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 § 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.
Claim 3, 4, 11, and 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3 and 14, it recites “a step after step d.” in line 1, however there is no previous step d, only steps a-c are in claim 1. Examiner understands this to be a typographical error and is intended to be “a step after step c”. In claim 1, the second stabiliser pair is indicated as the second and third stabiliser, however step e. states adjusting the second stabiliser pair such that the first and second stabilisers have reached the calibration or maximum extension. It is unclear which stabiliser are in the second stabiliser pair in claim 3 limitations.
Claim 4 recites “further comprising a step after step c) or e)” however there is no step e) in previous claims, therefore insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (US 20100100280) and further in view of Ford (US 6584385).
In regards to claim 1 and 12, Flynn discloses a method of adjusting a first plane of a work machine (vehicle), wherein the work machine comprises a first adjustable stabiliser, a second adjustable stabiliser, a third adjustable stabiliser, a fourth adjustable stabiliser (jack assemblies 24, 28, 32, 36 with corresponding shafts 26, 30, 34, 38) and a tilt sensor (66)(see para. 005-008, 0019-0025, and fig. 1-5), wherein:
the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers (jack assemblies 24, 28, 32, 36) are each extendable between a minimum extension and a maximum extension (retracted and extended positions by the actuator assemblies 42, 48, 54, 60 each jack is independently controlled by the ECU 64, para. 0020-0023), wherein a difference in length between the minimum extension and the maximum extension is the same for each adjustable stabiliser (the assemblies are all identical thereby having the same maximum and minimum extensions);
the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers (jack assemblies 24, 28, 32, 36 ) are configured to support the work machine (vehicle) when a distal end of each adjustable stabiliser is in contact with a ground surface (see para. 0030-0034, activating each actuator assembly to extend the shafts into contact with the ground, monitoring shaft movement and stopping extension upon detecting ground contact to support the vehicle off the ground, fig. 7-8).
Flynn discloses selective actuation of pairs of jack assemblies during programmed calibration operations specifically Flynn teaches extending selected pairs of jack assemblies to perform calibration calculations, including extending the second and fourth jack assemblies, or alternatively the first and third to determine the front to rear distance and extending the third and fourth jack assemblies or alternatively the first and second jack assemblies to determine the left and right distance, see para. 0036-0038. Therefore, Flynn discloses that the leveling controller is configured to selectively actuate different pairs depending on the programmed leveling or calibration being performed, the first stabiliser pair comprising a first and second adjustable stabiliser (24, 28) and the second stabiliser pair being the second and third adjustable stabiliser (28, 30) is one of those combinations Flynn includes.
the method comprising:
extending the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers (24, 28, 32, 36) to a first configuration, wherein in the first configuration each adjustable stabiliser is at a calibration extension and the first plane is parallel to a reference plane defined by points of contact of the distal ends of the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers (24, 28, 32, 36) with the ground surface (performing a calibration routine in which selected actuator assemblies are extended to a known calibration distance after the shafts have been extended into contact with the ground after each shaft has been extended the compacting distance, placing the vehicle on a flat surface, activating each actuator assembly to extend the shafts into contact with the ground, extending each shaft an additional compacting distance, and measuring an initial inclination prior to automatic leveling, see para, 0033-0039);
Flynn discloses selective controller actuation of different pairs of jack assemblies during programmed calibration operations as b) and c) recite but fails to expressly teach steps b) and c). However, Ford teaches a similar work vehicle automatic leveling with a controller configured to determine vehicle inclination about orthogonal axis and to selectively actuate appropriate leveling jacks according to a programmed leveling sequence until desired inclination is achieved (i.e. its parallel with the target plane).
Adjusting the first stabiliser pair such that the first, second, and third and fourth stabilisers arrive at a second configuration (determining which axis is most out of level and automatically leveling the structure about axis using the appropriate levelers selected by the controller, Col. 2 lines 34-65, col. 5 lines 41-67):
either the tilt sensor indicates that the first plane is parallel to a first axis of a target plane (the controller continuously monitoring the two axis tilt sensor until the selected levelers reaches the desired level attitude, Col. 5 lines 7-67); or
the first adjustable stabiliser and the second adjustable stabiliser have reached the maximum extension (terminating extension when the leveler reaches its maximum extension constitutes an inherent operating condition of ford's hydraulic leveling system);
Adjusting the second stabiliser pair such that the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers arrive at a third configuration (automatically leveling the remaining axis after completion of leveling about the first axis, see col. 2 lines 48-65 and fig. 24), wherein in the third configuration:
either the tilt sensor indicates that the first plane is parallel to a second axis of the target plane (monitoring the second tilt axis until the remaining axis reaches the desired level condition, col. 5 lines 41-67); or
the second adjustable stabiliser and the third adjustable stabiliser have reached maximum extension (terminating extension when the leveler reaches its maximum extension constitutes an inherent operating condition of ford's hydraulic leveling system) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date, to modify Flynn to perform sequential leveling according to Ford’s controller methodology because Flynn already teaches selective controller actuation of different jack pairs, while Ford teaches sequencing the selected jack groups to correct individual inclination axes and then select a second stabiliser pair corresponding to the remaining inclination axis. Applying Ford’s control strategy to Flynn merely substitutes one known controller sequencing algorithm for another to obtain the predictable benefit of improved automatic leveling performance.
Claim 12 is directed to a device (apparatus) configured to perform the same method of claim 1. Flynn teaches a vehicle leveling assembly (jack assemblies 24, 28, 32, 36), a leveling system electronic control unit (64), sensors (66),wherein the electronic control unit (64) is configured to control operation of the jack assemblies to perform an automatic leveling routine. And Ford is relied upon for the same teachings regarding sequential control of overlapping stabilizer pairs for correcting respective axes of inclination, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 3 and 14, Flynn and Ford in combination teach comprising a step after step d) of using the tilt sensor (Flynn 66) to determine whether the first plane is parallel to the target plane (Flynn teaches using a dual axis inclination sensor with the control unit to determine front-rear inclination and left-right inclination of the vehicle during leveling, see para. 0022, 0039-44, fig. 9) Flynn further teaches in an event that the tilt sensor indicates that the first plane is not parallel to the target plane. Flynn teaches determining the necessary extension distances for the jack assemblies based upon the measure inclination of the vehicle in order to obtain the desired level attitude. But Flynn fails to expressly teach repeating the leveling sequence after an initial leveling operation when the vehicle remains out of level as steps d and e recite. However, Ford teaches in an event that the tilt sensor indicates that the first plane is not parallel to the target plane:
Adjusting the first stabiliser pair such that the first, second, third and fourth stabilisers (first and second levelers adjusted when the first axis needs adjustment) arrive at a fourth configuration:
either the tilt sensor (32) indicates that the first plane is parallel to the first axis (continued monitoring of the first tilt axis during the leveling routine, actuating the appropriate levelers until the first axis reaches the desired conditions, see col. 2 lines 59-65, col. 5 lines 41-67); or
the first adjustable stabiliser and the second adjustable stabiliser have reached the calibration or maximum extension (if the first and second leveler is adjusted as needed but will end once it is at maximum extension as there is no adjustments that can be made beyond that extension); and
Adjusting the second stabiliser pair such that the first, second, third and fourth stabilisers (automatically correcting the remaining axis after completion of correction of the first axis, see fig. 24) arrive at a fifth configuration:
either the tilt sensor (32) indicates that the first plane is parallel to the second axis (continuous monitoring of the remaining tilt axis until desired level condition is achieved); or
the first adjustable stabiliser and the second adjustable stabiliser have reached the calibration or maximum extension (termination of leveler movement upon reaching a predetermined calibration position or the maximum mechanical stroke of the actuator when the operating limit has been hit)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Flynn’s leveling controller to continue evaluating the inclination sensor following completion of an initial leveling sequence and when the vehicle remains out of level continue the programmed leveling routine according to Ford in order to achieve the desired level attitude with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 4, Ford and Flynn in combination teach using the tilt sensor (see ford tilt sensor 32) to determine whether the first plane is parallel to the first axis and the second axis (continuous monitoring of either or both tilt axis) and in an event that the first tilt sensor indicates that the first plane is not parallel to the first and second axes, extending the first stabiliser pair and the second stabiliser pair to the maximum extension (due to the continuous monitoring of the tilt axis and the adjustment of the levelers until the desired level condition is achieved, the levelers will keep adjusting until the maximum extension of the mechanical stroke of the actuator has been hit, see Ford and discussion of process in steps d, e, in claim 3 above).
In regards to claim 7, Flynn and Ford in combination teach determining whether the first plane is parallel to the first axis or the second axis comprises comparing a tilt angle to a threshold angle. Flynn teaches determining the front and rear inclination and the left and right inclination with the inclination sensor 66, the control unit calculates the extension distances for the jack assembles, but Flynn fails to disclose comparing the measured tilt angle to a threshold angle. Ford teaches a controller configured to monitor signals from two-axis tilt sensor and determine whether the measured attitude differs from a desired or reference attitude by greater than a predetermined allowable magnitude before initiating or continuing attitude correction. Ford teaching correcting the attitude of the structure in response to the tilt sensor signals until the desired attitude is achieved, see claim 20, and claims 1, and 10. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Flynn’s automatic leveling controller to compare measured tilt angle from the sensor to a predetermined threshold as taught by Ford for determining whether more leveling is required. Doing so merely applies a known control criterion to Flynn’s automatic leveling system in order to prevent unnecessary actuator movement when the measured inclination is within an acceptable tolerance, thereby improving leveling efficiency and reducing unnecessary operation of the stabilizer actuators.
In regards to claim 10, Flynn and Ford in combination teaches wherein the tilt sensor comprises a first tilt sensor and a second tilt sensor (see para. 0022, a dual axis or two single axis inclination sensors), wherein the first tilt sensor is configured to detect tilt about a primary axis (one measuring the front-rear axis) and wherein the second tilt sensor is configured to detect tilt about a secondary axis (the second measuring the left to right axis).
In regards to claim 15, Flynn and Ford teach a work machine (vehicle body levelling device for a working vehicle) comprising the device of claim 12 (see above)
Claims 5-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn and Ford as applied to claims above, and further in view of Fukumoto (US 5580095).
In regards to claim 5, Flynn and Ford teach wherein the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilizers (24,28,32,36) each comprise : a driving shaft (26, 30, 34, 38) but fails to expressly disclose a hydraulic cylinder and a support plate with the ground. Fukumoto teaches similar work vehicle to Flynn wherein the levelers are hydraulic cylinders 7 that are extendable and have a support plate 8 configured to engage the ground see fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted Flynn’s actuators with that Fukumoto teaches since both are known equivalents for leveling work vehicles.
In regards to claim 6, Flynn and Ford, and Fukumoto in combination teach the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilizers (Flynn 24, 28, 32, 36) each further comprise a mechanical arm (shafts 26, 30, 34, 38) , wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilizers are stored in a raised position and wherein the mechanical arm configured to lower each stabilizer to a lowered position (from retracted position they are extended to the configuration for automatic leveling) prior to step a).
In regards to claim 11, Flynn and Ford fail to teach the work machine further comprises a pressure sensor configured to detect a pressure of the hydraulic cylinder of each adjustable stabiliser, wherein an extension of each adjustable stabiliser is determined by using the pressure sensor. However, Fukumoto teaches a similar vehicle body leveling device for a work vehicle to that of Flynn and Ford wherein the jack cylinders 7 include hydraulic pressure detectors 117 (see abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flynn and Ford in view of Fukumoto with the pressure sensors in order to decrease the time it takes to level the work vehicle (see col. 2 lines 7-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 13 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. The closest related prior art fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination,
step a) comprises a first stage and a second stage, wherein: the first stage comprises extending the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers to a primary configuration, wherein in the primary configuration each adjustable stabiliser is at the maximum extension and the first plane is parallel to a reference plane defined by points of contact of the distal ends of the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers with the ground surface; and the second stage comprises retracting the first, second, third and fourth adjustable stabilisers to the first configuration. The closest related prior art, Flynn and Ford, teach initialization and calibration of leveling systems but do not disclose or render obvious the claimed two stage calibration sequence employing an initial maximum extension reference position followed by retraction to a defined calibration position. The claimed initialization procedure provides a specific reference configured for subsequent leveling operations that is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record. Nor do the prior art teach wherein the threshold angle comprises a tolerance of the tilt sensor, wherein the work machine comprises an upper carriage comprising the tilt sensor and an under carriage comprising the first plane, wherein: the upper carriage is configured to be rotatable about a third axis with respect to the under carriage; the third axis is perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis; and the method steps of using the tilt sensor to determine whether the first plane is parallel to the target plane further comprise using a rotation angle of the upper carriage with respect to the under carriage to determine whether the first plane is parallel to the first axis or the second axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 provides a list of relevant prior art that teach a method or devices of a work machine having stabilisers and tilt sensors as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights