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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 and 05/08/2026 was filed. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 10/09/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a tilt sensor configured monitor an orientation of the work machine”, which omits the word “to”. The Examiner suggest amending the claim to read “a tilt sensor configured to monitor an orientation of the work machine”. Claim 8 recites “wherein control system is configured”, which omits the word “the”. The Examiner suggest amending the claim to read “wherein the control system is configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 7-8, 10, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US 20240191679 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Harman.
Regarding Claim 1, Harman teaches a work machine comprising (A compact utility loader (CUL) work machine; [0013]):
a frame (A chassis is a support structure frame; [0014]);
a drive assembly configured to support the frame on the ground and to propel the work machine (The ground drive (pair of endless tracks) supports the chassis on the ground and propels the work machine; [0014]); and
a tilt sensor configured monitor an orientation of the work machine (A tilt sensor measures the work machine’s tilt angle relative to an absolute level plane; [0018]),
wherein the work machine is configured to disable the engine when the tilt sensor indicates that the work machine has experienced a tipping incident (The engine ECU shuts down the engine when the sensor detects a tipping incident; [0021] [0015]).
Harman does not explicitly teach an engine configured to provide power to the drive assembly and rollover condition.
However, Harman discloses a compact utility loader supported on a single chassis that supports both “an engine contained within an engine compartment” and a “ground drive” of endless tracks or wheels that propels the machine ([0014]). Harman describes the engine as the machine’s power source that is started by a “starter” and “fuel pump” under the engine ECU ([0020]) and discloses no other power source other than the engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in a machine carrying its own engine and ground drive on one chassis that moves under its own power, derives the power from the engine that drives the ground drive. Based on this, an “engine configured to provide power to the drive assembly” is a predictable function of the compact utility loader work machine. Furthermore, Harman defines a “tipping incident” as when a work machine would “tip over or almost tip over” ([0015]) and can be detected by a sensor that sends the engine stop signal when the work machine has tilted to a certain angle from vertical ([0023]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a work machine that has tipped over or has tilted past the point at which it will tip over, is a work machine that has experienced a rollover condition. Based on this, Harman’s “tipping incident” and the claimed “rollover condition” are functionally equivalent where the event of a work machine is tilted beyond stable operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Harman’s “tipping incident” is the claimed “rollover condition” and that the work machine’s engine is configured to provide power to the ground drive based on the motivation to arrange the work machine’s components into a functioning compact utility loader that shuts down its engine when it tips over.
Regarding Claim 2, Harman remains as applied above in claim 1. Harman further teaches the tilt sensor is secured to the frame (The sensors supposed on the chassis; [0018]).
Regarding Claim 3, Harman remains as applied above in claim 1. Harman further teaches the tilt sensor comprises one or more accelerometers (The tilt sensor comprises an accelerometer; [0018]).
Regarding Claim 4, Harman remains as applied above in claim 1. Harman further teaches the tilt sensor is configured to generate a voltage signal indicative of the orientation of the work machine (The tilt sensor sends a tilt signal to the machine controller; [0018] [0021]).
Regarding Claim 5, Harman remains as applied above in claim 1. Harman further teaches the work machine comprises a control system configured to disable the engine when the tilt sensor indicates that the work machine has experienced a rollover condition (The machine controller with the engine ECU is a control system that locks out (disables) the engine on a tipping incident; [0019] [0021]), and wherein the control system is configured to determine that the work machine has experienced the rollover condition when the work machine tilts beyond a rollover angle (The sensor sends a tilt signal and an engine stop signal when the sensor detects the work machine has tilted beyond a threshold angle; [0023]).
Regarding Claim 7, Harman remains as applied above in claim 5. Harman further teaches the rollover angle is from 30° to 60° (Harman provides an example of a work machine at a 30° threshold and a configurable 0°-90° range where 30° to 60° falls within the disclosed configurable range; [0023-0024]).
Regarding Claim 8, Harman remains as applied above in claim 5. Harman further teaches the control system is configured to determine that the work machine has experienced the rollover condition when the work machine tilts beyond the rollover angle for longer than a rollover time period (A delay period to send the engine stop signal and tilt signal after the threshold angle is exceeded; [0025]).
Regarding Claim 10, Harman remains as applied above in claim 5. Harman further teaches the control system is configured to keep the engine disabled until the control system receives an indication that the engine has been inspected for damage (The system keeps the engine locked out until the machine controller receives a reset signal and notification for the operator confirming the engine has been inspected; [0021]).
Regarding Claim 13, Harman remains as applied above in claim 1. Harman further teaches the work machine comprises a compact utility loader configured to be operated by an operator standing on (The work machine is a compact utility loader with an operator standing on a platform at the rear end of the work machine; [0013-0014]).
Regarding Claim 14, Harman teaches a method of operating a work machine comprising a frame, a drive assembly, an engine, and a tilt sensor, said method comprising the steps of (A method of operating a work machine with a chassis, ground drive, engine, and tilt sensor; [0013-0014] [0018]):
(a) propelling the work machine using the drive assembly (The ground drive (pair of endless tracks) supports the chassis on the ground and propels the work machine; [0014]);
(b) monitoring an orientation of the work machine using the tilt sensor (A tilt sensor monitors the work machine’s orientation by measuring its tilt angle; [0018]);
(c) determining, based on the orientation of the work machine, whether the work machine has experienced a tipping incident (Determining a tipping incident when the measured tilt exceeds the threshold indicating the work machine is tipping; [0024]); and
(d) disabling the engine if the work machine has experienced a tipping incident (The sensor sends an engine stop signal when the work machine has tilted a certain angle; [0023] [0026]).
Harman does not explicitly teach the drive assembly is powered by the engine and rollover condition.
However, Harman discloses a compact utility loader supported on a single chassis that supports both “an engine contained within an engine compartment” and a “ground drive” of endless tracks or wheels that propels the machine ([0014]). Harman describes the engine as the machine’s power source that is started by a “starter” and “fuel pump” under the engine ECU ([0020]) and discloses no other power source other than the engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in a machine carrying its own engine and ground drive on one chassis that moves under its own power, derives the power from the engine that drives the ground drive. Based on this, the “drive assembly is powered by the engine” is a predictable function of the compact utility loader work machine. Furthermore, Harman defines a “tipping incident” as when a work machine would “tip over or almost tip over” ([0015]) and can be detected by a sensor that sends the engine stop signal when the work machine has tilted to a certain angle from vertical ([0023]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a work machine that has tipped over or has tilted past the point at which it will tip over, is a work machine that has experienced a rollover condition. Based on this, Harman’s “tipping incident” and the claimed “rollover condition” are functionally equivalent where the event of a work machine is tilted beyond stable operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Harman’s “tipping incident” is the claimed “rollover condition” and that the work machine’s engine is configured to provide power to the ground drive based on the motivation to arrange the work machine’s components into a functioning compact utility loader that shuts down its engine when it tips over.
Regarding Claim 15, Harman remains as applied above in claim 14. Harman further teaches the work machine comprises a control system configured to disable the engine in step (d) (The machine controller with the engine ECU is a control system that locks out (disables) the engine on a tipping incident; [0019] [0021]), and wherein the control system is configured to determine that the work machine has experienced the rollover condition when the work machine tilts beyond a rollover angle (The sensor sends a tilt signal and an engine stop signal when the sensor detects the work machine has tilted beyond a threshold angle; [0023]).
Regarding Claim 17, Harman remains as applied above in claim 15. Harman further teaches the control system is configured to keep the engine disabled until the control system receives an indication that the engine has been inspected for damage (The system keeps the engine locked out until the machine controller receives a reset signal and notification for the operator confirming the engine has been inspected; [0021]).
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman in view of Taylor et al. (US 20150176253 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Taylor.
Regarding Claim 6, Harman remains as applied above in claim 5. Harman does not explicitly teach the rollover angle is a leftward or rightward angle with respect to a vertical axis.
However, Taylor discloses a system for controlling a work vehicle based on monitoring the tip condition of the vehicle. Taylor teaches the side tipping planes that extend vertically at pivot points along each side of the work vehicle and detects when the vehicle tips to one side by the combined center of gravity shifting to the left or right of the area defined between the pivot points ([0033-0034]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because Taylor’s side tipping planes extend vertically and its left/right threshold is defined relative to the vertical planes.
Harman and Taylor are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work vehicles tipping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Harman’s rollover angle as a left or right angle with respect to a vertical axis as taught by Taylor based on the motivation to detect lateral tipping. This provides the benefit of triggering Harman’s engine lockout for a side rollover in addition to tipping forward/rearward. This combination yields the predictable results of detecting a left or side rollover where Harman teaches a rollover angle as a threshold tilt from vertical ([0023]) and Taylor teaches a left or right tip threshold defined by the vertically extending side planes ([0034]).
Regarding Claim 16, Harman remains as applied above in claim 15. Harman does not explicitly teach rollover angle is a leftward or rightward angle with respect to a vertical axis.
However, Taylor discloses a system for controlling a work vehicle based on monitoring the tip condition of the vehicle. Taylor teaches the side tipping planes that extend vertically at pivot points along each side of the work vehicle and detects when the vehicle tips to one side by the combined center of gravity shifting to the left or right of the area defined between the pivot points ([0033-0034]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because Taylor’s side tipping planes extend vertically and its left/right threshold is defined relative to the vertical planes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Harman’s rollover angle as a left or right angle with respect to a vertical axis as taught by Taylor based on the motivation to detect lateral tipping. This provides the benefit of triggering Harman’s engine lockout for a side rollover in addition to tipping forward/rearward. This combination yields the predictable results of detecting a left or side rollover where Harman teaches a rollover angle as a threshold tilt from vertical ([0023]) and Taylor teaches a left or right tip threshold defined by the vertically extending side planes ([0034]).
Regarding Claim 18, Harman teaches (a) monitor, using information obtained from a tilt sensor, an orientation of the work machine (A tilt sensor monitors the work machine’s orientation by measuring its tilt angle; [0018]);
(b) determine, based on the orientation of the work machine, whether the work machine has experienced a tipping incident (Determining a tipping incident when the measured tilt exceeds the threshold indicating the work machine is tipping; [0024]); and
(c) disable the engine if the work machine has experienced the tipping incident (The sensor sends an engine stop signal when the work machine has tilted a certain angle; [0023] [0026]).
Harman does not explicitly a non-transitory computer readable media with a computer program stored thereon for operating a work machine, wherein when the computer program is executed, the processor is configured to perform the steps, and rollover condition.
However, Taylor teaches the system’s memory comprises non-volatile medium that stores the computer-readable instructions implemented by a processor configure the controller to perform various computer-implemented functions ([0039]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “a non-transitory computer readable media with a computer program stored thereon for operating a work machine, wherein when the computer program is executed, the processor configured to perform the steps” because the non-volatile media storing process executable instructions is a non-transitory computer readable medium beating a computer program executed by a processor. Taylor further teaches the controller determines a “tip-related state of the vehicle, namely whether the work vehicle is a stable, non-tipping state or whether the work vehicle is actively tipping over such that the vehicle is in a tipping state” ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a work vehicle that is in an “actively tipping over such that the vehicle is in a tipping state” is a work machine that has experienced a rollover condition. Based on this, Taylor’s “tipping state” and the claimed “rollover condition” are functionally equivalent where the event of a work machine is tilted beyond stable operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Harman’s controller logic as a computer program stored on non-transitory computer readable media and executed by a processor as taught by Taylor based on the motivation to operate Harman’s rollover detection and engine disabling functions as processor executed stored instructions. Harman teaches the controller logic of monitoring, determining, and disabling of the work machine and Taylor teaches a processor executing computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory medium. This combination yields the predictable result of the claimed non-transitory computer readable media with a computer program stored for operating the work machine.
Regarding Claim 19, Harman and Taylor remains as applied above in claim 18. Harman further teaches the processor is further configured to determine that the work machine has experienced the rollover condition when the work machine tilts beyond a rollover angle (The sensor sends a tilt signal and an engine stop signal when the sensor detects the work machine has tilted beyond a threshold angle; [0023]).
Regarding Claim 20, Harman and Taylor remains as applied above in claim 18. Harman further teaches the processor is further configured to keep the engine disabled until the processor receives an indication that the engine has been inspected for damage (The system keeps the engine locked out until the machine controller receives a reset signal and notification for the operator confirming the engine has been inspected; [0021]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman in view of Davey et al. (US 20150260516 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Davey.
Regarding Claim 9, Harman remains as applied above in claim 5. Harman does not explicitly teach the control system is further configured to determine if the tilt sensor is functioning properly.
However, Davey discloses a tilt sensing apparatus for a vehicle where the control system detects that “the communicates module 250 may receive no tone from the first microcontroller 210 which may indicate that the wiring harness 266 has been disconnected” ([0075]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a tilt sensor whose wiring harness is disconnected is not “functioning properly”. Furthermore, the control system tests, using the Z axis of the gyroscope, whether heavy rotation around the Z axis is causing a centripetal force reading on the gyroscope that would produce a false position on the computed tilt angle and locks the last output angle when the safeguard is triggered ([0092]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because a tilt reading that is rendered as a false positive during a turn is not a properly functioning reading.
Harman and Taylor are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of monitoring tilt on a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Harman’s control system to determine if the tilt sensor is functioning properly as taught by Davey based on the motivation to provide a safety feature that guards against false readings and a disconnected sensor. This provides the benefit of ensuring that the control system is properly monitoring and enabling the safety features of the work machine. This combination yields the predictable result of a control system that determines whether the tilt sensor is functioning properly where Harman teaches a control system acting on the tilt sensor’s output and Davey teaches detections of false positives of the tilt reading and detecting a disconnected sensor path.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman in view of Bucher et al. (US 20050108999 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Bucher.
Regarding Claim 11, Harman remains as applied above in claim 5. Harman does not explicitly teach the control system is configured to provide an indication as to a number and/or a time of each rollover condition experienced by the work machine.
However, Bucher discloses a lawnmower tilt sensor apparatus where the memory records the time and date of an event such as a tilt angle ([0030]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the memory records the occurrence of each event and the clock records the time of each event, which satisfies both the number and time of each condition.
Harman and Bucher are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of monitoring tilt on a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system of Harman to incorporate the teachings of recording the occurrence and the time of each event as taught by Bucher based on the motivation to provide useful historic information to owners or renters of the work machine. Harman states that operators unfamiliar with the machine have restarted the engine after a tipping incident causing damage ([0016]). This provides the benefit of an auditable history of rollover events for service and liability purposes. The combination yields the predictable result of an indication of the number and time of each rollover condition where Harman teaches a control system that detects each tipping incident and Bucher teaches a memory and clock that records the date/time of an event.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman in view of Alexander et al. (US 20200197983 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Alexander.
Regarding Claim 12, Harman remains as applied above in claim 5. Harman does not explicitly teach the control system is configured to prevent the engine from starting when the tilt sensor indicates that the work machine has experienced an unbalanced condition, wherein the control system is configured to determine that the work machine has experienced the unbalanced condition when the work machine tilts beyond an unbalanced angle, and wherein the unbalanced angle is different from the rollover angle.
However, Alexander discloses an engine driven machine where the control system prevents the engine from starting when the tilt sensor detects a tilt angle greater than a predetermined threshold ([0013]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “prevent the engine from starting when the tilt sensor indicates…an unbalanced condition…when the work machine tilts beyond an unbalanced angle” because the predetermined tilt threshold is its own threshold that prevents the engine start when the threshold is exceeded when the engine is off. Alexander teaches the unbalanced angle as a threshold that is separate and distinct from the rollover angle. Alexander’s control module prevents engine start “in response to the tilt sensor detecting a tilt angle greater than a predetermined threshold” and enable that interlock only “when the internal combustion engine is not running” ([0013]). That predetermined threshold is the claimed unbalanced angle and is necessary a different control parameter from Harman’s rollover angle for shutting down a running machine ([0023]). Based on this, Alexander’s “predetermine threshold” and the claimed “unbalanced angle” are functionally equivalent where the predetermine threshold prevents the engine from starting opposed to shut down the engine while in operation in Harman.
Harman and Alexander are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are reasonable pertinent to the same problem of preventing an internal combustion engine from operating or starting when the machine is in an unsafe tilted orientation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Alexander’s predetermined threshold start interlock to Harman’s control system based on the motivation to prevent starting an already tilted machine. Combining these known elements yields the predictable result of a machine that refuses to start when tilted and shuts down on rollover.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Ahmed (US 20060232736 A1)
Schueth (US 20200339106 A1)
Lafrenier (US 20170130429 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights