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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 June 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are replete with the term “and/or”. Examiner is obligated to assign an interpretation to the term that establishes boundaries for the associated elements and combinations. Accordingly, all uses of the term will be interpreted as “or” due to the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0264106).
For claim 1, Kawai discloses a method of operating a work vehicle comprising a swing apparatus rotatable about a swing axis, wherein the swing apparatus comprises an arm arrangement comprising a boom and a stick (see Fig. 1), the method comprising: determining a speed profile of maximum allowable swing speed of the swing apparatus rotating about the swing axis (see para. 0097, predetermined deceleration) by: determining a maximum swing speed (see para. 0097, actual velocity is first measured speed). Kawai does not explicitly disclose an initial swing speed.
However, the term “initial” is interpreted to be any swing that may be the first since powering on the apparatus, the first of that digging location, the first ever swing of the apparatus or the first to be considered part of the method/measured (based on user input). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that an “initial” swing speed may be a design choice designated by the user or manufacturer based on the motivation to improve an apparatus and a method for automatically starting a braking of the slewing body when the slewing body is closed to a certain slewing angular position to safely stop it at a certain slewing angular position (see para. 0004).
Continuing with the claim, Kawai further discloses determining a maximum safety swing speed for stopping the rotation of the swing apparatus within a predetermined maximum angular stopping displacement from a safety time and/or displacement (see para. 0097, target slewing angular velocity determination portion to stop the structure at a specific point equivalent to maximum stopping displacement); and determining a deceleration ramp of the maximum allowable swing speed for reducing the maximum initial swing speed to the maximum safety swing speed by the safety time and/or displacement (see para. 0045, deceleration limit calculated from actual and target velocities); and by a control system, limiting a maximum operational swing speed of the swing apparatus to the speed profile (see para. 0100, braking equivalent to “limiting” angular velocity).
Pertaining to claim 2, Kawai further discloses wherein the deceleration ramp of the maximum allowable swing speed reduces the maximum initial swing speed to the maximum safety swing speed between a ramp down start time and/or displacement and the safety time and/or displacement respectively (see para. 0100).
Regarding claim 3, Kawai further teaches wherein the ramp down start time and/or displacement is based upon: the maximum initial swing speed; the maximum safety swing speed; a rate of deceleration of the swing apparatus; and the safety time and/or displacement (see para. 0100).
With reference to claim 4, Kawai further discloses wherein the speed profile comprises a maximum allowable swing speed varying in time measured from the start of performing an angular displacement (see para. 0100).
For claim 5, Kawai further teaches wherein the safety time is determined based upon a rate of acceleration of the swing apparatus (see para. 0044).
With regards to claim 6, Kawai further discloses wherein the work vehicle comprises a swing angle sensor (see para. 0036) and the speed profile comprises a maximum allowable swing speed varying against angular displacement measured from the start of performing an angular displacement (see para. 0044).
Referring to claim 7, Kawai further teaches wherein the work vehicle is configurable in a plurality of different configurations of differing inertias (POSITA) and: the ramp down start time and/or displacement is further based upon the rate of deceleration of the swing apparatus in the configuration having the greatest inertia; and/or the maximum safety swing speed is based upon a rate of deceleration of the swing apparatus in the configuration having the greatest inertia and the predetermined maximum angular stopping displacement (see para. 0097, slewing position and velocity; target slewing angular velocity determination portion to stop the structure at a specific point equivalent to maximum stopping displacement). Kawai does not explicitly disclose the “greatest” inertia.
However, Kawai teaches the use of a potentiometer (see Fig. 3, #54, para. 0036). As the swings are measured, determining the “greatest” inertial would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art at the date of the invention; using the “greatest” in the calculations in the maximum safety swing speed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the motivation to improve an apparatus and a method for automatically starting a braking of the slewing body when the slewing body is closed to a certain slewing angular position to safely stop it at a certain slewing angular position (see para. 0004).
For claims 8 and 9, Kawai does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. However, slowing the swing speed in a linear manner or a user designed rate is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to designate the swing profile displacement decreases in a manner that increases safety and based on the motivation to improve an apparatus and a method for automatically starting a braking of the slewing body when the slewing body is closed to a certain slewing angular position to safely stop it at a certain slewing angular position (see para. 0004).
Pertaining to claim 10, Kawai further discloses wherein the work vehicle comprises at least one component position sensor mounted to the swing apparatus and wherein the maximum safety swing speed is based upon work vehicle component position data from the at least one component position sensor (see para. 0036).
With regards to claim 11, Kawai further teaches wherein the work vehicle further comprises: a boom actuator for controlling the boom (see para. 0036); and at least one boom head pressure sensor mounted to the boom actuator, wherein the maximum safety swing speed is based upon boom head pressure data from the at least one boom head pressure sensor (see para. 0036).
Referring to claim 12, Kawai further teaches wherein the method further comprises, by the control system: rotating the swing apparatus about the swing axis at a swing speed equal to or less than the maximum operational swing speed (see para. 0044); and/or overriding a user command to rotate the swing apparatus around the swing axis at a swing speed greater than the maximum operational swing speed.
Claim 13 defined elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
With regards to claim 14, Kawai further discloses a swing apparatus rotatable about a swing axis, wherein the swing apparatus comprises an arm arrangement comprising a boom and a stick (see para. 0036); and a control system comprising the controller of claim 13 (see Fig. 2, #60 and related text).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights