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
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/233,364, filed on 10 June 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10 September 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites “a holding operation”. The Examiner, giving the recitation its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, interprets the term “holding operation” to include any operation related to the holding of the to-be-held object in the attachment and any operation of the attachment to manipulate the to-be-held object while held in the attachment. The Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation is supported in Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0136].
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egawa (JP 2008-255597 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Egawa discloses a construction machine and teaches:
a machine body (construction machine having traveling body 1 and rotating body 3 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0011]);
a working device provided on the machine body to attach thereto an attachment to hold a to-be-held object (working device 4 having a work arm 8 attached to gripping device 9, such as a grapple – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0014]); and
a controller (controller 500 – see at least ¶ [0022]) configured or programmed to impose an operational limitation to limit one or both of an operational area (interference prevention area 200, which is an area where gripping device 9 or object to be gripped 101 could interfere with the driver’s cab – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0022]; interference prevention area 200 is set withing controller 500 – see at least ¶ [0022]) and an operational speed of the working machine when causing the attachment to perform an operation of holding the to-be-held object (speed restricted operations include speed component of the gripping device, raising the boom, arm crowding, gripping device crowding, gripping device rotation (forward and reverse), and gripping device opening are set as operations subject to restrictions – see at least ¶ [0026]; boom speed limited – see at least ¶ [0062]; arm speed limited – see at least ¶ [0065]; gripping device speed limited – see at least ¶ [0068], [0071]. [0074], [0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Egawa further teaches:
a detector to detect that the to-be-held object is held by the attachment (pressure sensor 91 to determine whether gripping device 9 is gripping the object to be gripped – see at least ¶ [0082], [0090]); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to impose the operational limitation when the detector detects that the to-be-held object is held (limiting device 552 outputs limiting signal if it determines that the object to be gripped is being gripped – see at least ¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 3, Egawa further teaches:
wherein the detector includes a load sensor to detect a load applied to the working device (pressure sensor 91 to determine whether gripping device 9 is gripping the object to be gripped – see at least ¶ [0082], [0090]) and is configured to detect that the to- be-held object is held based on whether or not the load is greater by a predetermined amount or more than when the to-be-held object is not held (whether the object is being gripped is determined by comparing pressure from pressure sensor 91 to a threshold value and determining if the pressure is equal to or greater than the threshold value – see at least ¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 5, Egawa further teaches:
wherein the detector is configured to detect an instruction for the attachment to perform a holding operation (operation signals from levers 84,85,86,87 input to signal conversion unit 508b – see at least ¶ [0060]; Note: see Claim Interpretation above); and the controller is configured or programmed to impose the operational limitation when the detector detects the instruction to perform the holding operation (limited upward rotation speed of boom 10 – see at least ¶ [0062]; limited movement speed of arm 11 – see at least ¶ [0065]; limited operating speed of gripping device 9 – see at least ¶ [0068]; limited rotation speed of gripping device 9 – see at least ¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Egawa further teaches:
wherein the attachment includes a hydraulic actuator to perform the holding operation (hydraulic actuators 20-28 – see at least ¶ [0017]; operation input devices 84-88 – see at least ¶ [0024]; operation lever 86, 87 to tilt and rotate gripping device – see at least ¶ [0041], [0047]); and the detector is configured to determine whether the instruction to perform the holding operation is issued or not based on a pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the hydraulic actuator or based on a control signal for a control valve through which hydraulic fluid is supplied to the hydraulic actuator (hydraulic actuators 20-28 acting in response to operation signal from operation input device – see at least ¶ [0017]; operation input devices 84-88 – see at least ¶ [0024]; operation lever 86, 87 to tilt and rotate gripping device – see at least ¶ [0041], [0047]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa in view of Mahrenholz et al. (US 2020/0181876 A1, “Mahrenholz”).
Regarding claim 4, Egawa fails to teach but Mahrenholz discloses an attachment-configurable system for a work machine and teaches
an attachment detector to detect that the attachment is attached to the working device (at 610, a controller 240 of a work machine 100 may determine when a new attachment 105 has been coupled to work machine 100 based on attachment change criteria – see at least Figs. 2, 8 and ¶ [0057]) or detect an instruction to select a holding operation mode which is an operational mode in which the attachment is used;
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to impose the operational limitation when the attachment detector detects that the attachment is attached (at 640, controller 240 may automatically adjust specific vehicle settings based on the type of attachment – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0059]) or when the instruction to select the holding operation mode is detected.
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction machine of Egawa to provide for detecting an attachment and impose operational limits, e.g., specific vehicle settings, based on the detection, as taught by Mahrenholz, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide for quick adaption of command configurations for various work machines based on the attachment type (Mahrenholz at ¶ [0004]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa in view of Pawar et al. (US 2023/0324909 A1, “Pawar”).
Regarding claim 7, Egawa fails to teach but Pawar disclose a system and method for monitoring a payload volume utilization on a work vehicle and teaches:
a first sensor to recognize the to-be-held object held by the attachment; wherein the detector is configured to detect that the to-be-held object is held based on a recognition result from the first sensor (controller 66 identifies an object of interest 400 between grapple arms 47 from image data 204 of image capture device 202 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0035]; type of object may be determined from image data – see at least ¶ [0038]; at 630, an object of interest is identified and, at 650 a grapple volume utilization is determined based on the object of interest – see at least Fig. 6 and ¶ [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction machine of Egawa to provide a sensor to recognize the object and detect the object based on the recognition, as taught by Pawar, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for monitoring the grapple, i.e., attachment, payload (Pawar at ¶ [0001]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa in view of Gustafsson et al. (WO 2018/111169 A1, “Gustafsson”).
Regarding claim 8, Egawa fails to teach but Gustafsson discloses a working vehicle including a crane and teaches:
wherein the working machine is switchable between [an attachment mode] and a crane mode in which a lifting operation is performed (tip tool mode of operation and normal mode of operation – see at least ¶ [0010]; in normal mode, crane movements are controller in relation to a coordinate system having a base of the crane as its origin – see at least ¶ [0011]; in tip tool mode of operation, crane movements are controlled in relation to a coordinate system having said tool joint as its origin – see at least ¶ [0013]); and the operational limitation is not imposed in the crane mode (no operational limits in normal mode), or the degree of the operational limitation is greater in the holding mode than in the crane mode.
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction machine of Egawa to provide for switchable modes, as taught by Gustafsson, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would achieve an improved control capability enabling a straight-forward and more user-friendly control of the final movement of the crane tool when connecting a tip tool, i.e., attachment (Gustafsson at ¶ [0007]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa in view of Yanagihara et al. (JP 2010-37036 A, “Yanagihara”).
Regarding claim 9, Egawa fails to teach but Yanagihara discloses a working machine and teaches:
a weight sensor to detect a weight of the to-be-held object (weight calculation means 220 calculates weight of the object A to be gripped by gripping device 10 – see at least Fig. 6 and ¶ [0024]); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to change the degree of the operational limitation in accordance with the weight of the to-be-held object held by the attachment (weight of object A may be used to control the speed signal of working arm 101 – see at least ¶ [0042]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction machine of Egawa to provide a weight sensor and change operational limitations based on the weight detected by the weight sensor, as taught by Yanagihara, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it allow the machine to be controlled at an optimal operating speed (Gust Takuya afsson at ¶ [0048]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa in view of Lewis (US 2018/0245306 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Egawa fails to teach but Lewis discloses a system and method for controlling an arm of a work vehicle and teaches:
a position detector to detect a height position of the attachment (arm position sensors to determine if the arm (and the attachment) is in the lowered position, raised position, or intermediate position – see at least Fig. 3B and ¶ [0034]); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to change the degree of the operational limitation in accordance with the height position of the attachment (if type of implement is a restricted-height implement at 508, upward movement of the implement may be limited at 514 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction machine of Egawa to provide a position detector to detect height and change the operation limitation based on the detected height, as taught by Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable the maximum load rating of the arm assembly to be increased while a restricted-height implement is coupled to the arm (Lewis at ¶ [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 are allowed.
Claims 11-13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lawler et al. (US 2017/0089797 A1);
Yoo et al. (US 2010/0018197 A1);
Yoshimatsu (US 6,170,681 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights