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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 400, 405, 407, 410. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, 14, 15 and 19-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 4, line 3) “a wing blade upper portion on second end” should be changed to “a wing blade upper portion on a second end”.
(claim 8, lines 3-4) “a wing blade upper portion on second end” should be changed to “a wing blade upper portion on a second end”.
(claim 14, line 3) “the circle drive assembly” should be changed to “a circle drive assembly”.
(claim 14, line 4) “the ground surface” should be changed to “a ground surface”.
(claim 14, lines 5-6) “the a heading” should be changed to “a heading”.
(claim 14, line 7) “the first wing blade” should be changed to “the wing blade”.
(claim 15, line 1) “each wing blade” should be changed to “the wing blade”.
(claim 15, lines 3-4) “a wing blade upper portion on second end” should be changed to “a wing blade upper portion on a second end”.
(claim 19, lines 3-4) “a wing blade upper portion on second end” should be changed to “a wing blade upper portion on a second end”.
(claim 20, lines 3-4) “in the in the inward swing direction” should be changed to “in an inward swing direction”.
Claims 19 (second occurrence), 20 & 21 should be changed to Claims 20, 21 & 22, respectively.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a ground engaging mechanism configured to support the frame” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes the ground engaging mechanism as wheels or tracks.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veasy (US 2021/0102356).
As concerns claim 1, Veasy shows a work machine (10) comprising: a frame (15) extending in a fore-aft direction; a drawbar assembly (110) coupled to the frame; a circle drive assembly (160) coupled to the drawbar assembly; a ground engaging mechanism (50) configured to support the frame on a ground surface; a moldboard (175) coupled to the circle drive assembly and configured to grade the ground surface; a sensor (80, 260) for generating a signal indicative of a heading of a work machine as the ground-engaging mechanism moves the frame across the ground surface; a wing blade (185) pivotally coupled to an end of the moldboard, the wing blade actuated to move to an open position (Fig. 4: 190), a closed position (Fig. 6: 195), or to a position in between (Fig. 5: 255); and a controller (295) in communication with the sensor, the controller including a processor and a memory having a material management algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm to receive the signal indicative of the heading and control the wing blade to move to the open position, the closed position, or the position in between based on the heading for directing the flow of moving material (Fig. 7; paragraph 0030-0032).
As concerns claim 2, Veasy shows a second wing blade (185) pivotally coupled to a second end of the moldboard, the second wing blade actuated to move to an open position (Fig. 4: 190), a closed position (Fig. 6: 195), or to a position in between (Fig. 5: 255), and the second wing blade controlled to the open position, the closed position, or the position in between based on the heading (Fig. 7).
As concerns claim 3, Veasy shows a second wing blade (185) pivotally coupled to a second end of the moldboard, the second wing blade actuated to move in synchrony with the first wing blade (Fig. 7).
As concerns claim 11, Veasy shows an object detector (80) for generating an object detection signal indicative of an object (90) in the path of the wing blade as the ground-engaging mechanism moves the frame across the ground surface wherein the wing blade is positioned to move in one of the closed position, the open position, or a position in between based on the object detection signal (Fig. 2 & 7).
As concerns claim 12, Veasy shows wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm only when the moldboard is positioned in a damage avoidance range relative to the frame, wherein the damage avoidance range is at most 30 degrees from a default moldboard position (paragraph 0030; it has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
As concerns claim 14, Veasy shows a moldboard assembly for a motor grader work machine (10), the moldboard assembly comprising: a moldboard (175) coupled to a circle drive assembly (160), the moldboard configured to grade a ground surface; a sensor (80, 260) coupled (indirectly) to the moldboard, the sensor generating a signal indicative of a heading; a wing blade (185) pivotally coupled an end of the moldboard, the wing blade actuated to move to an open position (Fig. 4: 190), a closed position (Fig. 6: 195), or to a position in between (Fig. 5: 255); and a controller (295) in communication with the sensor, the controller including a processor and a memory having a material management algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm to receive the signal indicative of the heading and control the wing blade to move to the open position, the closed position, or the position in between based on the heading for directing the flow of moving material (Fig. 7; paragraph 0030-0032).
As concerns claim 19, Veasy shows wherein the wing blade is actuable by a second linear actuator (250) and a second linkage mechanism pivotally coupled to a moldboard aft surface on a first end and pivotally coupled to a wing blade upper portion on a second end (Fig. 3), the second linear actuator selectively positioning the wing blade in a drop gate direction, the drop gate direction being the upper most edge of the wing blade rotating about drop mount connected to the moldboard aft surface in a direction of pitch to raise and lower the wing blade from the ground surface (Fig. 4-6).
As concerns claim 22, Veasy shows a pitch actuator (140) coupling the moldboard to the frame, wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm to adjust a pitch of the moldboard to align the wear surface of the wing blade to the ground surface (Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 13, 15-18, 20 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious:
a) a work machine comprising: a frame extending in a fore-aft direction; a drawbar assembly coupled to the frame; a circle drive assembly coupled to the drawbar assembly; a ground engaging mechanism configured to support the frame on a ground surface; a moldboard coupled to the circle drive assembly and configured to grade the ground surface; a sensor for generating a signal indicative of a heading of a work machine as the ground-engaging mechanism moves the frame across the ground surface; a wing blade pivotally coupled to an end of the moldboard, the wing blade actuated to move to an open position, a closed position, or to a position in between; and a controller in communication with the sensor, the controller including a processor and a memory having a material management algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm to receive the signal indicative of the heading and control the wing blade to move to the open position, the closed position, or the position in between based on the heading for directing the flow of moving material, wherein the wing blade is actuable by a first linear actuator and a first linkage mechanism pivotally coupled to a moldboard upper portion on a first end and pivotally coupled to a wing blade upper portion on a second end, the first linear actuator selectively positioning the wing blade in a swing gate direction.
b) a moldboard assembly for a motor grader work machine, the moldboard assembly comprising: a moldboard coupled to a circle drive assembly, the moldboard configured to grade a ground surface; a sensor coupled to the moldboard, the sensor generating a signal indicative of a heading; a wing blade pivotally coupled an end of the moldboard, the wing blade actuated to move to an open position, a closed position, or to a position in between; and a controller in communication with the sensor, the controller including a processor and a memory having a material management algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm to receive the signal indicative of the heading and control the wing blade to move to the open position, the closed position, or the position in between based on the heading for directing the flow of moving material, wherein the wing blade is actuable by a first linear actuator and a first linkage mechanism pivotally coupled to a moldboard upper portion on a first end and pivotally coupled to a wing blade upper portion on a second end, the first linear actuator selectively positioning the wing blade in a swing gate direction.
Veasy (US 2021/0102356) shows a wing blade pivotally coupled an end of a moldboard, the wing blade actuated to move to an open position, a closed position, or to a position in between; and a controller in communication with a sensor, the controller including a processor and a memory having a material management algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm to receive the signal indicative of a heading and control the wing blade to move to the open position, the closed position, or the position in between based on the heading for directing the flow of moving material, and wherein the wing blade is actuable by a first linear actuator. However, Veasy does not show a first linkage mechanism pivotally coupled to a moldboard upper portion on a first end and pivotally coupled to a wing blade upper portion on a second end, and the first linear actuator selectively positioning the wing blade in a swing gate direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamimae et al. (US 2018/0355569) shows a work machine comprising: a frame extending in a fore-aft direction; a drawbar assembly coupled to the frame; a circle drive assembly coupled to the drawbar assembly; a ground engaging mechanism configured to support the frame on a ground surface; a moldboard coupled to the circle drive assembly and configured to grade the ground surface; a sensor for generating a signal indicative of a distance in which a work machine travels as the ground-engaging mechanism moves the frame across the ground surface; a wing blade pivotally coupled to an end of the moldboard, the wing blade actuated to move to an open position, a closed position, or to a position in between; and a controller in communication with the sensor, the controller including a processor and a memory having a material management algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the material management algorithm to receive the signal indicative of the distance and control the wing blade to move to the open position, the closed position, or the position in between based on the distance for directing the flow of moving material, and wherein the wing blade is actuable by a first linear actuator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights