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 Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/26/2026 in which claims 1-10 and 12-21 were pending, of which claims 2-6 and 20 were withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 21 are amended.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are currently pending, of which claims 2-6 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/26/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 08/26/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objection is withdrawn, as the amended claim 21 has properly addressed the rejections recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation:
Applicant states that “The Action asserts that Applicant has acted as its own lexicographer with respect to the bolt on rear tube (BORT). Applicant respectfully disagrees. A claim limitation that does not use the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that Section 112(f) not apply. The Action does not set forth how this presumption is rebutted. Furthermore, the definition relied upon in the Action fails to consider the full scope of the specification as is required. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the Action's reliance upon Section 112(f)” (Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/26/2026 at pg. 6).
It is noted that the Office did not interpret the term “bolt on rear tube” under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Rather, the Office interpreted the term based on MPEP § 2173.05(a) as a term coined by Applicant since the term does not provide ascertainable metes and bounds of the claimed invention consistent with the ordinary meaning in the art. Therefore, the Office is relying on the definition provided in the specification at least at page 8, lines 19-21 as stated below in the Claim Interpretation section of the Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that “Claim 1 requires, in part, a power conditioning circuit connected to the electrical drive device and the power control system. The prior art does not disclose this limitation. In contrast, Ge (the reference relied upon in the Action) discloses only an inverter circuit that converts voltage between the storage device (i.e., batter) and the first electric motor/rear traction devices (i.e., electrical drive device). [0021]. Ge is otherwise silent with respect to an inverter circuit connected to a power control system as required by claim 1” (Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/26/2026 at 6-7). The Office disagrees.
Ge discloses “a power conditioning circuit connected to the electrical drive device and the power control system” (Ge at para. [0019]: “an inverter circuit 126 coupled to the generator 112, the first electric motor 122 and the second electric motor 124, as well as an energy storage device 128 coupled to the inverter circuit 126”). It is noted that claim 1 recites that “the power control system and the electrical drive device are configured to operate as a generator.” Therefore, the generator 112 of Ge is part of the power control system.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant alleges that “Stapel (the reference relied upon in the Action) discloses only matching a drive speed of a trailer to that of a drive speed or actual speed of a tractor. As such, Stapel does not match ground speeds between a trailer and tractor, but rather a drive speed against a drive speed/actual speed of a tractor.” The Office disagrees.
Claim 14 recites “match a speed of the machine scraper to an actual speed of the tractor.” However, the speed of the machine scraper is not limited to be the alleged ground speed. Simply stating “speed” should be interpreted as “any speed.” Therefore, Stapel teaches the limitations of claim 14 as stated below in the final office action.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant alleges that “As best understood, it is believed that the Office is asserting that the quotes provided disclose an "error." If this is a correct understanding, the subject matter of claim 18 does not require merely an error but rather an error fault of a tractor control system. This is not disclosed by the prior art.” The Office disagrees.
It is noted that the non-final office action mailed on 08/26/2025 provides the interpretation of the term “error fault” as well as stated below in the final office action. Moreover, Applicant did not contest the Office’s interpretation of the term. Further, it is unclear from the remarks how “error” and “error fault” are different.
Regarding claims 10, 15, and 17, additional comments are provided in the rejections outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained as stated below in the Final office action.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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.
Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has provided lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer. See MPEP §2173.05(a).
The term “bolt on rear tube” is defined by Applicant as “a bolt on rear tube 16 or BORT having a rearward drive housing 17, a bowl 18, an ejector 20, an apron 22, a scraper blade 24 having a cutting edge 26, a neck 28 (such as a goose neck, tongue, or the like), and a hitch or connection member30” (Specification, page 8, lines 19-21).
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.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata et al. (US 2022/0186464 A1, hereinafter “Obata”) in view of Ge et al. (US 2017/0306589 A1, hereinafter “Ge”).
Regarding claim 1, Obata discloses an electrical drive system, comprising:
a battery pack (Obata at para. [0088]: “a rechargeable storage battery (corresponding to the accumulator 160 in FIGS. 4A, 4B)”));
an electrical drive device in electrical communication with the battery pack (Obata at para. [0088]: “an electric motor (corresponding to each hydraulic motor 150 in FIGS. 4A, 4B) and uses electric energy”);
a power control system connected to the electrical drive device (Obata at para. [0054]: “The solenoid valve 161 and the hydraulic pump 170 are controlled by the control device 200”; para. [0068]: “the control device 200 may assist, with the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150, the travel of the scraper vehicle; para. [0088]: “a generator (corresponding to the hydraulic pump 170 in FIGS. 4A, 4B)”);
a powered axle connected to the electrical drive device (Obata at para. [0083]: “the corresponding rear wheel 103 (103A, 103B) around the axle”); and
wherein the power control system and the electrical drive device are configured to operate as a generator through passive rotation of the powered axle to create power that is stored in the battery pack (Obata at para. [0089]: “A generator and an electric motor can be an electric generator in which the generator and the electric motor are integrated”);
wherein the electrical drive device and the power control system are configured to operate as a motor by providing power stored in the battery pack to the powered axle (Obata at para. [0090]: “an auxiliary drive system that uses electric energy as a driving force”);
wherein the electrical drive device and the power control system are configured to operate in an empty phase, a cutting/loading phase, a transport phase, and a fill/dump phase (Obata at para. [0092]: “This arrangement enables such accumulated energy to be used as auxiliary drive (drive-assist) very efficiently without changing a typical scraping work cycle that is performed conventionally”; FIG. 3 and para. [0088]-[0092]: FIG. 3 shows 1 unload travel, 2-1 excavation, 2-2 load, 3 conveyance-travel 4-1 unload, 4-2 distribution while pressure is accumulated and released during the cycle. Accumulation and release of the pressure is equivalent to charge electricity and use the charged electricity).
However, Obata does not explicitly state a power conditioning circuit connected to the electrical drive device and the power control system.
In the same field of endeavor, Ge teaches a power conditioning circuit connected to the electrical drive device and the power control system (Ge at para. [0019]: “an inverter circuit 126 coupled to the generator 112, the first electric motor 122 and the second electric motor 124, as well as an energy storage device 128 coupled to the inverter circuit 126”; The inverter circuit (i.e., “power conditioning circuit”) is connected to the generator (i.e., “power control system”); para. [0021]: “the inverter circuit 126 converts direct current (DC) voltage from the energy storage device 128 into AC voltage suited to drive the first electric motor 122 and the rear traction devices 118”).
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 electrical drive system of Obata by adding the power conditioning circuit of Ge with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge is to enable electrical energy, stored in the energy storage device, to be supplied to the electric motor (Ge at para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 21, Obata in view of Ge teaches the electrical drive system of claim 1.
Ge further teaches wherein the power conditioning circuit is configured to switch between providing DC and AC power based on sensed and received information (Ge at para. [0027]: “the controller 144 includes a work cycle module 150 configured to determine the work cycle of the tractor scraper 100 based on the data and input supplied by the one or more sensor devices 146 and the one or more operator input devices 148”; para. [0028]: “The controller 144 of FIG. 3 further includes a mode selection module 154 configured to determine an efficient mode of operating the hybrid power train system 142 based on the work cycle and the cycle characteristics” “The controller 144 is also configured to selectively control the inverter circuit 126 between at least two operation modes, such as a first operation mode for regenerating and/or generating energy and a second operation mode for motoring or powering the rear traction devices 118”; para. [0030]: “in the first operation mode, the controller 144 of FIGS. 2 and 3 engages the inverter circuit 126 such that electrical energy, such as electrical energy at least partially supplied by each of the generator 112 and the first electric motor 122, can be stored in the energy storage device 128” “the controller 144 may selectively enable switches or transistors within the inverter circuit 126 in a manner which converts AC voltage output by each of the generator 112 and the first electric motor 122 into DC voltage suited for the energy storage device 128” “In the second operation mode, the controller 144 engages the inverter circuit 126 such that electrical energy stored in the energy storage device 128 can be supplied to at least the first electric motor 122 to drive the rear traction devices 118”).
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 electrical drive system of Obata by adding the power conditioning circuit of Ge with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge is to enable electrical energy, stored in the energy storage device, to be supplied to the electric motor (Ge at para. [0011]).
Claims 7, 10, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord (WO 2010/071540 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Obata in view of Ge teaches the electrical drive system of claim 1.
Obata further discloses further comprising the powered axle extending through a rearward housing positioned on a bolt on rear tube; wherein the battery pack, the electrical drive device, the power control system, and (Obata at FIG. 1A, 1B, and 2; the accumulator 160, the electric motor 150, and other corresponding components are housed within a rear space (i.e., “rearward housing”) defined between left and right side faces 123 and the side walls defining the rear space between the wheels 130 (i.e., “bolt on rear tube”), and the battery pack and the electrical drive are mounted (i.e., indirectly or directly attached) to the powered axle to convert kinetic energy to electricity ).
Ge further teaches the power conditioning circuit (Ge at FIG. 1: The inverter circuit 126 (i.e., “power conditioning circuit) is disposed at a rear portion of the scraper 104 (i.e., “rearward housing”) over the electric motor 122 and the transfer gears 140 (i.e., “powered axle”)).
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 electrical drive system of Obata by adding the power conditioning circuit of Ge with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge is to enable electrical energy, stored in the energy storage device, to be supplied to the electric motor (Ge at para. [0011]).
However, Obata in view of Ge does not explicitly state:
the power conditioning circuit mounted to the powered axle and housed within the rearward housing.
In the same field of endeavor, Bergfjord teaches:
the power conditioning circuit mounted to the powered axle and housed within the rearward housing (Bergfjord at FIG. 1a and pg. 6, ln. 5-7: “a converted conventional vehicle in which the engine and gearbox are omitted or removed, and replaced by one or more electric motors connected to one or more drive shaft of the vehicle”; pg. 7, ln. 16-21: “Conversion kits for land vehicles in accordance with the present invention are suitable for front engined vehicles with front-wheel drive, front engined vehicles with rear-wheel drive, front engined vehicles with 4-wheel or all-wheel drive, rear engined vehicles with rear-wheel drive, rear engined vehicles with all-wheel drive and rear engined vehicles with front-wheel drive. Such kits may include one, two or more electric motors”; The conversion kit housed within the space (i.e., “rearward housing”) in which the engine and gearbox are removed; pg. 18, ln. 26: “The conversion kit and vehicle also comprises control circuits in the electronic module 13”; pg. 10, ln. 29-30: “The electric motors 11 are rotationally fixedly connected to the one or more drive shaft arrangements 7 of the vehicle”; The control circuits (i.e., “power conditioning circuit”) are mounted (i.e., indirectly or directly attached) to the drive shaft arrangements (i.e., “powered axle”).
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 electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge by adding the rearward housing of Bergfjord with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord is to fit the electrical drive system in a limited space. Moreover, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the layout of the components of the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge to be fit in a limited space by adopting the layout of Bergfjord as an obvious matter of rearrangement of parts. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI).
Regarding claim 10, Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord teaches the electrical drive system of claim 7.
Ge further teaches further comprising at least one cable connecting the battery pack to the electrical drive device (Ge at para. [0023]: “an inverter circuit 126 coupled to the generator 112 and the first electric motor 122, and an energy storage device 128 coupled to the inverter circuit 126”).
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 electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord by adding the at least one cable connecting the battery pack to the electrical drive device of Ge with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge is further in view of Bergfjord to provide electrical connection between electrical components.
Bergfjord further teaches wherein the battery pack is positioned directly above and over the electrical drive device (Bergfjord at FIGS. 1a, 2, and 3 and pg. 16, ln. 11-12: “the base frame 33 is adapted for mounting the electrical storage 19, including the battery cells 21, and the motors 11, onto the base frame”; pg. 16, ln. 20-21: “The interface system 15 is arranged inside the hollow rotor 17 and comprises an adapter plate 37”; The battery cells 21 (i.e., “battery pack”) are positioned directly above and over the motors 11 (i.e., “electrical drive device)).
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 electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord by adding the position of the battery pack of Bergfjord with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge is further in view of Bergfjord to fit the electrical drive system in a limited space. Moreover, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the layout of the components of the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord to be fit in a limited space by adopting the layout of Bergfjord as an obvious matter of rearrangement of parts. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI).
Regarding claim 13, Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord teaches the electrical drive system of claim 7.
Obata further discloses further comprising a machine scraper (Obata at FIG. 5 and para. [0028]: “scraper vehicle 100”) having a bowl connected to the bolt on rear tube (Obata at FIG. 5 and para. [0046]: “storage container 120”); the bowl having an apron (Obata at FIG. 5 and para. [0047]: “swingable gate 127”), an ejector (Obata at para. [0047]: “a hydraulic cylinder 125 (see FIG. 2) causes the rear end face 124 (rear end member) to move forward (toward the opening 121 side) relative to the storage container 120. As a result, the earth and sand or the like can be discharged from the opening 121”), and a scraper blade having a cutting edge (Obata at FIG. 5 and para. [0046]: “scraper 110”); and the machine scraper connected to a tractor (Obata at FIG. 5 and para. [0028]: “towing vehicle 1”).
Regarding claim 15, Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord teaches the electrical drive system of claim 13.
Obata further discloses wherein the electrical drive device and the power control system are configured to operate as a motor under a predefined speed and a predefined gear of the tractor, wherein the predefined speed varies based on the predefined gear (Obata at para. [0034]: “The towing vehicle 1 includes a transmission device 2 (for example, an automatic transmission device) having a plurality of speed gears, a speedometer 3, and the communication device 4 that communicates with the communication device 5 of the scraper vehicle 100”; para. [0035]: “In a case where an automatic transmission device is used as the transmission device 2, switching between the speed gears is performed in response to the vehicle speed of the towing vehicle 1. In particular, when the vehicle speed reaches a predetermined vehicle speed set in advance or less due to application of a load during traveling, downshifting is executed automatically”; [0039]: “the towing vehicle 1 has a speed during excavation of3 km/h to 5 km/h, preferably 3 km/h to 4 km/h, and a speed during nonexcavation of 6 km/h to 8 km/h”; para. [0068]: “the control device 200 may assist, with the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150, the travel of the scraper vehicle in a case where the speed of the towing vehicle 1 or the scraper vehicle 100 falls, for example, below 4.5 Km/h, or in a case where the transmission device 2 performs downshifting, on the basis of output of at least either the speedometer 3 or the speedometer 6”; The output (i.e., “predefined speed”) of the speedometer depends on the speed gears (i.e., “predefined gear”). Therefore, the motor operates under the predefined speed and the predefined gear of the towing vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord teaches the electrical drive system of claim 13.
Obata further discloses wherein the power control system is configured to command the electrical drive device to operate in the empty phase, the cutting/loading phase, the transport phase, and the fill/dump phase based on a condition selected from a group consisting of a condition of the tractor and a condition of the machine scraper (Obata at para. [0074]: ““the control device 200 may assist the travel when the scraper vehicle 100 becomes a state that hinders the continuation of travel due to an increase in the travel resistance larger than a predetermined value in the section B”; para. [0075]: “the control device 200 may bring the hydraulic pump 170 into the non-driving state in a case where the storage-container detection device 7 detects that the storage container 120 is full or almost full”; FIG. 3 and para. [0088]-[0092]: FIG. 3 shows 1 unload travel, 2-1 excavation, 2-2 load, 3 conveyance-travel 4-1 unload, 4-2 distribution while pressure is accumulated and released during the cycle. Accumulation and release of the pressure is equivalent to charge electricity and use the charged electricity; para. [0092]: “the present embodiment is focused on that a cycle of scraping work with the scraper vehicle includes a section (sections A, C, and D in FIG. 3) in which a load to the towing vehicle 1 is relatively smaller, such as earth-and-sand conveyance, a release section, and an unload section; and a scraping work section (section in which a load to the towing vehicle 1 is larger) (section B in FIG. 3) in which actual scraping work (work of saving and collecting earth and sand or the like of the surface of the earth or the like) is performed. In addition, energy is accumulated in the accumulator in the section (sections A, C, and D in FIG. 3) in which the load to the towing vehicle 1 is relatively smaller, and the accumulated energy is used as auxiliary drive (drive-assist) in the scraping work section (section B in FIG. 3)”).
Regarding claim 17, Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord teaches the electrical drive system of claim 16.
Obata further discloses wherein when the power control system and electrical drive device operate in the empty phase and the fill/dump phase the powered axle rotates without the electrical drive device providing power and the electrical drive device operates as a generator by putting drag on an engine of the tractor by way of the powered axle to charge the battery pack (Obata at para. [0080]: “section in which the scraper 110 is retracted) (sections A, C, and D in FIG. 3), fluid pressure such as hydraulic pressure is accumulated in the accumulator (accumulation device) 160”; para. [0088]: “an auxiliary drive system that includes a rechargeable storage battery ( corresponding to the accumulator 160 in FIGS. 4A, 4B), a generator ( corresponding to the hydraulic pump 170 in FIGS. 4A, 4B), and an electric motor ( corresponding to each hydraulic motor 150 in FIGS. 4A, 4B) and uses electric energy”; para. [0089]: “A generator and an electric motor can be an electric generator in which the generator and the electric motor are integrated”; The electric generator (i.e., “generator”) generates electric energy by being towed by the towing vehicle (i.e., “by putting drag on an engine of the tractor”) while the towing vehicle is driving in sections A, C, and D as shown in FIG. 3); and wherein when the power control system and electrical drive device operate in the cutting/loading phase and the transport phase the power control system commands the electrical drive device to operate as a motor to provide power to the powered axle (Obata at para. [0068]: “Note that, also in the section (area) A, the control device 200 may assist, with the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150, the travel of the scraper vehicle in a case where the speed of the towing vehicle 1 or the scraper vehicle 100 falls”; para. [0078]: “Note that, also in the section C and the section D, the control device 200 is required to assist the travel of the scraper vehicle due to the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150, in a case where the speed of the towing vehicle 1 or the scraper vehicle 100 falls”; para. [0080]: “in a scraping work section in which scraping work is performed (section in which a load to the towing vehicle 1 is larger; section in which the scraper 110 is engaged in the travel face) (section B in FIG. 3), rotation-driving (drive-assist) of the rear wheels 103 (103A, 103B) due to supply of the accumulated fluid pressure to the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150 (150A, 150B) assists the travel of the scraper vehicle 100”).
Regarding claim 18, Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord teaches the electrical drive system of claim 17.
Obata further discloses wherein the condition of the tractor is selected from a group consisting of an output shaft speed of the tractor, an engine torque of the tractor, and an error fault of a tractor control system of the tractor (Obata at para. [0061]: “For example, due to a large scraping margin to the surface of the earth (the ground surface), the tip 110A of the scraper 110 may be caught into the surface of the earth (the ground surface). In this case, only with the towing force of the towing vehicle 1 (e.g., a large truck), it may be difficult to continue travel (movement) due to idling or the like of the tires. Therefore, as in the present embodiment, conventionally, even in a case where the continuation of travel is difficult without assistance by a bulldozer or the like ( even in a case where travel is already disabled), the rotation driving of the rear wheels 103 (103A, 103B) due to the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150 (150A, 150B) enables the scraper vehicle 100 to contribute to, for example, shortening of a construction period, reduction of construction cost, and the like without the travel being disabled”; The towing vehicle having difficulty to continue travel due to idling (i.e., “an error fault of a tractor control system”) is one of the condition).
Office Note: The Office interprets “error fault” as “a deficiency or imperfection in structure or function due to failing” (see “Error.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/error. Accessed 15 Aug. 2025; and “Fault.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fault. Accessed 15 Aug. 2025).
Regarding claim 19, Obata in view of Ge further in view of Bergfjord teaches the electrical drive system of claim 17.
Obata further discloses wherein the power control system commands the electrical drive device to operate as a motor throughout the cutting/loading phase and the transport phase to provide power to the powered axle (Obata at para. [0054]: “The solenoid valve 161 and the hydraulic pump 170 are controlled by the control device 200”; para. [0068]: “the control device 200 may assist, with the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150, the travel of the scraper vehicle; para. [0081]: “programming to the control device 200, the control device can control the hydraulic circuit such that fluid pressure such as hydraulic pressure is accumulated in the accumulator (accumulation device) 160 through, for example, the hydraulic pump 170 in the sections A, C, and D in FIG. 3”; para. [0090]: “an auxiliary drive system that uses electric energy as a driving force”; para. [0092]: “This arrangement enables such accumulated energy to be used as auxiliary drive (drive-assist) very efficiently without changing a typical scraping work cycle that is performed conventionally”; FIG. 3 and para. [0088]-[0092]: FIG. 3 shows 1 unload travel, 2-1 excavation, 2-2 load, 3 conveyance-travel 4-1 unload, 4-2 distribution while pressure is accumulated and released during the cycle. Accumulation and release of the pressure is equivalent to charge electricity and use the charged electricity); and wherein a discharge from the battery pack is higher in the cutting/loading phase than the transport phase (Obata at para. [0080]: “section in which the scraper 110 is retracted) (sections A, C, and D in FIG. 3), fluid pressure such as hydraulic pressure is accumulated in the accumulator (accumulation device) 160” and “in a scraping work section in which scraping work is performed (section in which a load to the towing vehicle 1 is larger; section in which the scraper 110 is engaged in the travel face) (section B in FIG. 3), rotation-driving (drive-assist) of the rear wheels 103 (103A, 103B) due to supply of the accumulated fluid pressure to the hydraulic actuators (hydraulic motors) 150 (150A, 150B) assists the travel of the scraper vehicle 100”; Since the motors generate power and not use the generated power in section B (i.e., using zero generated power) and use the generated power in sections A, C, and D (i.e., using more than zero generated power), the discharge from the accumulation device is higher in sections A, C, and D than B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata in view of Ge further in view of Vargas (US 2009/0321155 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Obata in view of Ge teaches the electrical drive system of claim 7.
Obata further discloses (Obata at FIG. 1A and para. [0028]: “a storage container 120 is storing an excavated object such as earth and sand”; The rear space contained in a tubular structure between the wheels 130 (i.e., “bolt on rear tube”) is connected to the storage container 120 (i.e., “bowl”) at its forward end; FIG. 2 and para. [0051]: “it is necessary to call a bulldozer 300 (see FIG. 2) or the like for support and push the scraper vehicle 100 towed by the towing vehicle 1 from the rear of the scraper vehicle 100 to assist the travel (movement)”; The bulldozer 300 is pushing the rear end portion (i.e., “push block”) of the scraper vehicle 100).
However, Obata in view of Ge does not explicitly state wherein the powered axle is retrofitted to the bolt on rear tube in a position and replacement of a dummy axle.
In the same field of endeavor, Vargas teaches wherein the powered axle is retrofitted to the bolt on rear tube in a position and replacement of a dummy axle (Vargas at para. [0040]: “The system comprises: an axle assembly 11 configured to replace the existing unpowered rear axle of a front wheel drive automobile. It also includes an electric motor and one or more rechargeable batteries configured to supply power to the electric motor”).
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 electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge by adding the powered axle as taught by Vargas with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Vargas is to provide a system for adding an electric drive component to a vehicle to increase fuel efficiency (see Vargas at para. [0002]-[0003]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata in view of Ge further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 207931457 U, hereinafter “Zhang”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Obata in view of Ge teaches the electrical drive system of claim 7.
However, Obata in view of Ge does not explicitly state wherein the battery pack is positioned over a centerline of the powered axle extending axially along a length of the powered axle.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the battery pack is positioned over a centerline of the powered axle extending axially along a length of the powered axle (Zhang at FIG. 2 and pg. 4, ln. 25: “A rear battery pack 13 is disposed in the bracket 14”; The rear battery pack 13 is disposed over the centerline of the drive shaft 19 as shown in FIG. 2).
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 electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge by adding the battery pack as taught by Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Zhang is to provide a machine layout for converting a machine into an electric machine (see Zhang at pg. 1, ln. 10-21).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata in view of Ge further in view of Sonnenburg (DE 102019212184 A1). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Sonnenburg.
Regarding claim 12, Obata in view of Ge teaches the electrical drive device of claim 7.
However, Obata in view of Ge does not explicitly state further comprising a differential directly coupled to the electrical drive device, wherein the electrical drive device and the power control system are positioned to a rear of the differential and behind a centerline of the powered axle extending axially along a length of the powered axle.
In the same field of endeavor, Sonnenburg teaches further comprising a differential directly coupled to the electrical drive device, wherein the electrical drive device and the power control system are positioned to a rear of the differential and behind a centerline of the powered axle extending axially along a length of the powered axle (Sonnenburg at para. [0023]: “Fig. 1 shows a trailer 1 with a drive device 2. The drive device 2 comprises a drive motor 3 which is drivingly connected to a right and a left wheel 5, 6 via a differential gear 4. The wheels 5 and 6 are arranged rotatably on the respective side on an axle 7 of the trailer 1. The drive connection is effected via the shafts 16, 17 and 18, via which the drive motor 3 is connected to the wheels 5 and 6 via the differential gear 4”; para. [0024]: “The drive device 2 further comprises a control device 10 which is connected to an input device 11”; FIG. 1 shows the drive motor 3 and the control device 10 positioned to the rear of the differential gear 4 and the centerline of the axle 7).
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 electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge by adding the differential as taught by Sonnenburg with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Sonnenburg is to provide a drive device that can fit in tight spaces (see Sonnenburg at para. [0005]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata in view of Ge further in view of Stapel (DE 202021102274 U1). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Stapel.
Regarding claim 14, Obata in view of Ge teaches the electrical drive system of claim 13.
However, Obata in view of Ge does not explicitly state wherein the power control system is configured to command the electrical drive device to operate as a motor to provide power to the powered axle to match a speed of the machine scraper to an actual speed of the tractor.
Nevertheless, Ge at least suggests matching the speed of the machine scraper to the target ground speed or the speed commanded by the operator (Ge at para. [0037]).
In the same field of endeavor, Stapel teaches wherein the power control system is configured to command the electrical drive device to operate as a motor to provide power to the powered axle to match a speed of the machine scraper to an actual speed of the tractor (Stapel at para. [0024]: “a control device 16, can drive a trailer drive axle designated by reference numeral 18”; para. [0033]: “This example illustrates a control of the trailer drive speed, which is influenced by the engagement of the clutch in order to either synchronise the trailer drive speed Va with the drive speed Vs and/or the actual speed of the vehicle combination Vt or to adapt it appropriately, so that an adjusted amount of slip results between the trailer drive axle and the actual speed or the drive speed”).
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 electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge by adding the power control system as taught by Stapel with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electrical drive system of Obata in view of Ge further in view of Stapel is to provide a synchronized speed between a leading vehicle and a trailing vehicle.
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666