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 Statements (IDS) filed on 12/23/2023 and 09/16/2025 and 07/01/2025 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GM-50099/2022, filed on 06/17/2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: predefinable is not a word. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-13, 16-17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: predefinable is not a word. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 18 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder computing unit coupled with functional language “A computer program product comprising commands which, when executed by” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claim 18 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 18 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “computing unit” is a computing unit of a controller (Page 23 line 13). Therefore, the examiner is interpreting “computing unit” as a processor or CPU.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-20 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 1 recites the term “the sequential and time-limited activation” on Page 1 line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the sequential and time-limited activation” and “a sequential and time-limited activation” on Page 1 line 24 will be switched.
Claim 2 recites “ a calculation of the sequence of control commands” on page 1 lines 30, page 2 lines 6-7, and page 2 lines 12-13, it is unclear if these are the same or different calculations, please clarify.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8 recites “a calculation method step”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should be “at least one calculation method step” as is recited in claim 1.
Claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3, 6 and 7, the phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 10, 11 and 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “the at least one parameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes the at least one parameter is introduced in claim 2, however claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 where no such parameter has been claimed.
Claim 4 recites “a controller”, because a controller is already claimed in claim 1, it is unclear if this is the same controller or a separate controller.
Claim 8 recites the terms “the change”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 the phrase “and possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 and claim 7 recites the broad recitation “0° to 10°”, and the claim also recites “0° to 5°” and even further recited “0° to 3°”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “0.05 seconds to 3.50 seconds”, and the claim also recites “0.25 seconds to 1.5 seconds” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “0.01 seconds to 0.5 seconds”, and the claim also recites “0.01 seconds to 0.1 seconds” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3, and 10 recites the terms “the geometry”, “the position of the supporting legs”, “the position of axles”, “the position of a lifting device”, and “the currently predefined pulse duration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the term “the duration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the duration” will be read as “a duration”.
Claim 16 recites the term “the detected inclination”, but it is unclear whether this term refers to “a detection of the current inclination” or “a continuous detection of an inclination”. This lack of clarity prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from understanding the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Claim 17 recites “the sequential and time limited actuation of individual drives” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is then unclear if the recited “a sequential and time limited actuation of the drives” is the same or different than that recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “ a controller” and, because a controller is already claimed in claim 1, it is unclear if this is the same controller or a separate controller. Claim 20 is thereby unclear because it recites “the controller according to claim 19” it is again unclear if this is the same controller or different than that in claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “a sequential and time limited actuation of individual drives” it is unclear if this is the same actuation or different sequential and time limited actuation as that recited earlier in the claim and in claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 19 recites “a calculation operating mode” and “an actuation operating mode” which are identical to the at least one calculation method step and the at least one lift out method step as recited in claim 1, it is unclear how claim 19 is further limiting over claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 18, the preamble recites a “computer program product comprising commands…". In light of the instant specification, the program appears to comprise software elements. None of the comprising elements of the claimed system appear to be physical components. Therefore the “program” of claim 18 is computer software per se and is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03.
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.
Claims 1-11, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2008280097-A to Narimiki, English Translation provided as attachment and further in view of US-6619693-B1 to Sproatt et. al. (“Sproatt”).
Regarding claim 1, Narimiki discloses a method for changing the vertical lifted-out state of a carrier vehicle (see crawler crane vehicle 1, fig. 1), parked on a piece of ground (GL), for a lifting device (3) with a support system (6), wherein the support system (6) includes:
supporting legs (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d), vertically adjustable in terms of their longitudinal extent, for supporting on the piece of ground (see fig. 1, each outrigger’s vertical cylinder drives ground contact and lifts the body to height H, hydraulic circuit drives the outrigger device 6), and
a controller (20) for actuating drives (vertical cylinder 8) of the supporting legs using control commands (signal lines and switch control valves 40 receive commands to supply or exhaust hydraulic fluid to each cylinder as signaled from the controller);
wherein the method comprises:
at least one calculation method step (horizontal posture correction step)in which a sequence of control commands for the the support system is calculated for changing the vertical lifted-out state (height H) while maintaining the current inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device (3) relative to at least one predefined or predefinable spatial direction and/or spatial plane within a predefinable or predefined range for an inclination deviation. Narimiki discloses that upon receipt of an operator command the controller calculates and executes actuation of the outrigger valves to change the body’s 2 lifted out height H while maintaining the body’s horizontal altitude within a tolerance based on sensor feedback, a horizontal posture correction means includes determining that the inclination information is equal to the first. Narimiki discloses that this actuation is carried out individually for each cylinder 6 but not explicitly as a sequence of control commands for sequential and time limited actuation. However, Sproatt teaches a controller calculates a sequence of control commands for sequential actuation of individual leg drives, each for a discrete predetermined (time limited) period, based on sensors detected orientation data, see col. 9 l. 44-67, claim 2 and col. 2 l. 28-34. Therefore, Sproatt discloses a time of actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs that is performed separately in a sequence (Sproatt Background (9) “The method for leveling the vehicle includes sequentially actuating the legs so that they move from their stowed position to their extended position… controller individually actuates the legs at the low end of the vehicle by individually extending each of the legs for a predetermined period of time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Narimiki to incorporate the teachings of Sproatt such that the system includes a time of actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs that is performed separately in a sequence. Doing so would allow for leveling of a vehicle on uneven terrain (Sproatt Background (2)).
Narimiki further discloses at least one lift-out method step (execution of the calculated actuation height) in which an actuation of the drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-d) of the support system (6) is effected using the sequence of control commands for changing the vertical lifted-out state of the carrier vehicle (for changing the body’s 2 lifted out height H) and/or of the lifting device (3) relative to the piece of ground (GL), wherein, using the sequence of control commands, of the drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-d) of the support system (6) is effected using control pulses (executing this actuation for a first predetermined time period of 5 seconds in response to a command and then for a different time period in response to a different input of 2 seconds, each timed actuation constituting a control pulse, changing the body’s state relative to the ground, see claim 3). Sproatt in combination teaches that the individual leg actuation comprises this sequence are carried out sequentially, one leg at a time (see col. 2 lines 10-17, col. 9 and claim 8).
Regarding claim 2, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt teaches wherein, in a calculation method step (determining inclination values, and height adjustment), a calculation of the sequence of control commands is effected on the basis of at least one parameter of the support system, wherein:
a detection of a current inclination (horizontal posture) as a parameter of the support system is effected with at least one inclination sensor (sensor 22) of the support system (6) for the detection of an inclination of the carrier vehicle (body 2 of carrier 1) and/or of the lifting device (3) relative to at least one predefined or predefinable spatial direction and/or spatial plane, and in a calculation method step a calculation of the sequence of control commands is effected on the basis of a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device (3 with the horizontal posture correction unit), and/or
Regarding claim 3, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt teaches wherein at least one parameter of the support system comprises at least one of the following:
an inclination of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device (3) currently detected with at least one inclination sensor (22) of the support system (6), and/or
a predefinable or predefined range for an inclination deviation (±0.5°),
a currently predefined pulse duration of a control pulse (5 second or 2 second time periods based on operator input type), for example calculated in a preceding calculation method step,
Regarding claim 4, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt wherein an actuation of the drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-d) of the support system (6) is effected until the vertical lifted-out state of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device (3) reaches or falls below a predefined or predefinable target value (the horizontal posture correction routine loops, reading the inclination sensor and adjusting outriggers, until the detected inclination value falls below or at the predetermined value), or so long as an operating command for changing the vertical lifted-out state is provided by a user via a user interface of a controller (manual outrigger mode, the user or operator holds a selection switch toward the desired direction and pulls a speed adjustment lever 65 to drive cylinder extension and vertical lifted out state via the users interface 60 with switches 61-66).
Regarding claim 5, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt, wherein:
in a calculation method step (the detection of inclination differential in the horizontal posture correction) a sequence of control commands for changing the vertical lifted-out state of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device is calculated for all drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-6d) of d) of support system (6) involved in the supporting,
in a lift-out method step at least one actuation of all drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-6d)of the support system (6) is effected using the sequence of control commands (instructions, signals sent from detection sensors) for changing the vertical lifted-out state of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device (3 all four cylinders are actuated in the height correction).
Regarding claim 6, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt wherein a detection of an inclination of the carrier vehicle ( with the sensors 22) and/or of the lifting device relative to the horizontal is effected with an inclination sensor (22) of the support system (6) and a lift-out method step is carried out only if the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device currently detected in a calculation method step is in a predefinable or predefined range for an inclination deviation of from 0° to 10°, preferably within 0° to 5°, particularly preferably within 0° to 3°, with respect to the horizontal (step S4 provides where the sensor detects the tilt value, and continues to adjust until it is within 0.5°).
Regarding claim 7, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt wherein the predefinable or predefined range for an inclination deviation is within 0° to 10°, preferably within 0° to 5°, particularly preferably within 0° to 3°, with respect to the horizontal (see step S4 the set value of inclination deviation is 0.5°).
Regarding claim 8, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt wherein in a loop, in a calculation method step which follows a lift-out method step carried out beforehand, a detection of the change in the inclination due to the preceding lift-out method step is effected (within the body height correction routine the controller reads the inclination sensor, performs a corrective actuation while checking that the tolerance is maintained, checks an elapsed time condition and if the time condition is not yet satisfied, returns to the sensor reading step, see steps S24>S25>S26>back to S24 if time not elapsed, see also steps S27-29, 30-32, 33-35, fig 8). Narimiki fails to teach explicitly “detecting the change in the inclination due to the preceding lift out method step”. However, Sproatt teaches the controller monitors the orientation signal received from level sensor… after adjustment of each leg to determine the position of the leg relative to the reference plane, each loop iteration characterized by an actuation followed by a new reading used to evaluate the actuation and calculate the next one, see Col. 9, claim 8, and col. 8 lines 30-40. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Narimiki in view of Sproatt, implementing the loop wherein when a calculation follows a lift out method step, a detection of change in inclination due to the lift out method is affected. Sproatt demonstrates that reading the sensor specifically to assess the effect of the just completed actuation is a common and predictable way to implement such a feedback loop. Combining Narimiki with Sproatt is applying a known technique to a known method to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 9, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt wherein the time-limited actuation of the individual drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-6d) of the support system (6) using the sequence of control commands is effected using control pulses with variable pulse duration (5s vs 2s pulse duration see step 27).
Regarding claim 10, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt, wherein the pulse duration of the control pulses is 0.05 seconds to 3.50 seconds, preferably 0.25 seconds to 1.5 seconds. Although Narimiki discloses pulse duration of 5 seconds and 2 seconds, absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to set the range of the time for the pulse duration to .05s to 3.5s and further still .25s to 1.5s since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 11, Narimiki fails to disclose the method wherein a variation of the variation of the pulse duration is effected depending on one of the listed limitations.
However, Sproatt teaches a similar method wherein a variation of the pulse duration -
the currently predefined pulse duration (see col. 9 claim 8, “reducing the first predetermined actuation period each time the direction of adjustment of the two legs at the low end of the vehicle is reversed”, col. 2 lines 34-65), and/or
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Narimiki’s variable pulse duration by determining pulse duration as a function of the immediately preceding pulse duration, as taught by Sproatt, rather than, or in addition to, by operator input type because both references are directed to the same problem for controlling the levelling process, and Sproatt teaches calculating each new duration from the prior one is an effective, predictable technique for achieving finer, self-adjusting control as the system moves towards the target state. Such a substitution would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 18, Narimiki, as modified by Sproatt teach a computer program product (computing and storage unit) comprising commands (program commands) which, when executed by a computing unit (CPU), prompt the latter to execute the method according to claim 1 from a storage unit (ROM) which is in or can be brought into data connection with the computing unit (controller and computing unit).
Regarding claim 19, Narimiki, as modified by Sproatt teach controller (20) for controlling a support system (6) and configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the controller (20) is configured to:
perform a calculation operating mode in which a sequence of control commands for the sequential and time-limited actuation of individual drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-d) of the support system (6) is calculable for changing the vertical lifted-out state (H) while maintaining the current inclination within a predefinable or predefined range for an inclination deviation (±0.5°), and
perform an actuation operating mode in which the drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-d) of the support system (6) are actuatable using the sequence of control commands for changing the vertical lifted-out state (h) of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device (3) relative to the piece of ground (G), wherein, using the sequence of control commands, a sequential and time-limited actuation of the drives of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using control pulses.
Narimiki discloses the control programs are performed by the controller, the calculation of the actuation for the individual drives 8 of the support legs 6a-d of the support system 6, and perform the actuation, thereby changing the vertical lifted out state of the carrier relative to the ground with time limited actuation using control pulses, i.e., 5s and 2s. the Sequential component of the sequence of control commands as taught by Sproatt as discussed above (see at least claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Narimiki, as modified by Sproatt teach Vehicle (work vehicle) comprising: a lifting device (crane 3); a support system (6); and the controller (20) according to claim 19.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narimiki and Sproatt as applied above, further in view of US-5258913 (“Baldauf”).
Regarding claim 12, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Narimiki as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the activation of the drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. However, Baldauf teaches that the activation of the drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. (Baldauf col 2 lines 15-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Baldauf such that the activation of the drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. Doing so would ensure leveling operations are done without complex hydraulic devices (Baldauf col 1 lines 30-32).
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narimiki
in view of Sproatt as applied above, further in view of US-10093286-B2 to Lehman et al (“Lehman”) and US-20140225431-A1 to Bass et. al. (“Bass”).
Regarding claim 13, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Narimiki as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the activating of the individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined overlap between successive control pulses. However, Lehman teaches that the activation of the individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is effected using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined or predefinable overlap between successive control pulses. (Lehman col 4 lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Narimiki as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that the activation of the individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is effected using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined or predefinable overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Narimiki as modified by Sproatt and Lehman does not explicitly teach overlap between successive control pulses. However, Bass teaches overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Narimiki as modified by Sproatt and Lehman to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that there is an overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Lehman further discloses that a simultaneous activation of at most two drives is effected within the overlap between the successive control pulses. (Lehman col 4 lines 37-49 and "front jacks").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Lehman to Narimiki as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that a simultaneous activation of at most two drives is effected within the overlap between the successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Bass further teaches overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Narimiki as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that there is an overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Narimiki as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass does not teach that a duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is between 0.01 seconds and 0.5 seconds.
Nevertheless, Bass at least suggests the idea that the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is seconds (Bass [0007] – [0008]). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses in order to ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract). Absent evidence of criticality has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claims 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narimiki and Sproatt as applied above, and further in view of US-20090244279 (“Walsh”).
In regards to claim 16, Narimiki and Sproatt fail to disclose wherein a detection of the current inclination is effected with at least one inclination sensor (22) of the support system (6) for the detection of an inclination of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device (3) relative to at least one predefined or predefinable spatial direction and/or spatial plane, and after changing of the vertical lifted-out state of the carrier vehicle (1, after changing the H from the ground) and/or of the lifting device(3) has been effected a continuous detection of an inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to at least one predefined or predefinable spatial direction and/or spatial plane is effected in a monitoring method step.
However, Walsh teaches that after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. (Walsh [0009] "leveling system controlling the jack drive to level the vehicle continuously during surveillance for maintaining the extended mast within a predescribed range").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Walsh such that after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. Doing so would ensure devices on top of the vehicle are carried stably (Walsh [0009]).
Regarding claim 17, Narimiki and Sproatt as combined teach wherein when the detected inclination (detected by 22) reaches or exceeds a predefined or predefinable deviation (±0.5°), to minimize the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device,
in a leveling calculation method step a sequence of control commands for the sequential and time-limited actuation of individual drives (8) of the supporting legs (6a-d) of the support system (6) is calculated on the basis of a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device (3) (see steps S3, and S4, comparison of the detected inclination value against the first and second predefined threshold values, and see claim 1, when its detected inclination information exceeds the predefined threshold the controller determines correction is required, controller reads the detected inclination, calculates the required correction and then actuates the outrigger on that basis, sees steps 12 and 16),
in a leveling method step an actuation of the drives of the supporting legs (8) of the support system (6) is effected using the sequence of control commands for reducing the inclination of the carrier vehicle (1) and/or of the lifting device (3) relative to at least one predefined or predefinable spatial direction and/or spatial plane (the ground), wherein, using the sequence of control commands, a sequential and time-limited actuation of individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using control pulses (actuation of the leg drives using the calculated command sequence to reduce the detected inclination, executed by the controller issuing signals to the individual outrigger switching valves with control pulses with varied times, i.e. 5s or 2s). Sproatt teaches the sequential actuation (see col. 2 lines 34-45, background, and claim 8 as discussed previously above). Therefore, in combination the actuation is carried out through sequential, individually timed actuation of each leg constituting control pulses, executed to reduce the detected deviation until the reference condition is approached, with the process reducing the actuation period as level is approached.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teaches similar methods, and control systems for leveling, inclination detection and height adjustment apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights