DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
The amendment filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered, no new matter has been added. The arguments filed on 3/18/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of not persuasive and moot. Claims 22-36 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Argument
The arguments filed on 3/18/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of not persuasive and moot.
Regarding claim 22, applicant argues that primary reference Takishita does not teach “a battery assembly mounted on the frame behind the cabin, a majority of the battery assembly being located under the cabin.” In the previous rejection, the canopy type cab 7 of figure 1 was used to teach the cabin, and the battery mounting section 9 of figure 1 was used to teach the battery assembly. Applicant argues that the battery mounting section is behind but not under the canopy type cab. This is not persuasive because figure 1 does indeed show the battery mounting section behind and underneath the canopy type cab.
Applicant then argues that Takishita does not specific where an electric drive motor is located and thus does not teach it behind the cabin with a majority of the electric motor being located under the cabin. This is not persuasive. Figure 1 teaches the cabin covering the frame. The motor is taught in connection with the battery which is taught in the battery mounting section 9 which is taught as connected to the frame in figure 1. Thus, the motor must be somewhere on the frame taught by figure 1. This means that the motor must be behind at least part of the cabin, and a majority of the motor must be beneath the cabin. If the claim were to say that the motor must be entirely behind the cabin, this would not be taught by Takishita. However, the claim currently only requires the motor to be behind the cabin, which by broadest reasonable interpretation, can mean the motor is behind part of the cabin. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Finally, applicant argues that amending the preamble of the claims to say “a snow groomer,” instead of “a crawler vehicle,” overcomes Takishita because the construction vehicle of Takishita could not reasonably be interpreted as a snow groomer by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s arguments rely on language recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 22-36. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a snow groomer” is limiting because there is some structure implied by it which is not explicitly claimed in the claim language. Thus, this argument does overcome Takishita, however, Mueller teaches a snow groomer which can be obviously combined with Takishita. Thus, the claims are rejected below under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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(s) 22-25, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takishita (US 20120205171 A1) in view of Mueller (WO 2010103117 A1).
Regarding claim 22 Takishita teaches a crawler vehicle (taught by figure 1) comprising:
a frame (2 “lower track structure” taught by figure 1);
a cabin (7 “canopy type cab” taught by figure 1) mounted on the frame (2 “a frame” taught by figure 1);
a first drive wheel (11 “right and left drive wheels” taught by figure 1) driven by a first hydraulic motor (12 “travel hydraulic motors” taught by figure 1);
a second drive wheel (11 “right and left drive wheels” taught by figure 1) driven by a second hydraulic motor (12 “travel hydraulic motors” taught by figure 1);
a battery assembly (9 “battery mounting section” taught by figure 1) mounted on the frame behind the cabin, a majority of the battery assembly being located under the cabin (taught by figure 1);
an electric motor (31 “main drive motor” taught by figure 2) configured to be electrically powered by the battery assembly (taught by figure 2) and mounted on the frame behind the cabin, a majority of the electric motor being located under the cabin (taught by figure 1); and
a power transmission assembly configured to transmit power from the electric motor to the first hydraulic motor and to the second hydraulic motor (the electric motor is taught powering some cylinders like 18 “boom hydraulic cylinder” taught by paragraph 36 and figures 1-2; paragraph 36 further teaches that the hydraulic drive system drives the right and left crawlers “The right and left crawlers 1, the upper swing structure 3, the swing post 5, the blade 14, the boom 15, the arm 16, and the bucket 17 described above constitute driven members driven by a hydraulic drive system included in the electrically driven hydraulic excavator”; paragraph 37 teaches that the electric motor is part of that hydraulic drive system; and paragraph 41 teaching that the right and left crawlers are powered similarly to the bucket “Though not shown, arrangements of the hydraulic drive system relating to driven members other than the boom 15 and the bucket 17 (specifically, the right and left crawlers 1, the upper swing structure 3, the swing post 5, the blade 14, and the arm 16) are arranged in the same mannert”).
However, Takishita does not teach a snow groomer.
Mueller teaches a snow groomer (taught by figures 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the crawler vehicle of Takishita to be a snow groomer as taught by Mueller, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow the crawler vehicle to treat snow for skiing.
Regarding claim 23 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 22, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Takishita also teaches a tool (15 “boom” taught by figure 1) moveably connected to the frame and actuatable by a third hydraulic motor (18 “a boom hydraulic cylinder” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 24 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 23, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Takishita does not teach wherein the power transmission assembly comprises: a first variable displacement pump hydraulically connected to the first hydraulic motor; a second variable displacement pump hydraulically connected to the second hydraulic motor; a third variable displacement pump hydraulically connected to the third hydraulic motor; and
a mechanical transmission placed between the electric motor and the first, second and third variable displacement pumps, the mechanical transmission being configured to distribute the power supplied by the electric motor between the first, second and third variable displacement pumps.
Mueller teaches a first variable displacement pump (21 “pump” taught by figure 3 and page 6 lines 25-27 “pumps 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, are preferably variable- displacement”) hydraulically connected to the first hydraulic motor (26 “hydraulic actuator” taught by figure 3);
a second variable displacement pump (20 “pump” taught by figure 3 and page 6 lines 25-27 “pumps 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, are preferably variable- displacement”) hydraulically connected to the second hydraulic motor (27 “hydraulic actuator” taught by figure 3);
a third variable displacement pump (22 “pump” taught by figure 3 and page 6 lines 25-27 “pumps 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, are preferably variable- displacement”) hydraulically connected to the third hydraulic motor (28 “hydraulic actuator” taught by figure 3); and
a mechanical transmission placed between a drive shaft and the first, second and third variable displacement pumps, the mechanical transmission being configured to distribute the power supplied by the electric motor between the first, second and third variable displacement pumps (18 “mechanical transmission” taught by figure 3 and page 6 lines 16-21 “Mechanical transmission 18 is connected to drive shaft 14, and has two output shafts 30, 31 connected respectively to a first group of pumps comprising pumps 19, 21, and to a second group of pumps comprising pumps 20, 22, 23, to transmit power received from drive shaft 14”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the variable displacement pumps and mechanical transmission of Mueller into the power transmission assembly of Takishita with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because it would allow different amounts of power to be output by the hydraulic motors depending on what a user wants.
Regarding claim 25 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 24, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Takishita teaches a control device configured to control the power supplied by the electric motor (27 “operating device” taught by figure 2 and paragraph 38 “The operating device 27 includes the control lever 26, a pilot valve 36A, a pilot valve 36B, a pilot valve 36C, and a pilot valve 36D. Specifically, the pilot valve 36A generates a pilot pressure a by reducing a delivery pressure of the pilot pump 33 according to an operating amount of the control lever 26 forward of a neutral position of the control lever 26”).
Regarding claim 33 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 22, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Takishita also teaches further comprising an inverter configured to transmit electric power from the battery assembly to the electric motor (30 “inverter” taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 34 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 22, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Takishita also teaches further comprising an auxiliary power supply assembly comprising at least one of a fuel cell, an internal combustion engine and a further battery assembly (taught by paragraph 71 “The present invention may still be applied to a hybrid type hydraulic excavator including, for example, an engine and a main electric drive motor as the prime mover”).
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takishita (US 20120205171 A1) in view of Mueller (WO 2010103117 A1) and in further view of Nilsson (US 11752857 B2).
Regarding claim 26 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 25, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, neither Takishita nor Mueller teach wherein the control device is configured to independently control a speed of the electric motor and a respective displacement of the variable displacement pumps to optimize an operational efficiency of the snow groomer.
Nilsson teaches wherein the control device is configured to independently control a speed of the electric motor (“hydrostatic motor revolution speed sensor” taught by claim 1) and a respective displacement of the variable displacement pumps (34 “pump displacement sensor” taught by figure 2) to optimize an operational efficiency of the snow groomer (control unit taught by claim 1 “the control unit is provided to individually regulate the load outlet on the respective hydrostatic motor based on input from said angle sensor, hydrostatic motor revolution speed sensor and said vehicle position sensor” and claim 8 “a control unit is provided to regulate the power output from the respective pumps to the respective hydraulic circuit individually based on input from said pump displacement sensor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control unit of Takishita, to control the speed of the electric motor and displacement of the variable displacement pumps as taught by Nilsson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because controlling the speed of the motor and displacement of the pumps would enable control of the speeds of the left and right crawlers.
Regarding claim 27 Takishita in view of Mueller and in further view of Nilsson teaches the snow groomer of claim 26, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nilsson also teaches wherein the control device is configured to:
acquire the speed of the electric motor (“hydrostatic motor revolution speed sensor” taught by claim 1);
acquire the displacement of each of the variable displacement pumps (34 “pump displacement sensor” taught by figure 2); and
control the speed of the electric motor and the respective displacement of the variable displacement pumps by respective closed loop controls based on the acquired speed of the electric motor and the respective acquired displacement of the variable displacement pumps (control unit taught by claim 1 “the control unit is provided to individually regulate the load outlet on the respective hydrostatic motor based on input from said angle sensor, hydrostatic motor revolution speed sensor and said vehicle position sensor” and claim 8 “a control unit is provided to regulate the power output from the respective pumps to the respective hydraulic circuit individually based on input from said pump displacement sensor”).
Regarding claim 28 Takishita in view of Mueller and in further view of Nilsson teaches the snow groomer of claim 26, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nilsson also teaches wherein the control device is configured to:
acquire a requested hydraulic power to each hydraulic motor; and
control at least one of the speed of the electric motor and the respective displacement of the variable displacement pumps to satisfy the requested hydraulic power (taught by claim 9 “the regulating means comprises a respective pressure sensor provided to sense the pressure in the respective hydraulic circuit, and a control unit provided to regulate the power output from the respective pumps to the respective hydraulic circuit individually based on input from said pressure sensor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control unit of Takishita, to control the respective displacement of the variable displacement pumps to satisfy the requested hydraulic power as taught by Nilsson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because controlling the power output from a pump in response to changes in the pressure in a hydraulic circuit can help avoid damage to a hydraulic circuit.
Regarding claim 29 Takishita in view of Mueller and in further view of Nilsson teaches the snow groomer of claim 28, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Takishita does not teach that the control device is configured to:
acquire a requested running speed of the snow groomer; and
control at least one of the speed of the electric motor and the respective displacement of the variable displacement pumps to substantially match the requested running speed.
Mueller teaches that the control device is configured to:
acquire a requested running speed of the snow groomer; and
control at least one of the speed of the electric motor and the respective displacement of the variable displacement pumps to substantially match the requested running speed (taught by page 9 lines 11-23 “With reference to Figure 2, user interface 8 comprises a first control device 46, e.g. an accelerator pedal, to select a travelling speed of snow groomer 1 ; and a second control device 47, e.g. a steering device, to select a turn angle of snow groomer 1. Operating as described above, control unit 17, on the basis of information from user interface 8 (operating configurations of first and second control device 46, 47), calculates a first desired speed of first drive wheel 5, and a second desired speed of second drive wheel 6, so that snow groomer 1 travels at the speed selected by first control device 46, and with the turn angle selected by second control device 47”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control unit of Takishita, to acquire a requested running speed and control the speed of the motor to meet that speed as taught by Mueller, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because controlling the running speed of the vehicle enables a user to safely operate the vehicle.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takishita (US 20120205171 A1) in view of Mueller (WO 2010103117 A1), and in further view of Wu (US 20110251746 A1).
Regarding claim 30 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 25, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Takishita nor Mueller teach wherein the control device comprises a charge sensor configured to acquire a charge level of the battery assembly, the control device being configured to limit a power output of the electric motor when the acquired charge level is below a predetermined threshold.
Wu teaches the control device comprises a charge sensor configured to acquire a charge level of the battery assembly (112 “battery voltage detection part” taught by paragraph 109 “The battery voltage detection part 112 is a voltage detection part which detects a voltage value of the battery 19, and is used to detect a charge state of the battery”), the control device being configured to limit a power output of the electric motor when the acquired charge level is below a predetermined threshold. (taught by paragraph 119 “If the battery voltage value is out of the range defined by the lower limit value V2 and the upper limit value V4, the control of the turning electric motor 21 is stopped.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control unit of Takishita, to acquire a charge level of the battery and limit the power output of the electric motor as taught by Wu, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because limiting the power output of the motor can help an operator know that they have to charge the vehicle before the battery fully runs out and the vehicle will no longer be able to move.
Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takishita (US 20120205171 A1) in view of Mueller (WO 2010103117 A1), and in further view of Wu (US 20110251746 A1) and Sampson (US 20210094441 A1).
Regarding claim 31 Takishita in view of Mueller and in further view of Wu teaches the snow groomer of claim 30, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Takishita, Mueller, nor Wu teach wherein the control device is configured to calculate a remaining operating time of the snow groomer based on the acquired charge level and an expected average consumption of the snow groomer.
Sampson teaches wherein the control device is configured to calculate a remaining operating time of the vehicle based on the acquired charge level and an expected average consumption of the vehicle (taught by paragraphs 228-229 “At block 2225 the controller 1825 generates an estimate of low voltage battery use for the drive. The estimate may be based on an estimate of the remaining time in the drive and based on usage patterns of the low voltage battery. The controller 1825 can make such determinations based on one or more of input destination location, historical usage data, driver profile data, passenger profile data, traffic conditions, and environmental conditions. Such data may be stored, for example, in a data repository 1840 depicted in FIG. 18. Real-time data such as weather and traffic conditions may be accessed via third party services providing such data. At decision block 2230 the controller 1825 determines whether there is a sufficient charge in the low voltage battery to power associated systems for the predicted remaining time in the drive”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control unit of Takishita, to calculate the remaining operation time of the snow groomer as taught by Sampson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because after calculating the remaining operation time, the vehicle can inform a user of this remaining time in order to enable them to make a decision, or the vehicle can directly indicate to a user that it needs to be charged.
Regarding claim 32 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 30, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Takishita nor Mueller teach wherein the control device is configured to calculate a maximum operating distance based on at least one of: the acquired charge level, an expected average consumption of the snow groomer and at least one of a GPS position of the snow groomer, a snowpack characteristic of a ski slope and a driving style of a snow groomer operator.
Sampson teaches wherein the control device is configured to calculate a maximum operating distance based on at least one of: the acquired charge level, an expected average consumption of the snow groomer and at least one of a GPS position of the snow groomer, a snowpack characteristic of a ski slope and a driving style of a snow groomer operator (taught by paragraphs 216 “At block 2025 the controller 1825 calculates the expected maximum driving distance and margin of error based at least on recent usage patterns and current state of charge of the high voltage battery” and 207 “In one embodiment, the controller 1825 can calculate the estimated energy requirements by generating an estimate of the time that will be spent driving, for example based on route patterns in driver profile data, GPS coordinates of an input data, traffic and weather conditions, and the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control unit of Takishita, to calculate the maximum operating distance of the snow groomer as taught by Sampson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because after calculating the maximum operating distance, the vehicle can inform a user of this remaining distance in order to enable them to make a decision, or the vehicle can directly indicate to a user that it needs to be charged at a time on a programmed route.
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takishita (US 20120205171 A1) in view of Mueller (WO 2010103117 A1) and in further view of Rayner (US 20170349039 A1).
Regarding claim 35 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 34, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However Takishita does not teach wherein the auxiliary power supply assembly is configured to charge the battery assembly and is removable from the snow groomer.
Rayner teaches wherein the auxiliary power supply assembly is configured to charge the battery assembly and is removable from the snow groomer. (taught by paragraph 266 “Vehicles can be set up so that the built-in batteries can be charged from the triler batteries when the vehicle is in motion. Thus a customer who hasn't had time to fully charge his on-board batteries can charge them from the triler batteries whilst his vehicle is in motion. For example, if a vehicle is travelling for 2 hours to the next battery swap area and the triler has 3 hours power in it, 1 hour of power could be transferred to the vehicle's built in batteries in that time. Thus after the next triler stop the vehicle would able to be fully powered with full batteries and a new triler”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the auxiliary power supply assembly of Rayner onto the snow groomer of Takishita, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because attaching the auxiliary power supply assembly of Rayner would extend the operational time of the snow groomer by supplying more electrical power.
Regarding claim 36 Takishita in view of Mueller teaches the snow groomer of claim 22, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Takishita does not teach wherein the battery assembly is removably coupled to the snow groomer to facilitate a replacement of the battery assembly.
Rayner teaches wherein a battery assembly is removably coupled to the snow groomer to facilitate a replacement of the battery assembly (taught by paragraph 61 “The at least one secondary power source will normally be one or more batteries and the batteries may be removable and/or loadable into the vehicle or alternatively, the vehicle may draw power from the batteries within the apparatus whilst the apparatus is mounted relative to the vehicle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery assembly of Takishita, to be removable as taught by Rayner, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because recharging vehicle batteries typically takes more time than replacing them, and rotating between at least two battery assemblies will allow the snow groomer to be operated more frequently, as the spare batteries can be charged while the vehicle is operating.
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 NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights