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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on July 29, 2026. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed July 29, 2026, Examiner maintains the previous claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); and withdraws the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed July 29, 2026, with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0364334, as discussed further below.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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. output device… in claims 6, 14, and 20. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at [0027] of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0129397 (hereinafter, “Velde”; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0364334 (hereinafter, “Nicholls”; previously of record but not previously relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Velde discloses A system for determining a height of a work tool of a work machine, the work tool is movable relative to a frame of the work machine (see at least Fig. 1 and [0019]-[0020]; the three dimensional orientation of the blade (i.e., a work tool) of the work vehicle (i.e., work machine) relative to the work vehicle may be determined), the system comprising:
a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) coupled to the work tool, wherein the first IMU is configured to generate a first signal indicative of a first angle of the work tool relative to a calibrated point (see at least Fig. 3 and [0042]; the second IMU (i.e., first IMU) may be coupled to the blade (i.e., work tool))…;
a second IMU coupled to the frame of the work machine, wherein the second IMU is configured to generate a second signal indicative of a second angle of the frame of the work machine relative to the calibrated point (see at least Fig. 3 and [0042]; the first IMU (i.e., second IMU) may be coupled to the lift frame (i.e., frame of the work machine)); and
a controller including one or more memories and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are communicably coupled with the one or more memories, the first IMU and the second IMU, (see at least Fig. 3, [0019], [0036]-[0038], and [0042]; the controller may comprise one or more processors and corresponding memories and may be in communication with the two IMUs) and wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive the first signal indicative of the first angle of the work tool relative to the calibrated point from the first IMU (see at least Fig. 3 and [0042]-[0049]; data from the two IMUs may be received and processed via the velocity unit, prediction unit, residual unit, solver unit, and adder unit of the controller, and the parameters may be resolved to a common point (i.e., calibrated point));
receive the second signal indicative of the second angle of the frame relative to the calibrated point from the second IMU (see at least Fig. 3 and [0042]-[0049]; data from the two IMUs may be received and processed via the velocity unit, prediction unit, residual unit, solver unit, and adder unit of the controller, and the parameters may be resolved to a common point (i.e., calibrated point));
compare the first signal with the second signal to calculate a resultant angle of the work tool relative to the frame of the work machine (see at least Fig. 3, [0019], [0042]-[0049]; six-dimensional relative orientations of the work tool and frame of the work machine may be determined which includes the relative angles);
determine a current height of the work tool based on a comparison between the first signal and the second signal (see at least Fig. 3, [0019], [0042]-[0049]; six-dimensional relative orientations of the work tool and frame of the work machine may be determined which includes the vertical position (i.e., height));
determine a set height of the work tool (see at least [0042]-[0049]; the height of the blade (i.e., work tool) is determined by determining the orientation of the blade);
compare the determined set height with the current height of the work tool (see at least [0042]-[0049] and [0080]; the control of the work vehicle may be based on the current joint orientation and the operator commands); and
generate an output signal if the current height is adjusted based on the output signal so that the current height corresponds to the determined set height (see at least [0042]-[0049] and [0080]; movement of the blade is initiated when the operator input does not correspond to the current orientation of the blade (i.e., work tool)).
However, Velde does not explicitly teach that the calibration point is defined on a ground surface. Nicholls, in the same field of endeavor teaches that the calibration point may be disposed on any surface, including a ground surface; see at least Nicholls [0042], [0049], and [0098]. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date and with a reasonable likelihood of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Velde with the teachings of Nicholls in order to improve tracking of a work tool relative to a work machine; see at least Nicholls at [0002].
Claim 9 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1. Additionally, Velde discloses a frame and work tool moveable relative to the frame at least at Fig. 1 and [0019]-[0020]. Additionally, claim 16 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Velde discloses and Nicholls teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Velde discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the set height based on an input received from an operator of the work machine (see at least [0040]-[0049] and [0080]; the set height is updated based on the operator input).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Velde discloses and Nicholls teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Velde discloses wherein the work tool includes a blade that is disposed at a front end of the work machine (see at least Fig. 1; a blade may be disposed at the front end of the work machine).
Claim 15 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 8.
Claims 4-6, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velde in view of Nicholls, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0383260 (hereinafter, “Foster”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 4, Velde discloses and Nicholls teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. However, Velde does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4. Foster, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more memories are configured to store a plurality of set heights for the work tool that are previously received from an operator of the work machine, and wherein each of the plurality of set heights is associated with a corresponding resultant angle of the work tool relative to the frame of the work machine (see at least [0041]-[0043]; previously defined reference heights may be selected by the operator).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Velde, as previously modified by Nicholls, with the teachings of Foster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve control of a ground engaging tool; see at least Foster at [0001].
Claim 12 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the Velde, Nicholls, and Foster combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Foster, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
retrieve, from the one or more memories, the plurality of set heights (see at least [0041]-[0042] and [0047]; different steering profiles, including tool heights may be stored and retrieved by the operator);
determine the set height, from the plurality of set heights, that corresponds to the resultant angle and a geometry of the work tool (see at least [0041]-[0042] and [0052]; a current height is determined);
compare the current height of the work tool with the determined set height (see at least [0043] and [0052]; a current height and the operator set height may be determined); and
adjust the current height so that the current height corresponds to the determined set height based on a comparison between the current height and the determined set height (see at least [0043] and [0052]; the height may be adjusted from the current height to the operator set height responsive to there being a difference between the two).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Velde, as previously modified by Nicholls, with the teachings of Foster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve control of a ground engaging tool; see at least Foster at [0001].
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Velde discloses and Nicholls teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. However, Velde does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6. Foster, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising an output device communicably coupled with the one or more processors of the controller, wherein the output device is configured to receive the output signal from the one or more processors, and wherein the output device is configured to generate a notification for an operator of the work machine upon receipt of the output signal from the one or more processors (see at least [0034]-[0035]; a notification may be output to the user via the user interface which is in communication with the controller).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Velde, as previously modified by Nicholls, with the teachings of Foster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve control of a ground engaging tool; see at least Foster at [0001].
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velde in view of Nicholls, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of DE102018010152 (hereinafter, “Wickert”; previously of record). Examiner notes that citations to Wickert are made using the attached NPL English translation of DE102018010152.
Regarding claim 7, Velde discloses and Nicholls teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Velde does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7. Wickert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the work machine is a soil compactor (see at least Fig. 1A and the first two paragraphs of the description).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Velde, as previously modified by Nicholls, with the teachings of Wickert, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a machine capable of more functions; see at least Wickert at the second paragraph of the Description.
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 TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
