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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2024 and 01/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an articulated vehicle (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
The examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites:
An articulated vehicle comprising:
a front frame having a pair of left and right wheels; a rear frame having a pair of left and right wheels rotatably connected to the front frame in the left and right direction;
a self-position sensor for detecting the position at the work site; and
a controller for controlling the operation of the articulated vehicle, wherein
the controller is configured to;
set a reference point of the articulated vehicle on a straight line passing perpendicularly through the center of the left and right axles of the wheels of the frame on the advancing direction side of the front and rear frames, either on the axle or on the advancing direction side of the axle,
calculate the position of the reference point at the work site based on the detection result of the self-position sensor, and
calculate the steering control amount, which is the amount of bending of the front frame relative to the rear frame, based on the predetermined target trajectory as the travel trajectory of the articulated vehicle and the position of the reference point at the work site.
The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, “set a reference point of the articulated vehicle on a straight line passing perpendicularly through the center…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data to pick reference point. Another example, “calculate the position of the reference point…” and “calculate the steering control amount…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and calculating how far to turn to go in that direction.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An articulated vehicle comprising:
a front frame having a pair of left and right wheels; a rear frame having a pair of left and right wheels rotatably connected to the front frame in the left and right direction;
a self-position sensor for detecting the position at the work site; and
a controller for controlling the operation of the articulated vehicle, wherein
the controller is configured to;
set a reference point of the articulated vehicle on a straight line passing perpendicularly through the center of the left and right axles of the wheels of the frame on the advancing direction side of the front and rear frames, either on the axle or on the advancing direction side of the axle,
calculate the position of the reference point at the work site based on the detection result of the self-position sensor, and
calculate the steering control amount, which is the amount of bending of the front frame relative to the rear frame, based on the predetermined target trajectory as the travel trajectory of the articulated vehicle and the position of the reference point at the work site.
Regarding the additional limitations “a front frame having a pair of left and right wheels; a rear frame having a pair of left and right wheels rotatably connected to the front frame in the left and right direction; a self-position sensor for detecting the position at the work site; and a controller for controlling the operation of the articulated vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to” the examiner submits that this limitation is an example of generally linking additional elements to a technological environment, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution and/or post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims further narrow the “calculate” element of claim 1 that was considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such an element does not take claims 2, 5, and 7 out of the realm of mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 5, and 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 3, 4, and 8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims further narrow the “reference point” element of claim 1 that was considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such an element does not take claims 3, 4, and 8 out of the realm of mental process. The additional limitations “forward/reverse indication switch”, “vehicle information acquisition sensor”, and “a pair of lift arms extended forward, positioned at locations spaced apart in the width direction and supported on the front frame so as to be able to raise and down, and a bucket supported on the front end of the pair of lift arms so as to be able to tilt” are generally linking additional elements to a technological environment, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f). Therefore, dependent claims 3, 4, and 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 6 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim “controller is configured to switch the route plan…” which in the context of the claim encompasses a person changing their decision based on given information which is considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such an element does not take claim 6 out of the realm of mental process. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
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) 1-2, and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (“Path Generation for Autonomous Locomotion of Articulated Steering Wheel Loader”) in view of KATAYAMA et al. (JP 2017204089 A) All citations based on NPL merged document.
Regarding claim 1,
Takahashi teaches:
An articulated vehicle comprising:
(Takahashi – On page 1, it states “a wheel loader is a major machine…”)
a self-position sensor for detecting the position at the work site; and
(Takahashi – On page 7 it states “4 RECOGNITION OF THE RELATIVE POSITION AND ORIENTATION OF THE DUMP TRUCK BY USE OF A VISION SYSTEM”)
set a reference point of the articulated vehicle on a straight line passing perpendicularly through the center of the left and right axles of the wheels of the frame on the advancing direction side of the front and rear frames, either on the axle
(Takahashi – On page 6 it states “Usually, the tracking point is set at the center of the rear axle. However, if the tracking point is set at the center of the rear axle of awheel loader… This means that the tracking point should be changed in the path to include the turning point…”)
Takahashi teaches an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and a reference point of the vehicle. However, Takashi does not teach a front frame having a pair of left and right wheels; a rear frame having a pair of left and right wheels rotatably connected to the front frame in the left and right direction; a controller for controlling the operation of the articulated vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to; set a reference point of the articulated vehicle on a straight line passing perpendicularly through the center of the left and right axles of the wheels of the frame on the advancing direction side of the front and rear frames, either on the axle or on the advancing direction side of the axle, calculate the position of the reference point at the work site based on the detection result of the self-position sensor, and calculate the steering control amount, which is the amount of bending of the front frame relative to the rear frame, based on the predetermined target trajectory as the travel trajectory of the articulated vehicle and the position of the reference point at the work site.
KATAYAMA teaches:
a front frame having a pair of left and right wheels; a rear frame having a pair of left and right wheels rotatably connected to the front frame in the left and right direction;
(KATAYAMA – On page 3 it states “With reference to FIG. 2, the configuration of the vibrating roller 1 (may be referred to as “roller” for omission) will be described. The vibration roller 1 includes a vehicle body 10, two iron wheels 11 and 11 attached to the front and rear of the vehicle body 10, an articulate mechanism 12 disposed at the lower part of the vehicle body 10, and an all-round prism installed at the upper part of the vehicle body 10.”)
a controller for controlling the operation of the articulated vehicle, wherein
(KATAYAMA – On page 1 it states “An autonomous travel controller controls a construction machine 1 that performs autonomous travel.”)
the controller is configured to;
set a reference point of the articulated vehicle on a straight line passing perpendicularly through the center of the left and right axles of the wheels of the frame on the advancing direction side of the front and rear frames, either on the axle or on the advancing direction side of the axle,
calculate the position of the reference point at the work site based on the detection result of the self-position sensor, and
(KATAYAMA – On page 4 it states “ With reference to FIG. 3, the reference point and the reference direction when performing the independent running control of the vibration roller 1 will be described. The vibration roller 1 can move forward and backward as described above, but here, the description will be made on the assumption that the vibration roller 1 moves forward. Therefore, the position of the prism as the reference point is corrected to the center position of the rotation axis of the front wheel 11a. In addition, although mentioned later for details, the direction (azimuth angle G (deg)) of the vehicle body 10 of the vibration roller 1 is detected by attitude | position detection sensor S1 (refer FIG. 4). Further, the steering angle θ (deg) of the articulate mechanism 12 is detected by a steering angle detection sensor S3 (see FIG. 4).”)
calculate the steering control amount, which is the amount of bending of the front frame relative to the rear frame, based on the predetermined target trajectory as the travel trajectory of the articulated vehicle and the position of the reference point at the work site.
(KATAYAMA – On page 3 it states “The reference line of the rolling path is a virtual line along the extending direction (longitudinal direction) of the rolling path, and is a travel route that is a target of autonomous traveling of the vibration roller 1. The reference line can be set at an arbitrary position of the rolling path. In the present embodiment, the center line of the compaction path is adopted as the reference line.”)
Takahashi and KATAYAMA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of an articulated vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi with KATAYAMA. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and a reference point with the calculation of the steering control amount and calculation of a new reference point based on the movement of the articulated vehicle because the adjustment of these calculations allows for the articulated vehicle to be more efficient in its movements to complete the job required.
Regarding claim 2,
Takahashi and KATAYAMA teach the limitations of claim 1.
KATAYAMA further teaches:
the controller is configured to calculate the steering control amount so that the distance between the center of the left and right axles of the wheels of the frame on the advancing direction side of the front and rear frames and the target trajectory is equal to or less than the distance between the center of the axles of the wheels of the frame on the opposite side of the advancing direction and the target trajectory.
(KATAYAMA – On page 6 it states “The autonomous traveling control device 15 calculates a steering angle θ necessary for autonomous traveling, creates a control command using the calculated steering angle θ as a control command angle, and periodically outputs the control command (for example, 100 milliseconds).)… Here, a “rolling step” is assumed as a traveling pattern controlled by the autonomous traveling control device 15. In the rolling step, the vibrating roller 1 is reciprocated on the rolling pressure path by the number of times of rolling. The autonomous running control device 15 obtains the center line of the rolling compaction path by calculation in advance for autonomous running in the rolling compaction process. For example, the autonomous traveling control device 15 calculates the center line of the compaction path from the coordinates (x, y) of both ends (start point, target point) of the center line of each compaction path. The direction from the starting point of the center line of the rolling path to the target point is defined as “θT”. In addition, the autonomous traveling control device 15 sets a band-like region that spreads evenly on both the left and right sides from the center line of the rolling compaction path as an allowable range of displacement. The width (Xcm) of the permissible range of misregistration only needs to be determined in advance as a threshold value, for example, about 20 cm (about ± 20 cm from the center line of the compaction path)…”)
Takahashi and KATAYAMA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of an articulated vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi with KATAYAMA. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and a reference point with the calculation of the steering control amount and calculation of a new reference point based on the movement of the articulated vehicle because the adjustment of these calculations allows for the articulated vehicle to be more efficient in its movements to complete the job required.
Regarding claim 4,
Takahashi and KATAYAMA teach the limitations of claim 1.
KATAYAMA further teaches:
further comprising a vehicle information acquisition sensor for detecting the advancing direction of the vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to set the reference point of the articulated vehicle according to the advancing direction of the articulated vehicle determined based on the detection result of the vehicle information acquisition sensor.
(KATAYAMA – On page 5 it states “The speed detection sensor S2 detects a speed V (km / h) at which the vibration roller 1 moves forward and backward. The speed detection sensor S2 is, for example, a rotary encoder that detects the rotational speed of the iron wheel 11, and is installed on the rear wheel 11b. The velocity V (km / h) is transferred to the autonomous traveling control device 15 and used for calculation of the current position using inertial navigation (INS).” On page 4 it further states “the position of the prism as the reference point is corrected to the center position of the rotation axis of the front wheel 11a. In addition, although mentioned later for details, the direction (azimuth angle G (deg)) of the vehicle body 10 of the vibration roller 1 is detected by attitude | position detection sensor S1 (refer FIG. 4). Further, the steering angle θ (deg) of the articulate mechanism 12 is detected by a steering angle detection sensor S3 (see FIG. 4).”)
Takahashi and KATAYAMA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of an articulated vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi with KATAYAMA. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and a reference point with the calculation of the steering control amount and calculation of a new reference point based on the movement of the articulated vehicle because the adjustment of these calculations allows for the articulated vehicle to be more efficient in its movements to complete the job required.
Regarding claim 5,
Takahashi and KATAYAMA teach the limitations of claim 2.
KATAYAMA further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to calculate a target position at the work site from a predetermined route plan and the position of the reference point at the work site, and sets the reference point of the articulated vehicle according to the advancing direction of the articulated vehicle determined based on the position of the reference point at the work site and the target position.
(KATAYAMA – On page 3 it states “The reference line of the rolling path is a virtual line along the extending direction (longitudinal direction) of the rolling path, and is a travel route that is a target of autonomous traveling of the vibration roller 1.” On page 4 it further states “the position of the prism as the reference point is corrected to the center position of the rotation axis of the front wheel 11a. In addition, although mentioned later for details, the direction (azimuth angle G (deg)) of the vehicle body 10 of the vibration roller 1 is detected by attitude | position detection sensor S1 (refer FIG. 4). Further, the steering angle θ (deg) of the articulate mechanism 12 is detected by a steering angle detection sensor S3 (see FIG. 4).”)
Takahashi and KATAYAMA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of an articulated vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi with KATAYAMA. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and a reference point with the calculation of the steering control amount and calculation of a new reference point based on the movement of the articulated vehicle because the adjustment of these calculations allows for the articulated vehicle to be more efficient in its movements to complete the job required.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (“Path Generation for Autonomous Locomotion of Articulated Steering Wheel Loader”) in view of KATAYAMA et al. (JP 2017204089 A) All citations based on NPL merged document and further in view of Layfield et al. (US 20230312029 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Takahashi and KATAYAMA teach the limitations of claim 1.
KATAYAMA further teaches:
the controller is configured to set the reference point of the articulated vehicle according to the advancing direction indicated
(KATAYAMA – On page 4 it states “ With reference to FIG. 3, the reference point and the reference direction when performing the independent running control of the vibration roller 1 will be described. The vibration roller 1 can move forward and backward as described above, but here, the description will be made on the assumption that the vibration roller 1 moves forward. Therefore, the position of the prism as the reference point is corrected to the center position of the rotation axis of the front wheel 11a. In addition, although mentioned later for details, the direction (azimuth angle G (deg)) of the vehicle body 10 of the vibration roller 1 is detected by attitude | position detection sensor S1 (refer FIG. 4). Further, the steering angle θ (deg) of the articulate mechanism 12 is detected by a steering angle detection sensor S3 (see FIG. 4).”)
KATAYAMA teaches the reference point changing based on the advancing direction. Takahashi and KATAYAMA does not teach a forward/reverse indication switch.
Layfield teaches:
further comprising a forward/reverse indication switch for indicating the advancing direction of the articulated vehicle, wherein
the controller is configured to set the advancing direction indicated by the forward/reverse indication switch.
(Layfield – Paragraph [0206] states “The controller 502 operates to detect the conditions for activation of anti-idling mode at step 1906, based at least in part on received vehicle data 1901. With respect to anti-idling mode in the illustrated example, the vehicle data 1901 used by the controller 502 at step 1906 includes vehicle transmission data 1902 indicating the state of the transmission of the towing vehicle 13 (e.g. whether the engine is on but the towing vehicle 13 is in park, neutral, reverse, or a drive gear).”)
Takahashi, KATAYAMA, and Layfield are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of an articulated vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi and KATAYAMA with Layfield. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and the calculation of the steering control amount and calculation of a new reference point based on the movement of the articulated vehicle with a forward/reverse indication switch because the switch allows both the user and the system to keep track of the direction the system is moving. This allows for the system to calculate the reference point with more efficiency since it can determine the new point without having to sense the direction each time.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (“Path Generation for Autonomous Locomotion of Articulated Steering Wheel Loader”) in view of KATAYAMA et al. (JP 2017204089 A) and further in view of Araki et al. (JP 7369626 B2) (All citations based on NPL merged documents)
Regarding claim 6,
Takahashi and KATAYAMA teach the limitations of claim 5.
However, Takahashi and KATAYAMA do not teach the limitations of claim 6.
Araki teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to switch the route plan according to the position of the reference point in the articulated vehicle when the reference point is changed.
(Araki – On page 4 it states “The first control unit 21 generates a route plan based on information indicating the positional relationship between the two reference points and the two feature points, and performs processing for determining the travel route of the vehicle 1 according to the route plan.”)
Takahashi, KATAYAMA, and Araki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi and KATAYAMA with Araki. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and the calculation of the steering control amount and calculation of a new route plan when the reference point has changed because following a plan based on a previous reference point would not be accurate to the current situation. The system would be more efficient with a new calculation based on its updated information of the reference point and a route plan.
Regarding claim 7,
Takahashi and KATAYAMA teach the limitations of claim 1.
KATAYAMA further teaches:
the controller is configured to, when the reference point is changed, calculate a speed control amount, which is a target traveling speed of the articulated vehicle at the work site, so that the distance between the target position and the position of the reference point at the work site is equal to or less than the distance between the target position before the change of the reference point and the position of the reference point at the work site.
(Araki – On page 9 it states “The control device 20 of the second embodiment switches the method of determining the movement route of the vehicle 1 from the first control section 21 to the second control section 22 when the value of q becomes equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value. That is, when the value of q becomes less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, route planning is switched to direct feedback.” Note: The value of q is the target position. On page 7 it further states “The control device 20 outputs… to the drive unit 31 and the steering unit 32… corresponds to a speed (moving speed) command [m/s] to the drive unit 31”)
Takahashi, KATAYAMA, and Araki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi and KATAYAMA with Araki. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a position sensor and the calculation of the steering control amount and calculation of new steering amounts and other control commands when the reference point has changed because following controls based on a previous reference point would not be accurate to the current situation. The system would be more efficient with new calculations based on its updated information of the reference point and a route plan.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (“Path Generation for Autonomous Locomotion of Articulated Steering Wheel Loader”) in view of KATAYAMA et al. (JP 2017204089 A) (All citations based on NPL merged documents) and further in view of Howson et al. (US 20230243466 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
Takahashi and KATAYAMA teach the limitations of claim 2.
KATAYAMA further teaches:
the controller is configured to;
when the front frame side is the direction of travel, set the reference point of the articulated vehicle between the axle of the wheel of the front frame , and when the rear frame side is the direction of travel, set the reference point of the articulated vehicle between the axle of the wheel of the rear frame and the rear end of the rear frame.
(KATAYAMA – On page 3 it states “The reference line of the rolling path is a virtual line along the extending direction (longitudinal direction) of the rolling path, and is a travel route that is a target of autonomous traveling of the vibration roller 1.” On page 4 it further states “the position of the prism as the reference point is corrected to the center position of the rotation axis of the front wheel 11a. In addition, although mentioned later for details, the direction (azimuth angle G (deg)) of the vehicle body 10 of the vibration roller 1 is detected by attitude | position detection sensor S1 (refer FIG. 4). Further, the steering angle θ (deg) of the articulate mechanism 12 is detected by a steering angle detection sensor S3 (see FIG. 4).”)
KATAYAMA teaches an articulated vehicle with a controller that is configured to change the reference point of the vehicle based on the direction of the motion of the vehicle. However, KATAYAMA does not teach a pair of lift arms extended forward, positioned at locations spaced apart in the width direction and supported on the front frame so as to be able to raise and down, and a bucket supported on the front end of the pair of lift arms so as to be able to tilt, and the reference point of the articulated vehicle between the axle of the wheel of the front frame and the tip of the bucket.
Howson teaches:
comprising a pair of lift arms extended forward, positioned at locations spaced apart in the width direction and supported on the front frame so as to be able to raise and down, and
(Howson – Fig. 1, see below, elements 124)
PNG
media_image1.png
722
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bucket supported on the front end of the pair of lift arms so as to be able to tilt, wherein
(Howson – Fig. 1, see above, elements 122)
when the front frame side is the direction of travel, set the reference point of the articulated vehicle between the axle of the wheel of the front frame and the tip of the bucket,
(Howson – Paragraph [0034] states “The sliding fit between the cylindrical pin 206 and the circular apertures 212 allow the first and second rigid links 202, 204 to pivot or articulate with respect to each other and with respect to the pivot axis 208 that may serve as a fixed point of reference. Accordingly, the location of the pivot axis 208 and the circular aperture 212 defined by the first and second structural eyes 210, 214 can serve as a frame of reference or coordinate system via which rotation and relative motion of the kinematic link 200 can be represented” Note: The examiner interprets the reference point being the hinge of the bucket as a point between the axle of the wheel of the front frame and the tip of the bucket.)
Takahashi, KATAYAMA, and Howson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of control of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi and KATAYAMA with Howson. It would have been obvious to combine an articulated vehicle with a pair of arms and a bucket because this allows for the vehicle to complete its purpose with efficiency. The adjustment of the reference point allows for compensation of the front end of the vehicle having an extension that is different from the back.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668