0310202).
With regards to claim 21, DOY et al. discloses an inclination control system (150) including: at least one non-contact sensor (140, 142) configured to be connected to a work machine (100), the at least one non-contacting sensor configured to detect a feature of a cut plane under the work machine; and a controller (152) communicatively connected to the at least one non-contact sensor and configured to control inclination of the work machine based on the detected feature (figure 1-12; paragraphs 0006, 0025, 0030 and 0036-0049).
As to claim 22 and 37, DOY et al. discloses wherein the at least one non-contacting sensor (140, 142) is configured to be connected to and positioned on a central axis of the work machine (figures 2-6).
As to claim 23, DOY et al. discloses wherein the at least one non-contacting sensor comprises a plurality of non-contacting sensors (140) configured to be spaced apart on the central axis of the work machine (figures 3-5).
As to claim 24 and 38, DOY et al. discloses wherein the at least one non-contacting sensor (140, 142) comprises two non-contacting sensors (140) configured to be located forward and rearward of a transportation device of the work machine (figures 3-4).
As to claim 26 and 40, DOY et al. discloses wherein the two non-contacting sensors (140, 142) are each configured to detect distance between the respective sensor and the cut plane (paragraph 0040-0042; figures 3-5).
As to claim 27 and 41, DOY et al. discloses wherein the controller (152) is configured to determine whether a frame axis of the work machine is at a target inclination to the cut plane based on the detected distances of each of the two non-contacting sensors (140) (paragraph 0024, 0040 and 0056; figure 2).
As to claim 28 and 42, DOY et al. discloses wherein the controller (152) is configured to determine whether a frame axis of the work machine is parallel to the cut plane based on the detected distances of each of the two non-contacting sensors (140, 142) (figures 2-5; paragraphs 0041-0042).
As to claim 29, DOY et al. discloses wherein the at least one non-contacting sensor (140, 142) detects the cut plane outwardly away from the central axis of the work machine (figures 2-5).
As to claim 30, DOY et al. discloses wherein the at least one non-contacting sensor comprises a laser device, a radar device, an imaging system, or a sonic device (paragraph 0036).
As to claim 32 and 44, DOY et al. discloses wherein the at least one non-contacting sensor (140, 142) is configured to be connected rearward of a rotating drum of the work machine (figure 2).
As to claim 33 and 43, DOY et al. discloses wherein: the work machine (100) comprises side plates (122) arranged on opposite sides of the work machine; and the at least one non-contacting sensor (140, 142) is located laterally outside a width of the work machine defined by the side plates (figures 2-5).
As to claim 34 and 45, DOY et al. discloses wherein the controller (152) is configured to determine whether a frame axis of the work machine is at a target inclination to the cut plane based on the detected feature (paragraph 0052-0056).
As to claim 35 and 46, DOY et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a frame axis of the work machine is parallel to the cut plane based on the detected feature (0051-0056).
With regards to claim 36 and 47, DOY et al. discloses a method and a work machine (100), comprising: a frame (102) defining a front end (108) and a rear end (110) of the work machine and having a frame axis extending longitudinally therethrough and a rotating drum (118) extending in a direction perpendicular through the frame axis (figures 1-8); a transportation device (106) configured to move the work machine over a cut plane; a lifting column (112) extending between the frame and the transportation device; at least one non-contacting sensor (140, 142) connected to the work machine and configured to detect a feature of a cut plane under the work machine; and a controller (152) communicatively connected to the at least one non-contacting sensor and configured to control the lifting column to control inclination of the work machine based on the detected feature (paragraph 0025).
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) 25, 31, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOY et al. (US 2021/0310202) alone.
As to claim 25 and 39, DOY et al. discloses wherein the work machine comprises a pair of transportation devices (106) including the transportation device, wherein the central axis on which the two non-contacting sensors (140, 142) are located in a longitudinal axis laterally between the pair of transportation devices (figure 5-6). DOY et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, DOY et al. is silent about the two non-contacting sensors are located in a longitudinally axis laterally centered between the pair of transportation devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to reconfigure the sensor to be located as claimed, since it has been held that a mere reconfiguration of the essential working parts of a device is only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
As to claim 31, DOY et al. discloses wherein the at least one non-contacting sensor comprises a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensor. It is old and well known in the art to use LIDAR sensors (see for example US 20210229516 and US 20200122540 teaching using LIDAR sensors for the same purpose), in this case it would be as simple substitution of known elements, therefore, it would have been within the level of one skilled in the art to modify the sensor to be LIDAR, since it known to use LIDAR sensor to detect height of columns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678