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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 3, and 4 be found allowable, claims 5, 8, and 10, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof, since claim 5 requires "the accumulator" as presently recited in the claim. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 4-10, 13, 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.
Claims 4 and 10 each recite "a set blade angle triggers the cushion control signal from the blade position sensor." However, claims 3 and 8 (from which claims 4 and 10 respectively depend) each previously set forth "a blade angle signal from a blade position sensor" in an "or" statement. It is unclear if limitations relating to "the blade position sensor" in claims 4 and 10 are required when claims 3 and 8 are met by "an operator input" (in their respective "or" statements) so do not require "a blade angle signal from a blade position sensor." Claims 4 and 10 do not expressly require the alternative of "a blade angle signal from a blade position sensor" as set forth in claims 3 and 8. As such, the metes and bounds of claims 4 and 10 cannot be determined. Therefore, claims 4 and 10 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the accumulator" in lines 7, 9, and 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 6-10 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 9 recites "the operator input comprises one or more of pressing a button, flipping a switch, and interacting with a touch screen icon." However, claim 8 (from which claim 9 depends) previously sets forth "an operator input" in an "or" statement. It is unclear if limitations of claim 9 are required when claim 8 is met by "a blade angle signal from a blade position sensor" (in its "or" statement) so does not require "an operator input." Claim 9 does not expressly require the alternative of "an operator input" as set forth in claim 8. As such, the metes and bounds of claim 9 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 13 recites "the blade position sensor signal is generated when a blade position sensor detects a set blade angle of the blade." However, claim 12 (from which claim 13 depends) previously sets forth "a blade position sensor signal" in an "or" statement. It is unclear if limitations of claim 13 are required when claim 12 is met by "an operator input" (in its "or" statement) so does not require "a blade position sensor signal." Claim 13 does not expressly require the alternative of "a blade position sensor signal" as set forth in claim 12. As such, the metes and bounds of claim 13 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the valve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (as opposed to "the control valve" as recited in claim 11). Consistent terminology is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fulcher et al. (US 11,619,026)
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Fulcher discloses a work vehicle comprising:
a push beam (including 20, or including that directly labeled 20 in Fig. 1);
a work tool (including 34) configured to scrape a surface;
a hydraulic actuator (including 42L, or including 42R), interconnecting the push beam and the work tool and configured for moving the work tool relative to the push beam in response to fluid pressure;
an accumulator (96L or 96R), wherein the accumulator is in fluid communication with the hydraulic actuator (see Fig. 3);
a control valve (including 92L, or including 92R) disposed fluidly between the accumulator and the hydraulic actuator (see Fig. 3), wherein the control valve is selectively controllable between an open position allowing fluid communication between the accumulator and the hydraulic actuator and a closed position blocking fluid communication between the accumulator and the hydraulic actuator (see col. 8, lines 20-38); and
a controller (including 110, or including "a ride control activation lever" as described in col. 6, lines 12-27), wherein the controller is configured to
receive a cushion control signal selecting one of a cushioned operating condition for providing a cushioned response between the work tool and the push beam and a non-cushioned operating condition for providing non-cushioned response between the work tool and the push beam (with respect to 110, see col. 9, line 42 - col. 10, line 18),
control the control valve to the open position when the cushion control signal indicates the cushioned operating condition (with respect to 110, again see col. 9, line 42 - col. 10, line 18), and
control the control valve to the closed position when the cushion control signal indicates the non-cushioned operating condition (with respect to 110, see col. 12, line 59 - col. 13, line 7, wherein 110 turns off cushioning).
Regarding claim 2, Fulcher discloses the work tool (including 34) comprising a dozer blade (34 being a pushed blade as of a bulldozer). It is noted that claim 2 does not require the work vehicle to be a dozer or bulldozer.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Fulcher discloses the cushion control signal comprising an operator input (via 126, or "a ride control activation lever" set forth as being "displaced by an operator" in col. 6, lines 12-27).
Regarding claim 9, Fulcher discloses the operator input (to 110) comprising flipping a switch (including 126).
Regarding claim 11, Fulcher discloses a method of cushioning a work tool (including 34) on a work vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a cushion control signal selecting one of a cushioned operating condition for providing a cushioned response between the work tool and a push beam (including 20, or including that directly labeled 20 in Fig. 1) and a non-cushioned operating condition for providing non-cushioned response between the work tool and the push beam (110 receiving such a signal as described in col. 9, line 42 - col. 10, line 18; or "a ride control activation lever" receiving a cushion control signal by being displaced as described in col. 6, lines 12-27);
controlling a control valve (including 92L, or including 92R) to an open position when the cushion control signal indicates the cushioned operating condition (110 controlling 92L and 92R to open as described in col. 9, line 42 - col. 10, line 18; with respect to "a ride control activation lever," see col. 12, lines 53-58); and
controlling the control valve to a closed position when the cushion control signal indicates the non-cushioned operating condition (110 controlling for "off" as described in col. 9, line 42 - col. 10, line 18; with respect to "a ride control activation lever," see col. 12, lines 53-58).
Regarding claim 12, Fulcher discloses the cushion control signal comprising an operator input (via 126, or "a ride control activation lever" being "displaced by an operator" as set forth in col. 6, lines 12-27).
Regarding claim 14, Fulcher discloses the control valve (including 92L, or including 92R) being a solenoid valve (see col. 5, line 59 - col. 6, line 27) in fluid communication with a hydraulic actuator coupled with the work tool (see Fig. 3) and a hydraulic accumulator (96L or 96R) that is fluidly coupled with the hydraulic actuator (see Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulcher in view of Bitter (US 7,530,434)
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Fulcher discloses the work vehicle with respect to claims 1 and 5, as set forth above. Fulcher does not explicitly disclose the cushion control signal comprising a blade angle signal from a blade position sensor as claimed. However, Bitter teaches a work vehicle comprising a controller (including 86) for receiving a cushion control signal (for activating suspension), wherein the cushion control signal comprises a tool angle signal from a tool position sensor (including 82 being fashioned as an angle sensor as described in col. 4, lines 4-11).
Bitter is analogous because Bitter teaches a hydraulic system for cushioning (for a suspension system) of a tool on/of a work vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle of Fulcher with angle signaling (controlling) means as taught by Bitter for preferred activation of cushioning (via the suspension). (See Bitter, col. 4, lines 4-11.) Additionally, providing the vehicle of Fulcher with the angle sensing and controlling means as taught by Bitter is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the vehicle of Fulcher, and the angle sensor and signaling therefrom as taught by Bitter) according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., as taught by Bitter). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 3 and 8, Bitter teaches a set tool angle triggering the cushion control signal from the tool position sensor (including 82; as a position of the tool, regardless of setting, triggers the control signal as described by Bitter).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Fulcher discloses the method with respect to claim 11, as set forth above. Fulcher does not explicitly disclose a blade position sensor signal corresponding to a blade angle as claimed. However, Bitter teaches cushioning (provided by a suspension) for a work vehicle (such as 108) wherein a cushion control signal comprises a tool position sensor signal (from 82) that is generated when a tool position sensor (including 82) detects a set tool angle of a tool (see col. 4, lines 4-11).
Bitter is analogous because Bitter teaches hydraulic cushioning (by a suspension system) of a tool on/of a work vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Fulcher with control signal means generated as taught by Bitter for preferred activation of cushioning (via the suspension). (See Bitter, col. 4, lines 4-11.) Additionally, providing the method of Fulcher with angle sensing means and control as taught by Bitter is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the method of Fulcher, and the angle sensor and corresponding sensing and signaling as taught by Bitter) according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., as taught by Bitter). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulcher in view of Billaud et al. (US 9,932,215)
Regarding claim 6, Fulcher discloses the cushioning system with respect to claim 5. Fulcher does not explicitly disclose a display, wherein the controller is further configured to display, on the display, information about a status of the cushioning system as claimed. However, Billaud teaches a cushioning system for a work vehicle, the cushioning system comprising a display (including or of 222, as described in col. 4, lines 16-33), wherein a controller (including 230) is configured to display, on the display, information about a status of the cushioning system (see col. 8, lines 37-39 and lines 57-60).
Billaud is analogous because Billaud discloses a cushioning system (provided by a suspension) for a tool of a work vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fulcher with display means as taught by Billaud in order to provide indication without operator input. (See Billaud, col. 8, lines 57-60.) Additionally, providing the vehicle of Fulcher with the display of Billaud is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the vehicle of Fulcher, and the display of Billaud) according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., as taught by Billaud). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 6, Billaud teaches the status comprising a cushion system engaged notification (see col. 8, lines 37-39) or a cushion system disengaged notification (see col. 8, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 15, Fulcher discloses the method with respect to claim 11, as set forth above. Fulcher does not explicitly disclose displaying, on a display, information regarding a status of a blade cushion system as claimed. However, Billaud teaches displaying, on a display (including or of 222, as described in col. 4, lines 16-33), information regarding a status of a cushion system (see col. 8, lines 37-39 and lines 57-60).
Billaud is analogous because Billaud discloses cushioning (via a suspension) for a tool of a work vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fulcher with displaying as taught by Billaud in order to provide indication without operator input. (See Billaud, col. 8, lines 57-60.) Additionally, providing the method of Fulcher with displaying as taught by Billaud is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the method of Fulcher, and the displaying/display of Billaud) according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., as taught by Billaud). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Billaud teaches the status comprising a cushion system engaged notification (see col. 8, lines 37-39) or a cushion system disengaged notification (see col. 8, lines 57-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Le Tourneau (US 2,452,774) teaches cushioning a tilt (pitch) actuator on a bulldozer. Spielman (US 9,845,590) teaches a work vehicle comprising a push beam (132), a work tool (134) that is a unitary structure (i.e., without parts that move relative to each other), a hydraulic actuator (156) that controls the pitch of the work tool about a pivot (at/through 142) through the work tool and the push beam, an accumulator (including 232), a control valve (including 240), and a controller (including interface devices disposed in 120) therefor. Furukawa et al. (US 9,026,317) teaches displaying, on a display, information regarding a status of a blade cushion (suspension) system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/9/25/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights