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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II in the reply filed on 9 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “The Examiner asserts eight patentably distinct species based on different joystick configurations, attachment modes, and raising/lowering operations. Respectfully, this characterization improperly dissects a single integrated control invention into use-case illustrations, rather than identifying truly distinct inventions. All the pending claims are directed towards the concept of a unified operator control interface (e.g. joystick and associated controller logic) that selectively maps operator inputs from the joystick to movement of the respective work machine and attachment thereof, based on the active operating mode. Each "species" identified by the Examiner relies on the same joystick hardware, employes the same controller architecture, and applies the same mode-based interpretation logic. The figures cited by the Examiner are merely illustrations for different operational states or attachment-dependent behaviors of the same system and method of said system - not separate inventions. For example, raising v. lowering are inverse operations executed by the same controller logic and control interface. Different attachments are handled via the same mode selection for mapping framework using the same switch. Updated configurations represent parameter or mapping differences, not distinct structural or functions inventions.
Under MPEP § 806.04(f), claims directed to different uses or modes of operation of the same disclosed invention do not constitute distinct inventions and do not support restriction where the claims rely on the same structure and operative logic.
Many of the limitations found in claims 1-7 are also recited in claims 8-19. The asserted search burden factors are unsupported. The claims fall within the same field of search. The Examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 8 are generic. Those claims fully capture the inventive concept underlying all alleged species. The dependent claims merely specify illustrative embodiments of that single invention. As such, restriction is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 121, and prosecution should proceed on all claims together, or at minimum on all claims that depend from the allowable generic claims once examined.”
The Examiner does not find the argument of the Applicant persuasive because each group of species teaches different embodiments of the invention that is teach different structures or functionality. The Applicant admits that the claim is directed to “selectively maps operator inputs from the joystick to movement of the respective work machine and attachment thereof, based on the active operating mode” in his own argument. Also the creating different configuration itself already indicates different functionality for different embodiments. The Applicant further argues the joystick hardware is identical for different groups but the functionality and what attachment is attached to the machine and how the joystick functions based on different configuration is clearly recited as different embodiments. Since different group not only requires different hardware (when using different attachment) but also different implementation and functions for different configurations of the joysticks, the Examiner construes that there are definite search burdens and finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 5 – 7, 9, and 12 – 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9 April 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 8 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mahrenholz et al. (Hereinafter Mahrenholz) (US 2020/0181876 A1).
As per claim 1, Mahrenholz teaches the limitations of:
A control system for a work machine with a re-assignable user input interface (See at least figure 4A – 5B), the system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
695
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
704
1006
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a frame extending in a fore-aft direction (See at least figure 1);
PNG
media_image3.png
682
965
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a ground-engaging mechanism operable to support the frame on a surface (See at least figure 1);
a boom assembly coupled to the frame, the boom assembly having a pair of boom arms pivotally and directly connected to the frame and moveable relative to the frame by a pair of boom hydraulic cylinders (See at least figure 1), and
an attachment coupler coupled to a distal section of the pair of boom arms, the attachment coupler moveable relative to the frame by a pair of pitch hydraulic cylinders (See at least figure 1);
an attachment coupled to the attachment coupler, the attachment including an attachment-based hydraulic cylinder (See at least figure 1, 4A and 5A);
a hydraulic system communicatively coupled to a controller, the hydraulic system comprising a hydraulic pump coupled to one or more of the pair of the pair of boom hydraulic cylinders, the pair of pitch hydraulic cylinders, and an attachment-based hydraulic cylinder, the attachment-based hydraulic cylinder detachably coupled to the hydraulic system, the hydraulic pump delivering fluid through a plurality of flow paths, the plurality of flow paths coupled to one or more of the pair of boom hydraulic cylinders, the pair of pitch hydraulic cylinders, and the attachment-based hydraulic cylinders (See at least paragraph 45 – 46; The control members 255 (e.g. joystick 250) are communicatively coupled to the controller 240 such that the control members 255 are capable of sending a signal to the controller 240 indicative of the position of the control members 255 correlating to a degree and direction of movement for a respective hydraulic cylinder (200, 205, or 215). The controller 240 may comprise of a plurality of alternate movement command configurations 310 and is capable of sending signals to the hydraulic system 220 to control the operations of the work machine 100, boom assembly 170 of the work machine 100, and the attachment 105. The movement command configurations may be defined as maps that coordinate the position of the control members to the signals being sent to the hydraulic system 220, wherein the hydraulic system redirects the flow path of the fluid 235 and respective pressures through each respective flow path, in addition to modifying other work machine settings, described further below. The controller 240 may be programmed with a plurality of alternate movement command configurations 310, such as the second movement command configuration 295, discussed below, through a direct link from memory 280 or storage medium (shown in FIG. 2), or remotely from a data cloud 285 (also shown in FIG. 2). The controller 240, operably coupled to the user input interface 245, enables an operator to command movement of the attachment 105 coupled to the boom assembly 170 in a first movement command configuration 275 based on coupling of a first attachment 290 (described as bucket 315 in this embodiment) to the boom assembly 170, and a second movement command configuration 295 based on coupling of a second attachment 300 (described as blade 320 in this embodiment) to the boom assembly 170, the second attachment 300 being different from the first attachment 290. In the embodiment described herein, the first movement command configuration 275 for the compact track loader is the default movement command configuration (or first movement command configuration 275 in this embodiment), generally for use with an attachment 105 such as a bucket 315. With continued reference to the present embodiment, as described in FIGS. 5A and 5B show the second movement command configuration 295. The second movement command configuration 295, as described in the present embodiment, is generally intended for use with a second attachment 300, wherein the second movement command configuration 295 is for a blade 320, or may be more specifically a dozer blade of a similar function as a blade typically found on a dozer crawler work machine. The second movement command configuration 295 comprises moving joystick 251, shown as schematic 5B, in the first direction 260 correlating to actuating the pair of second hydraulic cylinders 205 in pitching the attachment 105 upwards or downwards (shown as dotted trajectory 273). Due to the geometry of linkage in this embodiment, the blade 320 is not raised or lowered in a perfectly vertical line with respect to the work machine 100. Instead, a point on blade 320 would trace a curve as blade is lifted or lowered. This means that the vertical component of the velocity of the blade is not perfectly proportional to the linear velocity with which the pair of second hydraulic cylinders 205 are extending or retracting.);
an operator cab coupled to the frame, the operator cab comprising a user input interface, the user input interface comprising a left joystick and a right joystick to operate in an H-pattern configuration (See at least figure 1 and figure 3B); and
PNG
media_image4.png
886
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the controller communicatively coupled to the user input interface, the controller including a processor and a memory having a re-assignable user interface algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the re-assignable user interface algorithm to enable an operator to command movement of the attachment relative to the frame using one or more of the boom hydraulic cylinders, the pitch hydraulic cylinders, and the attachment-based hydraulic cylinders in a standard mode using a standard configuration or in a grading attachment mode using an updated configuration (See at least paragraph 42 and 45 – 47; FIG. 3B, right joystick 251 may have various switches 305 (activators) mounted thereon. The switches 305 can be designated for different things depending on various factors including, but not limited to, the specific attachment 105 coupled to the work machine 100. In the present disclosure, the functionality of the joystick 251 is changeable via operation of switch 305. The switch 305 is illustratively a “toggle” type switch (providing for continuous “on” or “off” or potentially momentary “on” or “off”) between a first movement command configuration 275 (i.e. the default movement command configuration, or first movement command configuration of the work machine as described in further detail below and shown in FIGS. 4A-4B) and an alternate movement command configuration 310. The alternate movement command configuration 310 may be the second movement command configuration 295 (as described in greater detail below), or a third movement command configuration, or a fourth movement command configuration, etc., wherein the alternate movement command configurations are alternatives based on the type of attachment 105 coupled to the work machine 100. Please note that with respect to the disclosure, second movement command configuration 295 and alternative movement command configuration 310 may be used interchangeably throughout. Although placement of the switch 305 on the joystick 251 may be preferable because of ease of momentarily toggling between modes and/or configurations, the switch 305 may be placed in alternate areas of the user input interface 245. Placement of the switch 305 on the joystick 251 advantageously improves safety by eliminating the need for the operator to look away when switching between movement command configurations. Please note that although the embodiment disclosed herein addresses reconfiguring the movement command configuration on the right joystick 251, the reconfiguring may also occur on an alternative control such as the left joystick 252, and therefore should not be limited to the embodiment described herein. … The second movement command configuration 295, further comprises moving the joystick 251 in the second direction 265 tilts blade relative to the work machine 100, which may also be referred to as moving blade 320 in the direction of roll 130. That is, actuating the auxiliary hydraulic cylinder(s) 215 to actuate the attachment 105 tilts blade in a radial motion about the forward portion of the boom assembly 175 (shown by dotted line 282). An actuator, or type of switch 305 exemplified as a thumbwheel (not shown), and located on joystick 251, allows for the blade 320 to move in the direction of yaw 140, or angle attachment relative to the work machine 100 in the direction of yaw 140 (shown as dotted line 278). The adaptation of the compact track loader in the present embodiment to function as a crawler dozer when using a blade in conjunction with the second movement command configuration 295 of the joystick 250, provides several advantages because the compact track loader mimics a crawler dozer on a smaller scale, providing the 6-way blade movement, or three degrees of freedom. These advantages include a reduction in the number of work machines on a worksite because of increased versatility; reduction in work machine transport costs to a worksite because of the reduced need in the number of work machines and work machine size, an improved confined space grading because the compact track loader is significantly smaller than a crawler dozer; reduction in the required spend by an equipment lessee or equipment company owner; reduction in labor training because the movement command configurations adapt based on the function of the attachment (e.g. joystick controls mimics a crawler dozer when using a dozer blade attachment; joystick controls function like a standard compact track loader when using a standard bucket attachment); optimized machine asset utilization; and increased work versatility because a worksite manager may take on more renovation type work in confined spaces where efficiently shaping the ground surface in narrow areas without affecting surrounding buildings now becomes possible because of the adaptation of a smaller powerful work machine to function with blade 320 (an ability a crawler dozer would find nearly impossible to do because of scale)).
As per claim 3, Mahrenholz teaches the limitations of:
wherein the updated configuration in the grading attachment mode comprises:
moving the left joystick in the fore direction actuating the left ground-engaging mechanism to move in a forward direction and in the aft direction actuating the left ground-engaging mechanism to move in a reverse direction (See at least paragraph 45 – 47);
moving the left joystick transverse to the fore-aft direction actuates the pitch hydraulic cylinders and the boom hydraulic cylinders to lift and lower the attachment relative to the frame, wherein the attachment is a dozer blade attachment (See at least paragraph 47 – 48);
moving the right joystick in the fore direction actuating the right ground-engaging mechanism to move in the forward direction and in the aft direction actuating the right ground-engaging mechanism to move in the reverse direction (See at least paragraph 45 – 47); and
moving the right joystick transverse to the fore-aft direction actuates an attachment- based tilt hydraulic cylinders in tilting the attachment relative to the frame in a radial direction about a forward portion of the boom assembly (See at least paragraph 47 – 48).
As per claim 4, Mahrenholz teaches the limitations of:
wherein the updated configuration further comprises a roller switch on the right joystick for actuating angular movement of the attachment relative to the frame (See at least paragraph 45 – 47).
Regarding claims 8 and 10 - 11:
Claims 8 and 10 - 11 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 and 3 – 4 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Veide et al. (US 2022/0289221 A1) disclsoes system and method for selective derating of self-propelled work vehicle parameters based on operating modes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights