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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group II, including claims 13-22, and Species I, including Figure 5, in the reply filed on December 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 12, 2025.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“hydraulic attachment” in claim 14, where “attachment” is the placeholder and “hydraulic” is the functional language;
“hydraulic accessory” in claim 17, where “accessory” is the placeholder and “hydraulic” is the functional language;
“dispensing mechanism” and “flowable material distribution device” in claim 18, where “mechanism” and “device” are placeholders and “dispensing” and “flowable material distribution” are the functional language;
“linkage component” in claim 21, where “component” is the placeholder and “linkage” is the functional language;
“pivotably coupled linkage component” in claim 21, where “component” is the placeholder and “pivotably coupled linkage” is the functional language; and
“feeder mechanism” in claim 22, where “mechanism” is the placeholder and “feeder” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the claims fails to limit the structure of the claimed invention. If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. MPEP 2111.02. The preamble of the claims recites a “cold weather surface maintenance vehicle.” The recitation “cold weather surface maintenance” has been considered to merely indicate the intended use/function of the vehicle. The “cold weather surface maintenance” are not positively recited limitations and fail to structurally limit the claimed invention. It is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim because the body of the claim, standing alone, fully describes the claimed invention. Additionally, the functions, features, structures and/or elements needed to perform the recitation of “cold weather surface maintenance” are not in the body of the claims. Therefore, the recitation merely indicates the intended use/function of the vehicle. This interpretation applies to all pending claims.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vest (US4592323).
With respect to claim 13, Vest discloses a method (Figs. 1-5) for controlling engine operation (Abstract) of a cold weather surface maintenance vehicle (diesel-electric locomotive), the method comprising: monitoring a temperature of hydraulic fluid in a hydraulic circuit of the surface maintenance vehicle with a sensor (53, 62. Fig. 2 and step 88. Fig. 5); restricting a speed of an engine of the surface maintenance vehicle (to Notch 1) in response to a controller (26) determining that the temperature is below a predetermined temperature to thereby limit a speed of a pump of the hydraulic circuit and a velocity of hydraulic fluid circulating in the hydraulic circuit (Abstract).
With respect to claim 14, Vest discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising reducing the speed of the engine for a predetermined amount of time (when OIL is more than 90°F. Fig. 5) in response to the controller determining that a hydraulic attachment (pumps 48, 56) powered by the hydraulic circuit is turned on.
With respect to claim 15, Vest discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising the controller automatically reducing the speed of (turning OFF) the engine in response to a sensor (electrical terminals in the engine ON/OFF switch) determining that an operator stepped off a standing platform (the cab) of the maintenance vehicle (when the operator is shutting OFF the locomotive).
With respect to claim 16, Vest discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising the controller automatically (once the signal of the level of traction power is selected by the operator. Col. 1, lines 38-43) reducing the speed of the engine in response to determining that a traction control (of d-c traction motors 15, 16. Fig. 1) for the surface maintenance vehicle is in neutral (zero level of traction power) for longer than a predetermined amount of time (Col. 3, line 45 to Col. 6, line 25).
With respect to claim 17, Vest discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising the controller automatically (when the alternator output voltage and load current are both outside of the predetermined limits) reducing the speed of the engine in response to determining that a hydraulic accessory (d-c traction motors 15, 16 in Fig. 1 and pumps 48, 56 in Fig. 2) powered by the hydraulic circuit is not being operated (Col. 3, line 45 to Col. 6, line 25).
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olmr et al. (US7540102. Olmr hereinafter).
With respect to claim 18, Olmr discloses a method (Figs. 1A-12) for controlling an operation of a cold weather surface maintenance vehicle (snow blower apparatus 1), the method comprising: receiving a (mechanical and electrical) signal at a controller (208) of the surface maintenance vehicle to operate a dispensing mechanism (elements that activate 320) of a flowable material distribution device (300); and controlling operation of the dispensing mechanism with the controller based on a (ON/OFF, forward/reverse and various multiple intermediate speeds. Col. 4, lines 5-18 and claims 1, 6, 7 and 10) position of a traction control (60. Col. 19, lines 29-36 and the hydrostatic drive assembly 10A) of the surface maintenance vehicle.
With respect to claim 19, Vest discloses the method of claim 18, wherein controlling operation of the dispensing mechanism based on the position the traction control of the surface maintenance vehicle comprises at least one of: stopping operation of the dispensing mechanism in response to determining that the position of the traction control of the surface maintenance vehicle is a neutral position (via 964A, 964B. Fig. 12) ; or operating the dispensing mechanism with the controller at a set distribution rate input in response to determining that the position of the traction control of the surface maintenance vehicle is not a neutral position.
With respect to claim 20, Vest discloses the method of claim 18, wherein controlling operation of the dispensing mechanism based on the position the traction control of the surface maintenance vehicle comprises controlling a rate of operation (ON/OFF, forward/reverse and various multiple intermediate speeds. Col. 4, lines 5-18 and claims 1, 6, 7 and 10) of the dispensing mechanism based on the position of the traction control of the surface maintenance vehicle.
With respect to claim 21, Vest discloses the method of claim 20, further comprising determining a position of a linkage component (in 60: From 10b to 122 to…131 to 130/. Fig. 2A) of the traction control of the surface maintenance vehicle or pivotably coupled linkage components (in 60: From 10b to 122 to…131 to 130/. Fig. 2A) of the traction control of the surface maintenance vehicle relative to one another with a sensor (mechanical and electrical signals activated by the User input assembly 208); and wherein controlling the rate of operation of the dispensing mechanism based on the position (ON/OFF, forward/reverse and various multiple intermediate speeds. Col. 4, lines 5-18 and claims 1, 6, 7 and 10) of the engine control of the surface maintenance vehicle comprises controlling the rate of operation of the dispensing mechanism based on the position of the linkage component or pivotably coupled linkage components.
With respect to claim 22, Vest discloses the method of claim 18, wherein controlling operation of the dispensing mechanism with the controller comprises controlling operation of at least one of a feeder mechanism (320) of a spreader (300) or a pump of a sprayer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a method for controlling engine operation of a vehicle: Poplawsli et al., Dowe et al., Hanafusa, Wakitani et al. ‘348, Sakikawa, Williams et al., Wakitani et al. ‘473, Wakitani et al. ‘778 and Jolliff et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 27, 2025