DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The 06.26.2025 Amendments are entered. Claims 4, 12, and 13 are amended. Claims 22-26 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-21 remain pending. Furthermore, the Examiner has fully considered the arguments contained in the 06.26.2025 Remarks. The arguments are unconvincing for the reasons below.
Regarding the §102 Rejections:
Claim 19:
Applicant contends on pp. 8-10 of the Remarks that Berntsson does not disclose “an input parameter corresponding to . . . a sensed operational condition of the power machine . . . “ because Berntsson teaches that the pre-determined set-point equated with the sensed operational condition was provided ahead of time for use during a second prioritization strategy. Applicant argues, therefore, that Berntsson cannot disclose “selecting a power management mode from a plurality of power management modes, based on the input parameter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 of the present application does not include narrowing language “a sensed operational condition of the power machine” that would limit interpretation thereof to Applicant’s proposed interpretation. For example, while the second prioritization strategy is active in Berntsson, the controller would have detected (sensed) a set-point for a particular component and chose to limit power to the component based on the set-point. Furthermore, such a choice would have inherently comprised “ . . . selecting a power management mode from a plurality of power management modes, based on the input parameter . . . “ because the amount of power sent to the component in Berntsson changes to a limited level when a predetermined set-point is detected during the second prioritization strategy.
Therefore, the §102 rejection of Claim 19 stands. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that amending Claim 19 to include specific types of a sensed operational condition would appear to overcome the art of record.
Claim 21:
Applicant further argues on pp. 10-11 that Berntsson does not disclose “prioritizing workgroup power over tractive power . . . “ as disclosed by Claim 21 because (1) the reference does not explicitly mention “prioritizing another load over the propulsion system . . .,” instead focusing on prioritizing tractive load over accessories, and (2) the reference does not mention “workgroup power,” which Applicant contends must be interpreted as actuators for performing work operations in light of the specification.
Both of these arguments are unconvincing. To the first point, Berntsson teaches that there is a limited amount of power available to all vehicle systems. See [0003]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that shifting back to the first prioritization strategy inherently requires prioritizing other loads over the propulsion system because there is less power available to the propulsion system in the first prioritization strategy than in the second prioritization strategy.
To the second point, while claim limitations must be read in light of the Specification, it is also improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claims, particularly where the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01(II). The Examiner contends that without further definition in the claims, “workgroup power” would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as any power not sent to the propulsion system. Furthermore, even if “workgroup” were to warrant interpretation in light of the Specification, Berntsson defines second loads as including “power take-offs, such as electrical apparatuses, machines and tools . . ..” See [0015]. This broadly reads on the “workgroup power” of the present claim.
Therefore, the §102 rejection of Claim 21 stands. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that amending Claim 21 to specify the type of electrical loads present in the workgroup may overcome the art of record.
Regarding the §103 Rejections:
Claim 1:
Applicant contends on pp. 11-12 that Laaksonen fails to teach “a plurality of power management modes” as disclosed in Claim 1 of the present application because the “electrical power source” disclosed in Claim 1 is an onboard power source. Therefore, Applicant argues, the plurality of modes must comprise routing power from the single onboard power source to the plurality of electrical actuators.
This argument is unconvincing because Claim 1 does not define the electrical power source as being located onboard the power machine. Furthermore, the term “comprising . . . an electrical power source” does not limit the structure of the power machine to a single electrical power source. Therefore, Laaksonen’s AC and DC power sources read on the present claim. Furthermore, Laaksonen’s disclosure of selecting between the two sources to power the work machine also reads on the routing of the present claim because the system’s ability to switch power consumption from each source on and off reads on a plurality of power management modes.
Even if Laaksonen did not teach the entirety of Claim 1, Berntsson was introduced to teach some of the limitations more explicitly. The use of Berntsson to reject the corresponding limitations of Claim 1 has gone unchallenged in the Remarks.
Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 under §103 stands. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that narrowing the claim to disclose a single, onboard power source at least appears to overcome the rejection in view of Laaksonen.
Claims 4 and 12-13:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 4 and 12-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the unloaded mode indicates an absence of load supported by the work element” appears to contain a typo intended to be written “the unloaded mode indicates an absence of a load supported by the work element . . ..” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 4, 6, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laaksonen (US 20190143819 A1) in view of Berntsson (US 20220001848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Laaksonen teaches a power machine comprising:
a main frame ([Fig. 3]: Laaksonen depicts the body of a bucket charger, taken as the main frame.);
a lift arm coupled to the main frame ([Fig. 3]: Laaksonen depicts a hydraulically-driven arm of a bucket charger (top right of figure), coupled to motor 306a that is depicted as mounted on the main frame.);
a work element supported by the lift arm ([Fig. 3]: Laaksonen depicts a shovel (top right) connected to the hydraulically-driven arm.);
a plurality of electrical actuators coupled to the main frame ([Fig. 3]: Motors 303(a-b) and 306(a-b), all attached to the body of the bucket charger.);
an electrical power source configured to power the plurality of electrical actuators ([Fig. 3]: Direct voltage source 301.); and
a control device in communication with the plurality of electrical actuators ([Fig. 3]: Power converter 305 depicted as connected to all motors via switches and other electrical components.), the control device being configured to:
select a power management mode from a plurality of power management modes, each of the plurality of power management modes defining one or more operational parameters for routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators ([Pars 0036-37]: The second power converter 305 is able to select whether the machine is powered by an external AC power grid or by an internal source, taken as a plurality of power management modes. These modes must inherently define routing parameters, as power will be routed from one of the two sources.); and
based on selecting the power management mode, control routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators according to the one or more operational parameters of the selected power management mode ([Pars 0036-37]: “The working machine 320 comprises a second power converter 305 for transferring electric energy from the external AC power grid 314 to the direct voltage source 301 . . . ”).
While Laaksonen appears to at least implicitly teach the selection and implementation of power management modes, the Examiner introduces Berntsson to more explicitly teach the control device being configured to:
select a power management mode from a plurality of power management modes ([Berntsson 0046]: “The electrically powered vehicle 300 runs by default, i.e. during standard operating conditions, in a first prioritization strategy of the control unit 210. However, in certain pre-determined operating conditions the control unit 210 is configured to activate a second prioritization strategy . . . .”), each of the plurality of power management modes defining one or more operation parameters for routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators ([0051-52]: “ . . . if such a pre-determined set-point is detected, limiting 105 distributed power to the at least one second load to the pre-determined set-point. . . . If a pre-determined set-point is not detected, the method sets 106 a dynamic set-point for maximum power distribution for the at least one second load in dependence of the detected pre-defined operating condition, and limiting distributed maximum power to the second load to the dynamic set-point.”), and
based on selecting the power management mode, control routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators according to the one or more operation parameters of the selected power management mode ([0051-52]: The act of limiting the power sent to secondary loads taken as controlling the routing of power to the plurality of electrical actuators.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the converter that controls routing of power to a plurality of electrical actuators taught by Laaksonen with the controller that selects and implements a power management strategy comprising explicitly defined routing parameters taught by Berntsson. Doing so would have allowed the system to “improve . . . reliability of the prioritized load” while “maintain[ing non-prioritized loads] at a working level of power,” offering an effective power management strategy as taught in Berntsson par. 0008.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1, wherein the selected power management mode is a first power management mode ([Berntsson 0046]: “The electrically powered vehicle 300 runs by default, i.e. during standard operating conditions, in a first prioritization strategy of the control unit 210.”); and
wherein the control device is further configured to:
select a second power management mode from the plurality of power management modes ([Berntsson 0046]: “However, in certain pre-determined operating conditions the control unit 210 is configured to activate a second prioritization strategy . . . .”); and
based on selecting the second power management mode, one or more of:
stop controlling routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators according to the one or more operational parameters of the first power management mode ([Berntsson 0055]: “Detection that the end condition applies determines that the second prioritization strategy should terminate and the first prioritization strategy should be re-activated . . . .” This inherently teaches stopping controlling power routing according to the first strategy, else it would not need to be re-activated.); or
control routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators according to the one or more operational parameters of the second power management mode ([Berntsson 0050]: “ . . . in the second prioritization strategy, limiting 103 distributed power to the at least one second load to a set-point for power distribution to said second load.”).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1, wherein, for each of the plurality of power management modes, the one or more operational parameters includes a corresponding threshold of power consumption ([Berntsson 0051-52]: “ . . . if such a pre-determined set-point is detected, limiting 105 distributed power to the at least one second load to the pre-determined set-point. . . . If a pre-determined set-point is not detected, the method sets 106 a dynamic set-point for maximum power distribution for the at least one second load in dependence of the detected pre-defined operating condition, and limiting distributed maximum power to the second load to the dynamic set-point.”); and
wherein, controlling routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators according to the one or more operational parameters of the power management modes includes controlling routing of power to provide power to the plurality of electrical actuators that is below the corresponding threshold of power consumption ([Berntsson 0051-52]: See above, the act of limiting to the setpoints taken as controlling routing of the power.).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 3.
This combination further teaches wherein controlling routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators according to the selected power management mode includes the control device:
receiving one or more of:
a measured power consumption of one or more of the plurality of electrical actuators (Berntsson [0051]: “Thereby, the device may keep running during the second prioritization strategy, but at a limited level of power consumption. Accordingly, when a pre-determined set-point of a second load 240 is detected, the distributed power to that second load 240 is limited to that set-point so that the second load 240 is not allowed to consume more power than the pre-defined set-point.” Berntsson inherently teaches receiving a measured power consumption by teaching that the system limits power consumption of some second loads to a set-point because in order to keep power consumption limited, the power system must know the power consumed by the load.); or
a measured power output of the electrical power source;
determining that one or more of the measured power consumption or the measured power output exceeds the corresponding threshold of power consumption (Berntsson [0051]: “Thereby, the device may keep running during the second prioritization strategy, but at a limited level of power consumption. Accordingly, when a pre-determined set-point of a second load 240 is detected, the distributed power to that second load 240 is limited to that set-point so that the second load 240 is not allowed to consume more power than the pre-defined set-point.” Berntsson inherently teaches such a determination by teaching that upon activation of the second strategy, power consumption to some second loads is limited to a detected set-point.); and
at least one of:
causing a reduction in power delivery from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators (Berntsson [0051]: “Accordingly, when a pre-determined set-point of a second load 240 is detected, the distributed power to that second load 240 is limited to that set-point . . . ”); or
causing reduction in power consumption at least one of the plurality of electrical actuators (Berntsson [0051]: “Accordingly, when a pre-determined set-point of a second load 240 is detected, the distributed power to that second load 240 is limited to that set-point . . . ” The Examiner notes that Berntsson may be construed as inherently limiting power sent to or consumed by the second load.).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination of prior art teaches The power machine of claim 4, wherein operating the power machine according to the selected power management mode includes the control device causing one or more of a reduction in power delivery to or a reduction in power consumption at one or more drive actuators included in the plurality of electrical actuators ([Berntsson 0056]: “The vehicle 300 returns normal/default running under the first prioritization strategy and the first load 230 is thereafter not prioritized over the second load(s) 240.” Understood that if the first load is no longer prioritized, more of the available power is delivered to the second loads. APOSITA would have understood this as a reduction in power delivery to the first load.), the one or more drive actuators being arranged to provide tractive power to the power machine ([Berntsson 0043]: “The first load 230 may be an electrical propulsion system of the vehicle . . . .”).
Regarding claim 11, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1, wherein two or more of the plurality of power management modes are associated with a respective work mode of the power machine ([Berntsson 0049]: “Such operating conditions of increased power demand are usually known and may be pre-defined and detectable by the control unit 210 of the vehicle 300 in order to regulate power distribution from the electric energy storage system 220.”).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1, wherein selecting the power management mode from the plurality of power management modes includes the control device:
identifying one or more operational conditions of the power machine ([Berntsson 0046]: “However, in certain pre-determined operating conditions the control unit 210 is configured to activate a second prioritization strategy . . . .”); and
based on identifying the one or more operational conditions, automatically selecting the power management mode from the plurality of power management modes ([Berntsson 0046]: See above. The prioritization strategy is based on detecting the predefined operating condition.).
Regarding claim 16, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 15, wherein the one or more operational conditions include at least one of:
an orientation of one or more of the lift arm or the work element of the power machine;
a commanded movement of one or more of the lift arm or the work element of the power machine; an inclination of the power machine;
a load supported by the work element of the power machine; or
a present power capacity of the electrical power source ([Berntsson 0048]: “As mentioned above, the pre-defined operating condition is a condition in which the first load 230 has an increased power demand, such as transient condition. . . . A low state of charge of the electric energy storage system 220 may also result in the first load 230, e.g. the propulsion system, demanding more power than currently delivered by the electric energy storage system 220.”).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laaksonen (US 20190143819 A1) in view of Berntsson (US 20220001848 A1), further in view of Sosnowski (US 20210094420 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 11.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the work modes associated with the two or more power management modes include two or more of:
a digging mode, a drilling mode, a loaded mode, or a roading mode; and
wherein the loaded mode indicates that a load is supported by the work element and the unloaded mode indicates an absence of load supported by the work element.
However, Sosnowski teaches wherein the work modes associated with the two or more power management modes include two or more of:
a digging mode (Sosnowski [0035]: Implement type can be auger or backhoe, taken as digging mode.; [0054]: “At 404, a user can select one of at least two activity modes including a drive mode and an implement mode. At 406, a power output can be provided to at least one of a drive system and an implement system . . ..”), a drilling mode (Sosnowski [0035]: Implement type can be auger, taken as drilling mode.; [0054]: See above.), a loaded mode, an unloaded mode, or a roading mode (Sosnowski 0035]: Driving mode taken as roading mode.); and
wherein the loaded mode indicates that a load is supported by the work element and the unloaded mode indicates an absence of load supported by the work element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for power distribution that uses various power modes on an electric work machine taught by the above combination of Laaksonen and Berntsson with the system for power distribution that selects amongst power distribution modes based on activity modes (implement and drive) taught by Sosnowski. Doing so would have improved vehicle efficiency by allowing the power management system to account for a selected activity in discerning how much power to provide to various actuators of the vehicle.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner acknowledges that Sosnowski describes power modes for a work machine in the context of a single electric motor powering a plurality of hydraulic actuators that move the work machine, rather than multiple electric actuators powering the various parts of a work machine. Per MPEP 2141.01, prior art references are proper for use in obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if the reference addresses a different problem; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even if the reference is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
To (1), Sosnowski is in the same field of endeavor: how to distribute power between the various actuators on the work machine. Like the claims present invention, Sosnowski also proposes usage of power modes dependent on multiple factors, see the above citations of Sosnowski.
To (2), even if Sosnowski is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the present invention: Sosnowski’s claims of reducing electrical power used to power actuators and improving work machine efficiency would reasonably have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art of work machine power distribution strategies and facing the problem of how to improve the efficiency of a work machine.
The Examiner notes that a single electric motor powering multiple actuators from a power source like in Sosnowski faces a similar problem to any other work machine, be it electric, hybrid, or any another means of powering the systems- there is only so much power available to run the various actuators (electric, hydraulic, or otherwise) of the work machine.
The Examiner emphasizes that Sosnowski was not introduced to add a single electric motor powering a plurality of hydraulic actuators to the work machine taught by the above combination of Laaksonen and Berntsson. Instead, Laaksonen and Berntsson are relied upon to teach the structure of the claimed invention and a plurality of power distribution modes, while Sosnowski is only relied upon to teach a specific type of condition that corresponds to a particular power distribution mode (here, a specific type of work implement being selected or detected) that affects which power mode is selected was known in the art of vehicle power distribution at the time of invention.
Regarding claim 13, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of power management modes corresponds to operation of the power machine to use one or more of a specified implement type of the work element or a specified implement size of the work element.
However, Sosnowski teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of power management modes corresponds to operation of the power machine to use one or more of a specified implement type of the work element (Sosnowski [0044]: “For example, the power profile (e.g., current and speed output of the motor 108) of the plurality of operating power states may be adjusted depending on the type of implement or tool attached. In other words, the attachment configuration (e.g., hammer, auger, etc.) of the control system may correspond to the attached implement or tool. The attachment configuration may be engaged or changed automatically (e.g., in response to new implement attached) or manually (e.g., in response to user input).” Adjustment of the power states taken as the one or more modes corresponding to specified implement type.) or a specified implement size of the work element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the power management system utilizing power modes for power routing on an all-electric work machine comprising a plurality of electric actuators taught by the above combination of Laaksonen and Berntsson with the power management system for a work machine that changes power routing to actuators based on an identified or specified attachment taught by Sosnowski. Doing so would have further improved the efficiency of work machine power routing by allowing power usage to be limited based on the type of implement being used, providing better control over power usage of the machine.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner acknowledges that Sosnowski describes power modes for a work machine in the context of a single electric motor powering a plurality of hydraulic actuators that move the work machine, rather than multiple electric actuators powering the various parts of a work machine. Per MPEP 2141.01, prior art references are proper for use in obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if the reference addresses a different problem; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even if the reference is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
To (1), Sosnowski is in the same field of endeavor: how to distribute power between the various actuators on the work machine. Like the claims present invention, Sosnowski also proposes usage of power modes dependent on multiple factors, see the above citations of Sosnowski.
To (2), even if Sosnowski is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the present invention: Sosnowski’s claims of reducing electrical power used to power actuators and improving work machine efficiency would reasonably have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art of work machine power distribution strategies and facing the problem of how to improve the efficiency of a work machine.
The Examiner notes that a single electric motor powering multiple actuators from a power source like in Sosnowski faces a similar problem to any other work machine, be it electric, hybrid, or have another means of powering the systems- there is only so much power available to run the various actuators (electric, hydraulic, or otherwise) of the work machine.
The Examiner emphasizes that Sosnowski was not introduced to add a single electric motor powering a plurality of hydraulic actuators to the work machine taught by the above combination of Laaksonen and Berntsson. Instead, Laaksonen and Berntsson are relied upon to teach the structure of the claimed invention and a plurality of power distribution modes, while Sosnowski is only relied upon to teach a specific type of condition that corresponds to a particular power distribution mode (here, a specific type of work implement being selected or detected) that affects which power mode is selected was known in the art of vehicle power distribution at the time of invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laaksonen (US 20190143819 A1) in view of Berntsson (US 20220001848 A1), further in view of Li (US 20090189559 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 4.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the measured power consumption is an average power consumption over a predetermined time interval.
However, Li teaches wherein the measured power consumption is an average power consumption over a predetermined time interval ([Li 0051]: “If the motor's average power reaches or passes beyond a predetermined threshold value P.sub.max due to a heavy load for a predetermined period of time t.sub.30, the signal processing unit 9 is configured to shut off the power supplied to the motor 100 . . . .” APOSITA would have understood that this combination would have taught measuring the power consumption as an average over time taught by Li in order to determine if the second load;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for power management that ensures power consumption or distribution is kept at the predetermined set-point taught by the above combination of Laaksonen and Berntsson with the system that measures motor power consumption as an average over a time interval to determine if it surpasses a threshold taught by Li. Doing so would have improved the predictability and accuracy of the system by allowing it to ignore outliers in sensed power consumption measurement when performing power limitation activities.
Claims 7-8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laaksonen (US 20190143819 A1) in view of Berntsson (US 20220001848 A1), further in view of Haga (JP 2014148879 A).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein first, second, and third power management modes of the plurality of power management modes define, respectively, first, second and third power consumption thresholds that are associated, respectively, with at least one of:
a total power provided by the electrical power source; or
a power consumption of at least one electrical actuator of the plurality of electrical actuators of the power machine.
However, Haga teaches first, second, and third power management modes of the plurality of power management modes define, respectively, first, second and third power consumption thresholds ([Haga 0035]: “The work modes include, for example, a heavy work mode (power mode) emphasizing work amount, a light work mode (light mode) emphasizing operating time, and an economy mode emphasizing efficiency positioned between the two.”) that are associated, respectively, with at least one of:
a total power provided by the electrical power source ([Haga 0035]: “The maximum discharge amount is set for each work mode.”); or
a power consumption of at least one electrical actuator of the plurality of electrical actuators of the power machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the electric power machine with multiple power management modes taught by the above combination of prior art with the multiple power modes defining three thresholds for total power provided by the battery taught by Haga. Doing so would have allowed the management modes to cause “the capacity of the battery 15 [to] be used efficiently according to the load of the work content desired by the operator” as taught in Haga Par. 0061.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination of prior art further teaches the power machine of claim 7, wherein the third power consumption threshold is greater than the second power consumption threshold; and
wherein the second power consumption threshold is greater than the first power consumption threshold ([Haga 0035]: “Among the three modes, the maximum value of the discharge amount is set to be the largest in the heavy work mode, and the maximum value of the discharge amount is set to be small in the order of the economy mode and the light work mode.” Machine translation of Haga understood to be articulating (based on earlier discussion of what each mode does in the paragraph) that the heavy work mode, economy mode, and light mode have maximum discharge values (first, second, and third thresholds) that decrease in that order.).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination of prior art further teaches the power machine of claim 7, wherein at least one of the first power consumption threshold, the second power consumption threshold, or the third power consumption threshold is variable in response to operator input ([Haga 0035]: “The mode selection switch (work mode selector) 29 is for the operator to select one of a plurality of work modes determined according to the work content of the hydraulic excavator (work machine).” The power threshold is varied based on the operator operating the switch.).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein selecting a power management mode of the plurality of power management modes is based on receiving an operator input that identifies the power management mode.
However, Haga teaches wherein selecting a power management mode of the plurality of power management modes is based on receiving an operator input that identifies the power management mode ([Haga 0035]: “The mode selection switch (work mode selector) 29 is for the operator to select one of a plurality of work modes determined according to the work content of the hydraulic excavator (work machine).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the electric power machine with multiple power management modes taught by the above combination of prior art with the multiple power modes selectable by the operator taught by Haga. Doing so would have allowed “the capacity of the battery 15 [to] be used efficiently according to the load of the work content desired by the operator” as taught in Haga Par. 0061.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laaksonen (US 20190143819 A1) in view of Berntsson (US 20220001848 A1), further in view of Enomoto (US 20160159220 B2).
Regarding claim 17, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein selecting the power management mode from the plurality of power management modes is based on the control device determining that a power capacity of the electrical power source is less than a threshold percent of a maximum power capacity of the electrical power source.
However, Enomoto teaches wherein selecting the power management mode from the plurality of power management modes is based on the control device determining that a power capacity of the electrical power source is less than a threshold percent of a maximum power capacity of the electrical power source ([Enomoto 0033]: “ . . . the control unit 39 may be configured to power all of the off-board systems 38A-38C if the SOC of the battery pack 16 is above eighty (80) percent. If the SOC falls below eighty (80) percent, the control unit 39 may be configured to power the off-board systems 38A and 38B. If the SOC falls below seventy (70) percent, the control unit 39 may be configured to power the off-board system 38A. If the SOC falls below sixty (60) percent, the control unit 39 may be configured to not power any of the off-board systems 38A-38C until the SOC of the battery pack 16 rises above sixty (60) percent.” Powering or not powering the off-board devices taken as power management modes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the power management system with multiple power modes that are activated with a predefined operating or end condition (including battery SOC, see Berntsson) taught by the above combination of prior art with the power management system that sheds loads when battery SOC is below a threshold percentage as taught by Enomoto. Doing so would have improved the reliability and length of battery storage by extending remaining battery life via load shedding when SOC is low.
Regarding claim 18, the above combination of prior art teaches the power machine of claim 17, wherein controlling routing of power from the electrical power source to the plurality of electrical actuators according to the selected power management mode includes reducing power consumption of one or more ancillary loads ([Enomoto 0033]: “ . . . the control unit 39 may be configured to power all of the off-board systems 38A-38C if the SOC of the battery pack 16 is above eighty (80) percent. If the SOC falls below eighty (80) percent, the control unit 39 may be configured to power the off-board systems 38A and 38B. If the SOC falls below seventy (70) percent, the control unit 39 may be configured to power the off-board system 38A. If the SOC falls below sixty (60) percent, the control unit 39 may be configured to not power any of the off-board systems 38A-38C until the SOC of the battery pack 16 rises above sixty (60) percent.”; [Berntsson 0050-51]: Berntsson also teaches limiting second (ancillary) loads to a set-point.).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berntsson (US 20220001848 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Berntsson discloses a method of operating a power machine, the method comprising:
receiving, at an electronic control device, an input parameter corresponding to one or more of: an operator input that identifies a requested power management mode, or a sensed operational condition of the power machine ([0051]: “ . . . if such a pre-determined set-point is detected . . . );
using the electronic control device, selecting a power management mode from a plurality of power management modes, based on the input parameter ([0051-52]: “ . . . if such a pre-determined set-point is detected, limiting 105 distributed power to the at least one second load to the pre-determined set-point. . . . If a pre-determined set-point is not detected, the method sets 106 a dynamic set-point for maximum power distribution for the at least one second load in dependence of the detected pre-defined operating condition, and limiting distributed maximum power to the second load to the dynamic set-point.”); and
using the electronic control device, automatically controlling routing of power from an electrical power source of the power machine to one or more electrical actuators of the power machine based on the selected power management mode ([0051-52]: See above. The power is routed according to the prioritization strategy.);
wherein, for a given command input, different power management modes of the plurality of power management modes correspond to different respective routings of power to the one or more electrical actuators ([Berntsson 0050]: “ . . . in the second prioritization strategy, limiting 103 distributed power to the at least one second load to a set-point for power distribution to said second load.”).
Regarding claim 20, Berntsson discloses the method of claim 19, wherein automatically controlling routing of power from the electrical power source to the one or more electrical actuators includes reducing actual power delivery for at least one of the one or more electrical actuators to be below a commanded power delivery for the at least one of the one or more electrical actuators ([Berntsson 0050]: “ . . . in the second prioritization strategy, limiting 103 distributed power to the at least one second load to a set-point for power distribution to said second load.”).
Regarding claim 21, Berntsson discloses the method of claim 20, wherein automatically controlling routing of power from the electrical power source to the one or more electrical actuators includes prioritizing workgroup power over tractive power ([Berntsson 0022]: “In response to detecting that the end condition applies, the first prioritization strategy is activated. When the first prioritization strategy is activated, the vehicle returns to normal running conditions. The first load is thereafter not prioritized over the second load(s).”; [0043]: “The first load 230 may be an electrical propulsion system of the vehicle . . . .”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
The prior art of record does not teach, alone or in combination, the three power management modes with power consumption thresholds defined at 20 KW, 25 KW, and 30 KW. The closest prior art of record, Haga, teaches an excavator power management system with three power consumption modes defining a maximum power consumption for each mode. The system allows an operator to select, using a switch, which mode they would like to use. This allows for control over whether the excavator should use more power to accomplish heavier tasks at the expense of shorter battery life or use less power to extend the battery life. However, Haga does not teach or suggest the maximum power consumption thresholds for each mode being any of the three values above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665