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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 12/24/24. Amended Claims 1-10 are pending, with Claims 5-10 withdrawn.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejection, this has been overcome by the claim amendments.
Regarding the prior art rejection under 102 by Kamon, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
654
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. When the levers are moved, the actuators are operated, as this is purpose of the levers as input devices (ex. [049]). Additionally in one interpretation of Kamon, as soon as the operator moves both levers to actuate the actuators, the first cancellation condition is met (ex. [052]), meeting the current claim language in the temporal sense, as previously explained.
Regarding the prior art rejection under 102 by Kinugawa, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image2.png
1132
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As currently claimed and presented, Kinugawa continues to teach the amended claim language as the actuators are actuated by the levers and the controller continues to control power for the actuators based on the input from the levers.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/24 has been entered.
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.
Examiner note:
i. The limitations of Claim 2 have been interpreted as a “second cancellation condition” that is in addition to the first cancellation condition of Claim 1, not a replacement or omission of the first cancellation condition of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamon et al. (US 20060179830).
Regarding Claim 1,
A construction machine comprising:
a power source (1, Fig. 3);
a plurality of actuators (“multiple hydraulic actuators”, [049]) that are actuated by receiving a power output by the power source;
a plurality of control levers (16, 16, “According to the second embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, on multiple operating levers 16 (two in an example shown in FIG. 3. A description will be given of this example)” ([049]) by which amounts of the power to be distributed to the plurality of actuators are instructed upon operation thereof;
a plurality of operation state sensors (17, 17) that detect operation states of the plurality of control levers; and
a controller (8) that controls the power source,
the plurality of control levers including a first control lever (16) and a second control lever (16) that operate different actuators of the plurality of actuators, and
the controller being configured to perform power reduction control (S12, Fig. 4, [049-050]) to actuate the power source so as to reduce the power when a non-operation state of the first and second control levers is continued, wherein
the controller is configured to cancel the power reduction control and to operate the actuators corresponding to the operations of the first and second control levers (S14, Fig. 4, [050-052]) when the operation states of the first and second control levers detected by the operation state sensors satisfy a first cancellation condition in which the first and second control levers are operated simultaneously in a state in which the power is reduced by the power reduction control, and the amount of the power to be distributed to the actuators corresponding to the operations of the first and second control levers is instructed.
Examiner note: “when the operation states of the first and second control levers detected by the operation state sensors” can be interpreted as a temporal condition (“when” as in “at which time”), and the “a first cancellation condition” is met by the simultaneous operation of the first and second control levers. Examiner suggests adding further language more particularly pointing out and claiming the operation of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 4,
The construction machine according to claim 1, wherein
the power source includes an engine (1) and a hydraulic pump (4), the power source generates the power by driving the hydraulic pump by the engine, and the controller is configured to perform the power reduction control by decreasing a rotation speed of the engine (S12, Fig. 4).
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinugawa et al. (US 5999872).
Regarding Claim 1,
A construction machine comprising:
a power source (1, Fig. 1);
a plurality of actuators (4-9) that are actuated by receiving a power output by the power source;
a plurality of control levers (depicted as 17-22, note Col. 7, lines 48-56) by which amounts of the power to be distributed to the plurality of actuators are instructed upon operation thereof;
a plurality of operation state sensors (25-30, ex. Col. 18, lines 3-27) that detect operation states of the plurality of control levers; and
a controller (10) that controls the power source,
the plurality of control levers including a first control lever (ex. Col. 17, lines 49-54) and a second control lever (ex. Col. 17, lines 54-56) that operate different actuators of the plurality of actuators, and
the controller being configured to perform power reduction control (with 56, ex. Col. 23, line 55-Col. 24, line 3, ex. Col. 35, lines 18-34) to actuate the power source so as to reduce the power when a non-operation state of the first and second control levers is continued, wherein
the controller is configured to cancel the power reduction control and to operate the actuators corresponding to the operations of the first and second control levers (with 56, ex. Col. 23, line 55-Col. 24, line 3, ex. Col. 35, lines 18-34) when the operation states of the first and second control levers detected by the operation state sensors satisfy a first cancellation condition in which the first and second control levers are operated simultaneously in a state in which the power is reduced by the power reduction control, and the amount of the power to be distributed to the actuators corresponding to the operations of the first and second control levers is instructed.
Examiner note: “when the operation states of the first and second control levers detected by the operation state sensors” can be interpreted as a temporal condition (“when” as in “at which time”), and the “a first cancellation condition” is met by the simultaneous operation of the first and second control levers. Examiner suggests adding further language more particularly pointing out and claiming the operation of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 2,
The construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to
cancel the power reduction control and operate the actuators corresponding to one of the first and second control levers (ex. Col. 23, line 55-Col. 24, line 3, ex. Col. 35, lines 18-34) when the operation state of one of the first and second control levers detected by the operation state sensors satisfies a second cancellation condition in which one of the first and second control levers is operated in a state in which the power is reduced and the operation state of the one control lever is continued for a predetermined time, even when the first cancellation condition is not satisfied.
Examiner note: “when the operation state of one of the first and second control levers detected by the operation state sensors satisfies a second cancellation condition” can be interpreted as a temporal condition (“when” as in “at which time”) and one of the first and second levers of Kinugawa being “operated” results in meeting the “a second cancellation condition”. Examiner suggests adding further language more particularly pointing out and claiming the operation of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 4,
The construction machine according to claim 1, wherein
the power source includes an engine (1) and a hydraulic pump (2 or 3, ex. Fig. 1), the power source generates the power by driving the hydraulic pump by the engine, and the controller is configured to perform the power reduction control by decreasing a rotation speed of the engine.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinugawa in view of Akita et al. (JP 2018-3515 A, with US 11466435 being used as the English language equivalent).
Regarding Claim 3, Kinugawa teaches
The construction machine according to claim 1, further comprising:
a lower track structure (lower structure of “excavator”, for travel motors 8 and 9); an upper swing structure (upper structure of “excavator”) swingably (via 7) mounted on the lower track structure; and a front work implement (with boom (associated actuator 4), arm (associated actuator 5), bucket (associated actuator 6)) attached to a front portion of the upper swing structure so as to be rotatable in an upward-downward direction, wherein
the plurality of actuators include a swing motor (7) that swings the upper swing structure with respect to the lower track structure, and first (4), second (6) and third (5) front implement actuators that drive the front work implement,
the first control lever is a control lever that operates the first and second front implement actuators, and the second control lever is a control lever that operates the swing motor and the third front implement actuator (ex. Col. 17, lines 48-56),
the plurality of operation state sensors include a first operation state sensor (25) that detect an operation state of the first control lever when the first control lever operates the first front implement actuator, second operation state sensor (26) that detect an operation state of the first control lever when the first control lever operates the second front implement actuator, third operation state sensor (28) that detect an operation state of the second control lever when the second control lever operates the third front implement actuator, and fourth operation state sensor (29) that detect an operation state of the second control lever when the second control lever operates the swing motor,
the controller is configured not to cancel the power reduction control on a basis of detection results of the first, second, third operation state sensors, and the fourth operation state sensors in a case where the second control lever is operating the swing motor even when the operation states of the first and second control levers detected by the operation state sensors satisfy the first cancellation condition and to cancel the power reduction control when the operation states of the first and second control levers satisfy the first cancellation condition in a case where the second control lever is not operating the swing motor (Col. 33, line 36-Col. 35 ,line 34).
Kinugawa does not teach
the plurality of operation state sensors include first operation state sensors that detect an operation state of the first control lever when the first control lever operates the first front implement actuator, second operation state sensors that detect an operation state of the first control lever when the first control lever operates the second front implement actuator, third operation state sensors that detect an operation state of the second control lever when the second control lever operates the third front implement actuator, and fourth operation state sensors that detect an operation state of the second control lever when the second control lever operates the swing motor.
Kinugawa teaches pressure sensors 25-30 (ex. Col. 18, lines 21-27) for each lever’s movement. Based on the wording (“composed of pressure sensors” - Col. 18, lines 21-22) and the figures, it is not clear that Kinugawa teaches plural “sensors” for each “lever”. Kinugawa would need to be able to detect operation of the lever in either direction and so the associated pilot lines would each need to be measured in some manner. It may be that Kinugawa has a shuttle valve selecting the higher pressure from either pilot line from the lever then supplying a single pressure sensor or intends for individual pressure sensors in either line. For clarity, Akita provides a positive teaching of individual pressure sensors for each pilot line from the lever.
Akita teaches
for a construction machine,
the plurality of operation state sensors include operation state sensors (73a-b, 74a-b, 75a-b in Fig. 2, 70a-b, 71a-b, 72a-b in Fig. 3) that detect an operation state of the control lever (1a, 1b, 23a, 23b) for each implement actuator.
Since both references are directed to construction machines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operation state sensors of Kinugawa to be individual pressure sensors in each pilot line from the lever as taught by Akita in order to provide an appropriate manner for sensing pressure that would perform equally well with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745