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) 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0139729 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Graham discloses a power machine (paving machine 100, FIG. 1) comprising:
a main frame (frame 102, FIG. 1);
an electrical power source supported by the main frame (engine driving associated generator 108 that is used to power various systems on the machine 100 ¶ 13);
a lift arm structure supported by the main frame (tow arms 126 pivotally connected to the frame 102 ¶ 17 and FIG. 1), the lift arm structure including a lift arm (126, FIG. 1), an implement carrier supported by the lift arm (screed assembly raised and lowered 110, FIG. 1 and ¶ 17), and one or more electrical actuators (maybe either hydraulic or electric actuators ¶ 19) configured to raise and lower the lift arm relative to the main frame (raise and lower tow arms 126 thereby raise and lower the screed assembly 110 ¶ 17); and
a control system that includes one or more control devices (controller 160, FIG. 1 and ¶ 21) configured to operate the lift arm structure in a float mode (“float mode”, pressure applied to tow arm ¶¶ 28, 32, 39) such that the one or more electrical actuators permit movement of the lift arm structure relative to the main frame in response to an external force (“Removing the residual pressure in the lift cylinders allows the screed to return to a truly free floating state once it has reached equilibrium at the proper paving angle of attack and the desired paving depth. In an aspect of the present disclosure, all other machine controls on the machine 100, such as grade and slope controls, may be activated once the screed assembly 110 has returned to its free floating mode and has reached an equilibrium at the desired angle of attack and paving depth ¶ 33 and See also “In an embodiment, the controller 160 may receive sensed position parameters from the various sensors to determine how much pressure needs to be applied on the actuators, such as the tow arm actuators 128 to adjust the position of the screed assembly 110.” ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 12, Graham discloses a system of controlling a lift arm of a power machine, the system comprising: an electronic control system including one or more control devices (160, FIG. 1) configured to:
determine whether a power machine is operating in a float mode (“float mode”, pressure applied to tow arm ¶¶ 28, 32, 39); and
when the power machine is operating in the float mode, control an electric actuator that is configured to raise and lower the lift arm, to permit a movement of the lift arm by a first external force acting on the lift arm (“Removing the residual pressure in the lift cylinders allows the screed to return to a truly free floating state once it has reached equilibrium at the proper paving angle of attack and the desired paving depth. In an aspect of the present disclosure, all other machine controls on the machine 100, such as grade and slope controls, may be activated once the screed assembly 110 has returned to its free floating mode and has reached an equilibrium at the desired angle of attack and paving depth ¶ 33 and See also “In an embodiment, the controller 160 may receive sensed position parameters from the various sensors to determine how much pressure needs to be applied on the actuators, such as the tow arm actuators 128 to adjust the position of the screed assembly 110.” ¶ 40).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0139729 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brimeyer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0128741 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Graham is silent to the power machine, wherein the one or more control device are configured to operate the lift arm structure in the float mode by selectively powering the one or more electrical actuators to resist but not stop the movement of the lift arm structure in response to the external force.
However, in s similar field of endeavor, Brimeyer teaches a varying hydraulic cylinder to obtain smoother float pressure where a float force acts as a lifting force that acts against gravity, biasing the main frame of the header in an upward direction relative to attachment frame (¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lift arm structure in the float mode by selectively powering one of the actuators as taught by Graham to resist but not stop the movement of the lift arm structure in response to the external force as taught by Brimeyer to allow for machine and lift arm stability while following the surface of a ground (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 5, Brimeyer teaches the power machine, wherein the external force includes a gravitational force (gravity ¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lift arm structure in the float mode by selectively powering one of the actuators as taught by Graham to wherein the external force includes a gravitational force as taught by Brimeyer to allow for machine and lift arm stability while following the surface of a ground (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 6, Brimeyer teaches the power machine, wherein the external force includes a contact force applied upward on the lift arm resulting from contact with an external surface (lifting force in upward direction ¶ 23).
of the claimed invention to modify the lift arm structure in the float mode by selectively powering one of the actuators as taught by Graham to wherein the external force includes a contact force applied upward on the lift arm resulting from contact with an external surface as taught by Brimeyer to allow for machine and lift arm stability while following the surface of a ground (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 18, Brimeyer teaches the system, wherein the first external force is gravity (gravity ¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lift arm structure in the float mode by selectively powering one of the actuators as taught by Graham to wherein the external force includes a gravitational force as taught by Brimeyer to allow for machine and lift arm stability while following the surface of a ground (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 19, Brimeyer teaches the system, wherein the first external force is a contact force caused by contact with an external surface (lifting force in upward direction ¶ 23).
of the claimed invention to modify the lift arm structure in the float mode by selectively powering one of the actuators as taught by Graham to wherein the first external force is a contact force caused by contact with an external surface as taught by Brimeyer to allow for machine and lift arm stability while following the surface of a ground (¶ 4).
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaghan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0295679 A1) in view of Graham et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0139729 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Callaghan teaches a method of controlling a lift arm of a power machine (FIG. 3), the method comprising, with an electronic control system:
determining that a float mode is an active operational mode for the power machine (Float Mode ¶ 40); and
based on the float mode being the active operational mode (valve 152 is in Float Mode ¶ 40), controlling operation of one or more actuators of the power machine that are configured to raise and lower the lift arm of the power machine (tilt command may be limited when the coupler 120 is near the rack stop 140 to prevent the bucket 124 from contact the rack stop 140 ¶ 40) so that:
a present speed of the lift arm remains below a threshold float speed for operation
of the lift arm; and the one or more actuators are not powered to actively move the lift arm (no raise command based on threshold value, max angle position, and tilt angular velocity is equal to or below a given threshold, not moving ¶ 37).
Callaghan is silent to the electrical actuators. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Graham teaches a machine with tow arms and actuators that may be electrical to adjust movement of the tow arms (¶ 31).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic actuator taught by Callaghan to be an electrical actuator as taught by Graham to flexibly substitute as a preferable design choice (¶ 31).
Regarding claim 8, Callaghan discloses the method, further comprising:
based on the float mode being the active operational mode, controlling operation of the
one or more electrical actuators so that the one or more electrical actuators are not powered to hold position for the lift arm (¶¶ 37, 40).
Regarding claim 11, Callaghan discloses the method, wherein determining that the float mode is the active operational mode for the power machine includes: receiving a user input corresponding to a mode selection of the float mode; and determining that the float mode is the active operational mode for the power machine based on the user input (inputs to limit motion of actuator such as “Float” ¶ 34).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaghan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0295679 A1) in view of Graham et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0139729 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Brimeyer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0128741 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Callaghan is silent to the method, further comprising: based on the float mode being the active operational mode, controlling operation of the one or more electrical actuators so that the one or more electrical actuators are powered to hold position for the lift arm against the force of gravity.
However, in s similar field of endeavor, Brimeyer teaches a varying hydraulic cylinder to obtain smoother float pressure where a float force acts as a lifting force that acts against gravity, biasing the main frame of the header in an upward direction relative to attachment frame (¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lift arm structure in the float mode by selectively powering one of the actuators as taught by Graham to control operation of the one or more electrical actuators so that the one or more electrical actuators are powered to hold position for the lift arm against the force of gravity as taught by Brimeyer to allow for machine and lift arm stability while following the surface of a ground (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 10, Brimeyer teaches the method, further comprising:
based on the float mode being the active operational mode, controlling operation of the
one or more electrical actuators so that the one or more electrical actuators are not powered to hold position for the lift arm against net external forces exceeding the force of gravity in a
direction of gravity (¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to modify Graham to control operation of the
one or more electrical actuators so that the one or more electrical actuators are not powered to hold position for the lift arm against net external forces exceeding the force of gravity in a
direction of gravity as taught by Brimeyer to allow for machine and lift arm stability while following the surface of a ground (¶ 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 13 - 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663