DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 112(f) Interpretation: Applicant' s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the 112(f) interpretation raised in the previous action; therefore the 112(f) interpretation is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding 102 rejection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehtinen et al. (USPGPub 2017/0247860) in view of Ashby et al. (USPGPub 2021/0148084).
As per claim 1, Lehtinen discloses a method for supporting a loading operation, comprising: monitoring, via at least one processor, at least one of a wheel slip variable, which represents, or a motor load variable for a utility vehicle, the utility vehicle includes a front loader with a loading tool for picking up a load material and a hydraulically adjustable loader linkage for pivoting, raising, and lowering the loading tool (see at least Figure 1), wherein the wheel slip variable represents a wheel slip occurring at wheels of the utility vehicle (see at least paragraph 0069; wherein the control unit 114 may determine that at least one wheel slips which may mean that the force induced by the stack of material to the work machine 100 is too high), and the motor load variable represents a current utilization of a drive motor of the utility vehicle (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein the power of the engine 130 and/or the air pressure of the wheels 134 of the work machine 100 may be controlled in order to improve the loading efficiency). Lehtinen does not explicitly mention requesting, via the at least one processor, a loading movement based on a forward travel of the utility vehicle along a predetermined loading trajectory, wherein the loading movement includes actuation of the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage to pick up the load material from a load material supply; and interrupting, via the at least one processor intervening in a drive management system of the utility vehicle, the forward travel of the utility vehicle based on at least one of the wheel slip variable or the motor load variable reaching respective predetermined limit values. However Ashby does disclose: requesting, via the at least one processor, a loading movement based on a forward travel of the utility vehicle along a predetermined loading trajectory, wherein the loading movement includes actuation of the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage to pick up the load material from a load material supply (see at least paragraph 0065; wherein at block 215 the throttle may be engaged and the brakes may be released, which may allow the shovel to be pushed into the load zone by the autonomous loader. In some embodiments, the speed control system 146 may be used to engage the throttle or release the brakes. In some embodiments, the transmission may be shifted down one or more gears to allow the loader to forcibly engage with the load zone); and interrupting, via the at least one processor intervening in a drive management system of the utility vehicle, the forward travel of the utility vehicle based on at least one of the wheel slip variable or the motor load variable reaching respective predetermined limit values (see at least paragraphs 0068-0070; wherein at block 225 wheel slippage can be monitored. If it is determined that slippage has occurred, then process 200 moves to block 235…At block 235 the throttle may be reduced and/or the brakes may be engaged). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ashby with the teachings as in Lehtinen. The motivation for doing so would have been to work efficiently and ensure the shovel has been filled, see Ashy paragraph 0039. As per claims 2 and 10, Ashby discloses wherein the interrupting the forward travel of the utility vehicle further includes causing the utility vehicle to be brought to a standstill by the intervention in the drive management system (see at least paragraphs 0068-0070; wherein at block 225 wheel slippage can be monitored. If it is determined that slippage has occurred, then process 200 moves to block 235…At block 235 the throttle may be reduced and/or the brakes may be engaged). As per claims 3 and 11, Lehtinen discloses monitoring, via the at least one processor, the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage to determine whether the loading tool is being raised from the load material supply; suspending, via the at least one processor, execution of the loading movement; and determining, via a weighting device, a weight of the load material picked up by the loading tool (see at least paragraph 0074; wherein when the control unit has determined that the loading should be stopped e.g. because the bucket 106 is full or the work machine 100 was unable to continue the loading operation, it may be possible to weigh the work machine 100 to determine the weight of the material loaded to the bucket 106). As per claims 4 and 12, Lehtinen discloses further including monitoring, via the at least one processor, the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage for a change in an actuating force characteristic of the raising of the loading tool from the load material supply (see at least paragraph 0074; wherein when the control unit has determined that the loading should be stopped e.g. because the bucket 106 is full or the work machine 100 was unable to continue the loading operation, it may be possible to weigh the work machine 100 to determine the weight of the material loaded to the bucket 106). As per claims 5 and 13, Lehtinen discloses wherein the monitoring the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage for the change in the actuating force further includes detecting, via the at least once processor, a sensed hydraulic pressure in a hydraulic cylinder of the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage, wherein the sensed hydraulic pressure corresponds to the raising of the loading tool and is a component part of hydraulic actuating devices of the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage (see at least paragraph 0080; wherein the control unit 114 may receive feedback from the actuators (or from sensors indicating position data of the bucket/boom), when instructing the actuator(s) to move the bucket 106 and/or the boom 104 to determine whether the bucket 106 and/or the boom 104 have reached their target position(s)). As per claims 6 and 14, Lehtinen discloses further including continuing, via the at least one processor, the loading operation based on the weight of the load material being below a desired target weight (see at least paragraph 0074; wherein when the control unit has determined that the loading should be stopped e.g. because the bucket 106 is full or the work machine 100 was unable to continue the loading operation, it may be possible to weigh the work machine 100 to determine the weight of the material loaded to the bucket 106. This information may then be used to decide whether to try to continue the loading operation or to drive the work machine 100 to the discharging location for discharging the bucket 106 or to call an operator to e.g. begin manual operation of the work machine 100 or to perform some other acts to solve a possible problem in the automatic loading). As per claim 9, Lehtinen discloses a system for supporting a loading operation, comprising: a front loader arranged on a utility vehicle, wherein the front loader includes a loading tool for picking up a load material, and wherein the loading tool includes a hydraulically adjustable loader linkage for pivoting, raising, and lowering the loading tool (see at least Figure 1); and at least on processor (see at least paragraph 0069; wherein the control unit 114) configured to: monitor at least one of a wheel slip variable or a motor load variable for the utility vehicle, wherein the wheel slip variable represents a wheel slip occurring at wheels of the utility vehicle (see at least paragraph 0069; wherein the control unit 114 may determine that at least one wheel slips which may mean that the force induced by the stack of material to the work machine 100 is too high) and the motor load variable represents a current utilization of a drive motor of the utility vehicle (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein the power of the engine 130 and/or the air pressure of the wheels 134 of the work machine 100 may be controlled in order to improve the loading efficiency). Lehtinen does not explicitly mention request a loading movement based on a forward travel of the utility vehicle along a predetermined loading trajectory, wherein the loading movement includes actuation of the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage to pick up the load material from a load material supply; and interrupt the forward travel of the utility vehicle by intervention in a drive management system of the utility vehicle based on at least one the wheel slip variable or the motor load variable reaching respective predetermined limit values. However Ashby does disclose: request a loading movement based on a forward travel of the utility vehicle along a predetermined loading trajectory, wherein the loading movement includes actuation of the hydraulically adjustable loader linkage to pick up the load material from a load material supply (see at least paragraph 0065; wherein at block 215 the throttle may be engaged and the brakes may be released, which may allow the shovel to be pushed into the load zone by the autonomous loader. In some embodiments, the speed control system 146 may be used to engage the throttle or release the brakes. In some embodiments, the transmission may be shifted down one or more gears to allow the loader to forcibly engage with the load zone); and interrupt the forward travel of the utility vehicle by intervention in a drive management system of the utility vehicle based on at least one the wheel slip variable or the motor load variable reaching respective predetermined limit values (see at least paragraphs 0068-0070; wherein at block 225 wheel slippage can be monitored. If it is determined that slippage has occurred, then process 200 moves to block 235…At block 235 the throttle may be reduced and/or the brakes may be engaged). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ashby with the teachings as in Lehtinen. The motivation for doing so would have been to work efficiently and ensure the shovel has been filled, see Ashy paragraph 0039.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehtinen et al. (USPGPub 2017/0247860), in view of Ashby et al. (USPGPub 2021/0148084), and further in view of Singh et al. (USPGPub 2020/0308803). As per claims 7 and 15, Lehtinen and Ashby do not explicitly mention further including inputting, via a user interface, the desired target weight, wherein user interface is connected to the at least one processor. However Singh does disclose: further including inputting, via a user interface, the desired target weight, wherein user interface is connected to the at least one processor (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein the controller 102 may be configured to receive an input (e.g., via an input device(s) 132 of the operator interface 130) that associated with an operator-selected weight for the material to be collected within the implement 30). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Singh with the teachings as in Lehtinen and Ashby do. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide automatic weight monitoring and control during the performance of a material moving operation, see Singh paragraph 0008. As per claims 8 and 16, Singh discloses further including: selecting, via the user interface, the desired target weight based on a partial target loading state or a complete target loading state; and calculating the desired target weight based on a specific mass density of the load material to be picked up (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein the controller 102 may be configured to receive an input (e.g., via an input device(s) 132 of the operator interface 130) that associated with an operator-selected weight for the material to be collected within the implement 30. In addition, in one embodiment, the operator may also be allowed to select a tolerance range to be applied for the target weight. For instance, the operator may indicate that a tolerance range of plus-or-minus (+/−) a given percentage of the target weight may be acceptable for the current operation being performed, such as a tolerance range of +/−10% of the target weight, +/−5% of the target weight, +/−2% of the target weight, or +/−1% of the target weight).
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2022/0050437 – Provide a controller may obtain initial sensing data to determine an estimated weight associated with each initial load of one or more initial loads of material carried by an implement. The controller may identify an estimated weigh accuracy metric associated with each initial load and an estimated weight accuracy metric associated with a final load to be carried by the implement. The controller may determine a target weight for the final load based on the estimated weights of the one or more initial loads, the estimated weight accuracy metrics of the one or more initial loads, or the estimated weight accuracy metric associated with the final load. USPGPub 2014/0167971 – Provide a computer-based method for displaying an implement payload weight to an operator of a vehicle is provided. The method includes calculating an implement payload weight at a lift position, displaying, at a first location on a monitor, the calculated implement payload weight, determining an accuracy of the calculated implement payload weight, and displaying, at a second location on the monitor proximate to the first location, an accuracy indicator based on the accuracy of the calculated implement payload weight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights