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 statements (IDS) submitted on 19 June and 23 June 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0347146) in view of Zhao, et al. (CN Application No. 202111186313.7, Publication No. CN113830685A; citations referring to English equivalent U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0153987).
For claim 1, Rutherford discloses a method of operating a work vehicle comprising: a swing apparatus rotatable about a swing axis, the swing apparatus comprising an arm arrangement comprising a stick and a boom (see Fig. 1), and at least one arm position sensor mounted to the swing apparatus for generating arm position data indicative of a position of the stick and/or the boom (see para. 0016), the method comprising, by a control system: determining a swing speed of the swing apparatus rotating about the swing axis (see para. 0025), to account for the moment of inertia of the swing apparatus (see para. 0027). Rutherford does not explicitly disclose the claimed maximum allowable swing speed and the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Zhao discloses determining a maximum allowable swing speed (see para. 0039, folded state is maximum, decreased speed when in unfolded state) based on: arm position data (see para. 0042-0045), and data linking arm position data with the maximum allowable swing speed (see paras. 0047-0050); and limiting a maximum operational swing speed of the swing apparatus to the maximum allowable swing speed (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050, folded state is maximum, decreased operational speed when in unfolded state). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Rutherford with the teachings of Zhao based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a method for controlling a rotation speed of a turntable of a work machine (see para. 0006).
Additionally, Zhao does not explicitly disclose a “map”. However, Zhao teaches a mathematical relationship between several variables to determine swing speed. While not an organized matrix, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the requisite skill and found it obvious to produce a predetermined table of values in computerized memory based on the motivation to improve a method for controlling a rotation speed of a turntable of a work machine (see para. 0006).
With reference to claim 2, Rutherford further teaches wherein the at least one arm position sensor comprises a stick position sensor, and the arm position data comprises stick position data (see para. 0016).
Pertaining to claim 3, Rutherford further teaches wherein the at least one arm position sensor comprises a boom position sensor, and the arm position data comprises boom position data (see para. 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Rutherford further discloses wherein the arm position data is indicative of an extension of the arm arrangement of the swing apparatus (see para. 0016).
Referring to claim 5, Zhao further teaches wherein the maximum allowable swing speed is a first maximum allowable swing speed when the extension of the arm arrangement is a first extension (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050, folded state is first extension maximum), and the maximum allowable swing speed is a second maximum allowable swing speed when the extension of the arm arrangement is a second extension (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050, first length new maximum but decreased), wherein the first maximum allowable swing speed is higher than the second maximum allowable swing speed and the second extension is larger than the first extension (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050).
With regards to claim 6, Zhao further teaches wherein the maximum allowable swing speed is equal to the first maximum allowable swing speed when the extension of the arm arrangement is less than the first extension (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050).
Pertaining to claim 7, Zhao further teaches wherein the maximum allowable swing speed is equal to the second maximum allowable swing speed when the extension of the arm arrangement is more than the second extension (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050).
With reference to claim 9, Rutherford further teaches wherein the arm position data comprises stick and/or boom angle data (see para. 0016).
Regarding claim 10, Rutherford further discloses wherein the work vehicle further comprises a stick and/or boom hydraulic actuator (see para. 0013), and the arm position data comprises cylinder extension data of the stick and/or boom hydraulic actuator (see paras. 0021-0025).
For claim 11, Zhao further discloses wherein the method further comprises, by the control system: changing an arm position of the work vehicle (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050); updating the maximum allowable swing speed of the swing apparatus based on: new arm position data, and the data linking arm position data with the maximum allowable swing speed (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050); and limiting the maximum operational swing speed of the swing apparatus to the updated maximum allowable swing speed (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050, folded state is maximum, decreased operational speed is updated maximum when in unfolded state).
Pertaining to claim 12, Zhao 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; 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 (see paras. 0039, 0047-0050).
Claims 13 and 14 define elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claims 13 and 14 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0347146) and Zhao, et al. (CN Application No. 202111186313.7, Publication No. CN113830685A; citations referring to English equivalent U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0153987) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kawai, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/02641016).
With regards to claim 8, Rutherford discloses wherein the work vehicle is configurable in a plurality of different configurations of differing inertias (see para. 0027).
A teaching from Kawai, et al. discloses the second maximum allowable swing speed is based upon a predetermined maximum angular stopping displacement and a rate of deceleration of the swing apparatus in the configuration having the greatest inertia (see para. 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Rutherford with the teachings of Kawai based on a reasonable expectation of success and 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).
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