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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 03/02/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-17 and 19 have been amended; claim 18 has been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-17 and 19 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to Figures 9 and 10.
The previous objections to claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13, and 15 have been mostly withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims. A remaining objection to claim 13 was neither addressed by amendment nor argument and has been updated and maintained.
The previous rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been mostly withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims and the cancellation of claim 18. Remaining rejections of claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 were neither addressed by amendment nor argument and have been updated and maintained.
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn, in light of the cancellation of the claim.
Applicant asserts on pages 9-11 of the remarks that the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0009388 to Lutzeyer et al. is improper and cannot be maintained because:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
194
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by the prior art rejection of claim 1, Lutzeyer teaches that a device 10,10’ (e.g., “computer system,” “processing circuitry”) is structured to execute functions to process sensor data, obtained from sensors 20 (e.g., “sensor system”), to identify a support foot plate 120 (e.g., “member target”) associated with a support foot of a stabilizer 110 (e.g., “deployed stability member”) of the mobile work machine 105, where the stabilizer 110 is structured to perform functions to engage with an underlying surface (e.g., “surface”) or a piece of ground (e.g., “surface”) (as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0010-0012, 0014-0018, 0022, 0033-0035 & 0039-0051 of Lutzeyer), and the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to process the sensor data to identify a baseplate 130 (e.g., “surface target”) associated with the underlying surface or the piece of ground (as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0010-0012, 0014-0018, 0022, 0033-0035 & 0039-0051 of Lutzeyer). Therefore, Lutzeyer fully teaches “A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: […] process the target data to identify: one or more member targets associated with one or more deployed stability members of the vehicle, the one or more deployed stability members of the vehicle being configured to engage a surface; and one or more surface targets associated with the surface,” as recited by amended independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
As further noted by the prior art rejection of claim 1, Lutzeyer teaches that the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to detect a bearing capacity failure (e.g., “instability risk”) based on a change in position (e.g., “relative movement”) between the support foot plate 120 and the baseplate 130 (as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052 of Lutzeyer), and the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to interrupt operation of the mobile work machine (e.g., “instability countermeasure”) based on the bearing capacity failure and/or output a warning signal 35 (such as an optical signal and/or an acoustic signal and/or a haptic signal, such as via a display and/or a loud speaker and/or a vibration element) (e.g., “instability countermeasure”) via a signal encoder 30 (as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023, 0036 & 0044 of Lutzeyer). Lutzeyer expressly discloses that the sensor 20 senses “a change in position of the support foot plate 120 and/or of the baseplate 130” (e.g., see ¶ 0034), which necessarily includes detect a change in position between the support foot plate 120 and the baseplate 130, such as when the sensor 20 detects a change in position of the support foot plate 120 and detects no change in position of the baseplate 130 or vice versa, and Lutzeyer expressly discloses that an evaluation unit 40 of the device 10,10’ detects a bearing capacity failure on the basis of the sensed change in position (such as when the sensor 20 detects the change in position of the support foot plate 120 and detects no change in position of the baseplate 130 or vice versa) (e.g., see ¶ 0035). The examiner also notes that Lutzeyer defines “bearing capacity failure” via at least “The term bearing capacity failure is used in soil mechanics to refer, in particular, to lateral, breaking away of the ground as a result of an excessively large application of force. Bearing capacity failure is one of the most frequent causes for the tipping over of supported mobile work machines, for example of concrete pumps. Bearing capacity failure results in injuries and deaths on a regular basis” (¶ 0002), such that the “bearing capacity failure” identified by Lutzeyer is unmistakably definable as an “instability risk” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in sharp contrast to Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, Lutzeyer fully teaches “A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: […] identify an instability risk based on a relative movement between a first member target of the one or more member targets and a first surface target of the one or more surface targets; and initiate an instability countermeasure based on the instability risk,” as recited by amended independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “an instability countermeasure” in line 15, which should be amended to instead recite --[[an] the instability countermeasure-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an instability countermeasure” in line 14 of the claim.
Claim 13 recites “a one or more deployed stability members” in line 1, which appears to be a misstating of --[[a]] one or more deployed stability members--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, 7-12, 16, and 17 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.
Claim 2, as amended, refers to “the deployed stability member” in line 4; however, rather than previously introducing “a deployed stability member,” claim 1 instead previously introduces “one or more deployed stability member” in lines 4-6 and, in a case where “one or more deployed stability member” is directed to more than one “deployed stability member,” it would be unclear which “deployed stability member” of the more than one “deployed stability member” would be “the deployed stability member” in line 4 of claim 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend line 4 of claim 2 to instead recite something like: --for a first deployed stability member of the one or more deployed stability members-- or --
Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2, such that claim 3 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 2 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 2 is rejected.
Claim 3, as amended, introduces “one deployed stability member” in line 3; however, claim 3 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and claim 1 previously introduces “one or more deployed stability member” in lines 4-6, and it is unclear whether the “one deployed stability member” introduced in line 3 of claim 3 is intended to be included by, or excluded from, the “one or more deployed stability member” previously introduced by lines 4-6 of claim 1, and, in the former case, it is unclear which “deployed stability member” of the “one or more deployed stability member” would be the “one deployed stability member” in a case where the “one or more deployed stability member” corresponds to more than one “deployed stability member.” Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend line 3 of claim 3 to instead recite something like: --for [[one]] the first deployed stability member-- (if also consistent with amendment of line 4 of claim 2, as discussed in detail above) or --
Claim 7, as amended, introduces each of “a first deployed stability member” in line 4 and “a second deployed stability member” in line 7; however, claim 7 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 instead previously introduces “one or more deployed stability member” in lines 4-6, and it is unclear whether the “first deployed stability member” in line 4 of claim 7 and/or the “second deployed stability member” in line 7 of claim 7 is/are intended to be included by, or excluded from, the “one or more deployed stability member” in lines 4-6 of claim 1. To overcome the rejections, one suggestion is to: amend line 4 of claim 7 to instead recite something like: --a first deployed stability member of the one or more deployed stability members--, and amend line 7 of claim 7 to instead recite something like: --a second deployed stability member of the one or more deployed stability members--.
Claims 8-10 are dependent from claim 7, such that claims 8-10 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 7 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 7 is rejected.
Claim 11, as amended, refers to “the deployed stability member” in line 3; however, claim 11 is dependent from claim 1, and, rather than previously introducing “a deployed stability member,” claim 1 instead previously introduces “one or more deployed stability member” in lines 4-6 and, in a case where “one or more deployed stability member” is directed to more than one “deployed stability member,” it would be unclear which “deployed stability member” of the more than one “deployed stability member” would be “the deployed stability member” in line 3 of claim 11. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend line 3 of claim 11 to instead recite something like: --a first deployed stability member of the one or more deployed stability members--
Claim 12, as amended, refers to “the deployed stability member” in line 3; however, claim 12 is dependent from claim 1, and, rather than previously introducing “a deployed stability member,” claim 1 instead previously introduces “one or more deployed stability member” in lines 4- and, in a case where “one or more deployed stability member” is directed to more than one “deployed stability member,” it would be unclear which “deployed stability member” of the more than one “deployed stability member” would be “the deployed stability member” in line 3 of claim 12. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend line 3 of claim 12 to instead recite something like: --a first deployed stability member of the one or more deployed stability members--
Claim 12, as amended, introduces each of “a first deployed stability member” in line 8 and “a second deployed stability member” in line 11; however, claim 1 instead previously introduces “one or more deployed stability member” in lines 4-6, and it is unclear whether one, both, or none of the “first deployed stability member” in line8 and the “second deployed stability member” in line 11 is/are intended to be included by, or excluded from, the “one or more deployed stability member.” To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to: amend line 8 of claim 12 to instead recite something like: --[[a]] the first deployed stability member-- (if also consistent with amendment of line 3 of claim 12, as discussed in detail above), and amend line 11 of claim 12 to instead recite something like: --a second deployed stability member of the one or more deployed stability members--.
Claim 12, as amended, introduces “a set time interval” in lines 12-13; however, claim 12 previously introduces “a set time interval” in line 9, and it is unclear whether the “set time interval” introduced in lines 12-13 of claim 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “set time interval” previously introduced in line 9 of claim 12. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 additionally contains an improper Markush grouping by virtue of the list of the members of the Markush group (i.e., “causing adjustment of the position of at least one of the one or more deployed stability members based on the target data, rotating the work attachment, retracting the work attachment, stopping movement of the work attachment and issuing an alert via a user interface of the vehicle”) not being a closed grouping [i.e., via “by selecting an instability countermeasure from a plurality of instability countermeasures, the instability countermeasures comprising at least one of…” (emphasis added)] (e.g., see: MPEP 2117_I).
Claim 16 depends from claim 15, claim 16 is virtually identical to claim 2, and claim 15 is virtually identical to claim 1. Therefore, elements of claim 16 which virtually identically correspond to elements of claim 2 are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 2 is rejected.
Claim 17 depends from claim 15, claim 17 is virtually identical to claim 7, and claim 15 is virtually identical to claim 1. Therefore, elements of claim 17 which virtually identically correspond to elements of claim 7 are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 7 is rejected.
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, 6-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0009388 to Lutzeyer et al. (hereinafter: “Lutzeyer”).
With respect to claim 1, Lutzeyer teaches a computer system (10, 10’) comprising processing circuitry (as depicted by at least Figs. 7 & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001, 0013, 0033-0038 & 0049-0052) configured to: obtain, from a sensor system of a vehicle, target data [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0005, 0010-0012, 0014, 0016, 0018, 0033-0035 & 0047-0051, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to obtain sensor data (e.g., “target data”) from sensors 20 (e.g., “sensor system”) of a mobile work machine 105 (e.g., a truck having a crane or a concrete pump mounted thereupon) (e.g., “vehicle”)]; process the target data to identify: one or more member targets associated with one or more deployed stability members of the vehicle, the one or more deployed stability members of the vehicle being configured to engage a surface [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0010-0012, 0014-0018, 0022, 0033-0035 & 0039-0051, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to process the sensor data to identify a support foot plate 120 (e.g., “member target”) associated with a support foot of a stabilizer 110 (e.g., “deployed stability member”) of the mobile work machine 105, where the stabilizer 110 is structured to perform functions to engage with an underlying surface (e.g., “surface”) or a piece of ground (e.g., “surface”)]; and one or more surface targets associated with the surface [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0010-0012, 0014-0018, 0022, 0033-0035 & 0039-0051, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to process the sensor data to identify a baseplate 130 (e.g., “surface target”) associated with the underlying surface or the piece of ground]; identify an instability risk based on a relative movement between a first member target of the one or more member targets and a first surface target of the one or more surface targets [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to detect a bearing capacity failure (e.g., “instability risk”) based on a change in position (e.g., “relative movement”) between the support foot plate 120 and the baseplate 130]; and initiate an instability countermeasure based on the instability risk [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023, 0036 & 0044, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to interrupt operation of the mobile work machine (e.g., “instability countermeasure”) based on the bearing capacity failure and/or output a warning signal 35 (such as an optical signal and/or an acoustic signal and/or a haptic signal, such as via a display and/or a loud speaker and/or a vibration element) (e.g., “instability countermeasure”) via a signal encoder 30].
With respect to claim 2, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify the instability risk by determining that the relative movement between the first member target and the first surface target for the deployed stability member for a set time interval is outside a predefined threshold [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to detect the bearing capacity failure based on the change in position between the support foot plate 120 and the baseplate 130 exceeds a limiting value (e.g., “predefined threshold”), including when the change in position between the support foot plate 120 and the baseplate 130 exceeds the limiting value during a definable period of time (e.g., “set time interval”)]; and in response to the relative movement between the first member target and the first surface target being outside the predefined threshold, determine the instability countermeasure to be initiated [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023, 0036, 0043-0044 & 0051, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to determine to interrupt the operation of the mobile work machine and/or determine to output the warning signal 35 responsive to the bearing capacity failure].
With respect to claim 3, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 2, wherein the predefined threshold is associated with a maximum change in relative distance between the first member target and the first surface target for one deployed stability member (as depicted by at least Fig. 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0043, 0047-0048 & 0051).
With respect to claim 6, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 1: wherein the vehicle further comprises a work attachment [as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, the truck includes the crane (e.g., “work attachment”) or the concrete pump (e.g., “work attachment”) mounted thereupon] operable upon deployment of the one or more deployed stability members (apparent from at least ¶ 0005 & 0023); and wherein the instability countermeasure comprises at least one of rotating the work attachment, retracting the work attachment and stopping movement of the work attachment (apparent from at least ¶ 0005 & 0023; because rotating the work attachment, retracting the work attachment, and stopping movement of the work attachment are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 7, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the relative movement between the first member target associated with a first deployed stability member and the first surface target for the first deployed stability member for a first set time interval [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to, with respect to a first stabilizer 110 (e.g., “first deployed stability member”), determine a first change in position (e.g., “relative movement”) between a first support foot plate 120 of the first stabilizer 110 and a first baseplate 130 for the first stabilizer 110, including when the first change in position between the first support foot plate 120 and the first baseplate 130 occurs during a first definable period of time (e.g., “first set time interval”)]; determine a relative movement between a second member target of the one or more member targets associated with a second deployed stability member and a second surface target of the one or more surface targets for the second deployed stability member for a second set time interval [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to, with respect to a second stabilizer 110 (e.g., “second deployed stability member”), determine a second change in position (e.g., “relative movement”) between a second support foot plate 120 of the second stabilizer 110 and a second baseplate 130 for the second stabilizer 110, including when the second change in position between the second support foot plate 120 and the second baseplate 130 occurs during a second definable period of time (e.g., “second set time interval”)]; and identify the instability countermeasure based on the determined relative movements (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023, 0036 & 0044, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to determine to interrupt operation of the mobile work machine and/or determine to output the warning signal 35 based on the determined first change in position and the determined second change in position, including when one or more of the determined first change in position and the determined second change in position exceeds a limiting value).
With respect to claim 8, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a relative angular movement between the first deployed stability member and the second deployed stability member based on: the determined relative movement between the first member target associated with the first deployed stability member and the first surface target for the first deployed stability member; and the determined relative movement between the second member target associated with the second deployed stability member and the second surface target for the second deployed stability member [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to determine tilting and/or inclination of the first stabilizer 110 relative to the second stabilizer 110 (e.g., “relative angular movement”), or vice versa, occurs based on the determined first change in position between the first support foot plate 120 of the first stabilizer 110 and the first baseplate 130 for the first stabilizer 110 and the determined second change in position between the second support foot plate 120 of the second stabilizer 110 and the second baseplate 130 for the second stabilizer 110, including when the first change in position between the first support foot plate 120 and the first baseplate 130 exceeds the limiting value while the second change in position between the second support foot plate 120 and the second baseplate 130 does not exceed the limiting value (e.g., is zero), or vice versa]; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to identify the instability countermeasure based on the determined relative angular movement (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023, 0036 & 0044, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to determine to interrupt operation of the mobile work machine and/or determine to output the warning signal 35 based on the determine tilting and/or determined inclination of the first stabilizer 110 relative to the second stabilizer 110).
With respect to claim 9, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 7, wherein the first deployed stability member is arranged at a first longitudinal side of the vehicle and the second deployed stability member is arranged at a second longitudinal side of the vehicle opposite to the first longitudinal side (apparent from at least Fig. 8; for example, in a case where one of the first stabilizer 110 and the second stabilizer 110 is defined as the upper-left stabilizer 110 shown in Fig. 8 and the other of the first stabilizer 110 and the second stabilizer 110 is defined as the lower-right stabilizer 110 shown in Fig. 8, then the first stabilizer 110 is necessarily arranged at a definable “first longitudinal side” of the mobile work machine 105, and the second stabilizer 110 is necessarily arranged at a definable “second longitudinal side” of the mobile work machine 105).
With respect to claim 10, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 7, wherein the first deployed stability member is arranged at a front portion of the vehicle and the second deployed stability member is arranged at a rear portion of the vehicle opposite to the front portion (apparent from at least Fig. 8; for example, in a case where one of the first stabilizer 110 and the second stabilizer 110 is defined as the upper-left stabilizer 110 shown in Fig. 8 and the other of the first stabilizer 110 and the second stabilizer 110 is defined as the lower-right stabilizer 110 shown in Fig. 8, then the first stabilizer 110 is necessarily arranged at a definable “front portion” of the mobile work machine 105, and the second stabilizer 110 is necessarily arranged at a definable “rear portion” of the mobile work machine 105).
With respect to claim 11, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the first member target and/or the first surface target is provided as a graphical pattern identifiable by the sensor system and provided on the deployed stability member and the surface, respectively [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0048, the support foot plate 120 is provided on the stabilizer 110 and has an appearance (e.g., “graphical pattern”) from which the change in position of the support foot plate 120 is identifiable via pattern recognition from image data generated by a 3D camera system of the sensors 20; because the first member target is provided as a graphical pattern identifiable by the sensor system and provided on the deployed stability member and the first surface target is provided as a graphical pattern identifiable by the sensor system and provided on the surface are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 12, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein: the first surface target is provided at the surface and is associated with a reference position of engagement between the surface and the deployed stability member (apparent from at least Figs. 2-6 & 8 in view of at least ¶ 0008-0009, 0012, 0022, 0033-0034, 0040 & 0047-0048); the vehicle further comprises a work attachment operable upon deployment of the one or more deployed stability members [as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, the truck includes the crane (e.g., “work attachment”) or the concrete pump (e.g., “work attachment”) mounted thereupon]; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine he relative movement between the first member target associated with a first deployed stability member and the first surface target for the first deployed stability member for a set time interval [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to, with respect to a first stabilizer 110 (e.g., “first deployed stability member”), determine a first change in position (e.g., “relative movement”) between a first support foot plate 120 of the first stabilizer 110 and a first baseplate 130 for the first stabilizer 110, including when the first change in position between the first support foot plate 120 and the first baseplate 130 occurs during a first definable period of time (e.g., “set time interval”)]; determine a relative movement between a second member target of the one or more member targets associated with a second deployed stability member and a second surface target of the one or more surface targets for the second deployed stability member for a set time interval [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0005, 0012-0015, 0017, 0034-0035, 0039 & 0042-0052, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to, with respect to a second stabilizer 110 (e.g., “second deployed stability member”), determine a second change in position (e.g., “relative movement”) between a second support foot plate 120 of the second stabilizer 110 and a second baseplate 130 for the second stabilizer 110, including when the second change in position between the second support foot plate 120 and the second baseplate 130 occurs during a second definable period of time (e.g., “set time interval”)]; and identify the instability countermeasure based on the determined relative movements by selecting an instability countermeasure from a plurality of instability countermeasures, the instability countermeasures comprising at least one of causing adjustment of the position of at least one of the one or more deployed stability members based on the target data, rotating the work attachment, retracting the work attachment, stopping movement of the work attachment and issuing an alert via a user interface of the vehicle [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023, 0036 & 0044, the device 10,10’ is structured to execute functions to determine to interrupt operation of the mobile work machine and/or determine to output the warning signal 35, based on the determined first change in position and the determined second change in position, including when one or more of the determined first change in position and the determined second change in position exceeds a limiting value; because causing adjustment of the position of at least one of the one or more deployed stability members based on the target data, rotating the work attachment, retracting the work attachment, stopping movement of the work attachment, and issuing an alert via a user interface of the vehicle are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 13, Lutzeyer teaches a vehicle comprising a one or more deployed stability members, a sensor system, and the computer system of claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 14, Lutzeyer teaches the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the sensor system comprises a camera monitoring system configured to monitor the first member target and the first surface target and capture image data comprising the target data (apparent from at least Fig. 6 in view of at least ¶ 0018 & 0048).
With respect to claim 15, Lutzeyer teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, from a sensor system of a vehicle target data; processing the target data to identify: one or more member targets associated with one or more deployed stability member of the vehicle, the one or more deployed stability members being configured to engage a surface; and one or more surface targets associated with the surface; identifying an instability risk based on a relative movement between a first member target of the one or more member targets and a first surface target of the one or more surface targets; and initiating, by the processing circuitry, an instability countermeasure based on the instability risk (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 16, Lutzeyer teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: identifying the instability risk by determining, by the processing circuitry, that the relative movement between the first member target and the first surface target for the deployed stability member for a first set time interval and second set time interval, respectively, is outside a predefined threshold; and in response to the relative movement between the first member target and the first surface target being outside the predefined threshold, determining, by the processing circuitry, the instability countermeasure to be initiated (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2, 7, and 15).
With respect to claim 17, Lutzeyer teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: determining, by the processing circuitry, the relative movement between the first member target associated with a first deployed stability member and the first surface target for the first deployed stability member for a set time interval; determining, by the processing circuitry, a relative movement between a second member target of the one or more member targets associated with a second deployed stability member and a second surface target of the one or more surface targets for the second deployed stability member for a set time interval; and identifying, by the processing circuitry, the instability countermeasure based on the determined relative movements (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 7 and 15).
With respect to claim 19, Lutzeyer teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry of claim 15, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 15 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 15).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutzeyer in view of KR 20180110822 A to Cho et al. (hereinafter: “Cho”).
With respect to claim 4, Lutzeyer teaches the computer system of claim 1; however, Lutzeyer appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the instability countermeasure comprises causing adjustment of a position of at least one of the one or more deployed stability members based on the target data.
Cho teaches analogous processing circuitry (e.g., 200) which causes, as an instability countermeasure, adjustment of a position of a deployed stability member (any of 100a, 100b, 100c & 100d) based on target data obtained from a sensor system (e.g., 150a, 150b, 150c, 150d, 170a, 170b, 170c & 170d) which indicates occurrence of a rollover moment is generated via lifting by a work attachment (20) of a vehicle (10), including causing adjustment of the deployed stability member to push the deployed stability member towards a surface (“ground”) (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-6(d) and as discussed by at least ¶ 0056-0110), as an alternative to causing interrupted operation of the mobile work machine based on the indicated rollover moment (as discussed by at least ¶ 0009-0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer system of Lutzeyer with the teachings of Cho such that the instability countermeasure comprises causing adjustment of a position of at least one of the one or more deployed stability members based on the target data, including causing adjustment of the one or more deployed stability members to push at least one of the one or more deployed stability members towards the surface, because Cho further teaches that such control, in the alternative to causing interrupted operation of the vehicle based on the indicated rollover moment, beneficially enables overturning of the vehicle to be prevented via active controlling of at least one of the one or more deployed stability members towards the surface, whereas causing interrupted operation of the mobile work machine based on the indicated rollover moment (e.g., as in Lutzeyer) may enable a scenario in which preventing overturning of the vehicle becomes impossible due to stopping of the operation of the vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0009-0010 & 0012 of Cho).
With respect to claim 5, Lutzeyer modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 4, wherein the instability countermeasure comprises causing adjustment of the one or more deployed stability members to push the at least one of the one or more deployed stability members towards the surface (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights