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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 1/7/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11, 14-16 and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment and/or Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant Argues
Amended claims overcome the written description rejection.
Examiner Responds
The amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection set forth in the previous office action and the rejection is withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as outlined below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Applicant Argues
Amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Examiner Responds
The amened claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous office action and the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest claim 1, 8, or 14.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 14 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant’s arguments are over amended features.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9 and 14-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9 and 14-15 each contain at least one instance of “values”. Examiner believes this is a typo and the claims should recite “valves”.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “a hydraulic system comprising;” and “a load sensor configured to;”. Examiner believes the semicolons (;) are typos and should be colons (:) such that claims 1 and 14 recite “a hydraulic system comprising:” and “a load sensor configured to:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 each recite “wherein one or more directional valves comprises one or more independent metering valves.” However, the specification was referenced and no support was found to show possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURUGESAN (US20180163373A1)1 in view of CARDOSO (US20230160176A1)2 (hereinafter – “MURUGESAN-CARDOSO”).
Regarding claim 1
MURUGESAN teaches a work vehicle ([0022]: construction machine), comprising:
one or more user input devices ([0002]: “due to the vibrations induced in the hydraulic actuators during operation, a stability of the machine itself may be negatively impacted and hence, the operator's comfort may be degraded significantly”, MURUGESAN discloses that a work vehicle has an operator, implicitly disclosing a user input device; FIG. 1 shows a user input device (steering wheel in cab));
a boom ([0025]: “linkage 108 e.g., a boom as shown in FIG. 1”);
a hydraulic system comprising:
a pump configured to cause a differential in hydraulic pressure between a pump inlet and a pump outlet ([0028]: variable displacement pump fluidly coupled to tank);
a flow director in hydraulic communication with the pump outlet and configured to adjust a flow of hydraulic fluid between one or more hydraulic components ([0029]-[0030]: “first IMV 224 is configured to operatively allow fluid to return from the head end chamber 202a to the tank 214 […] second IMV 228 being configured to operatively supply fluid from the pump 216 to the head end chamber 202a of the hydraulic actuator 110 […] third IMV 232 is configured to operatively supply fluid from the pump 216 to the rod end chamber 202b of the hydraulic actuator 110 […] fourth IMV 236 is configured to operatively allow fluid to return from the rod end chamber 202b to the tank 214”; FIG. 2 below shows the four IMVs 224, 228, 232 and 236, a box has been added by the examiner to indicate how the four IMVs comprise the claimed flow director);
PNG
media_image1.png
505
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a hydraulic actuator comprising a first chamber and a second chamber configured to adjust a position of the boom ([0026]: hydraulic actuator coupled to linkage for lowering and raising the work implement; [0028]: actuator has a chamber and piston block disposed within the chamber so as to define head end chamber and a rod end chamber); and
an angle sensor configured to receive a signal associated with an angle of the boom ([0009]: “angle sensor to measure the linkage position and/or the cylinder displacement of the hydraulic actuator”);
a load sensor configured to:
receive an indicator of the pressure exerted on the hydraulic actuator ([0032]: initial pressure of fluid in the head end chamber is measured by first pressure sensor); and
transmit the indicator of the pressure exerted on the hydraulic actuator to the pump to adjust a hydraulic displacement of the pump ([0032]: initial pressure of fluid is measured by pressure sensor and registered in controller); and
a control system comprising processing circuitry and configured to:
receive, by a processor from the one or more user input devices, a desired angle of the boom ([0031]: controller is in communication sensors, implicit to disclosure is an operator providing inputs to the work vehicle);
receive, by the processor from the one or more user input devices, a command to engage an Active Ride Control mode ([0009]: “ride control system also includes a controller that is disposed in communication with each of the first pressure sensor, the displacement sensor, the first IMV, and the second IMV. Once the active ride control system is activated”; [0032]: “once the ride control system 200 is activated” implicit to this is that the controller is receiving a command to reduce oscillations); and
[0032]: “controller 244 is configured to close the first IMV 224 and open the second IMV 228 so as to supply pressurized fluid from the pump 216 into the head end chamber202a of the hydraulic actuator 110”).
MURUGESAN is not relied on for the control system being responsive at least in part to identification of an outlet pressure of the pump that balances a load on the hydraulic actuator while the ARC mode is engaged, transmit a control signal to adjust one or more directional valves to a first position configured to connect the pump outlet to both the first chamber and the second chamber of the hydraulic actuator.
However, CARDOSO in analogous art teaches a work vehicle comprising a boom, hydraulic system, a control system, and an active ride control mode ([0005]: “construction machine has an active ride control mode in which a valve between the boom cylinder and the pump remains open, and the pump is configured to actively damp pressure fluctuations in the boom cylinder by variation of a displacement setting”), comprising:
a control system configured to:
responsive at least in part to identification of an outlet pressure of the pump that balance a load on the hydraulic actuator while the ARC mode is engaged, transmit a control signal to adjust one or more directional valves to a first position configured to connect the pump outlet to both the first chamber and the second chamber of the hydraulic actuator ([0018]-[0019]: “During active ride control […] pump dynamics are controlled by the electronic controller 24 in accordance with instructions from a pre-programmed algorithm stored in a memory and executed by the controller 24. The oscillations of the pressure level, measured by pressure transducer(s) 50, 52, is used to counteract the oscillations of the hydraulic system […] ride control function is provided by a configuration where both chambers of the boom cylinder 32 are connected to pressure P”).
MURUGESAN and CARDOSO are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of active ride control for work vehicles. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of CARDOSO to the teachings of MURUGESAN such that CARDOSO’s method of connecting both chambers of the actuator to pressurized pump outlet could be used with MURUGESAN’s active ride control system for the purposes of enabling fluid exchange between the chambers.
Regarding claim 2
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
CARDOSO teaches wherein the flow director comprises the one or more directional valves ([0016]: main boom control valve can be a convention directional valve). MURUGESAN teaches one or more independent metering valves configured to independently control the flow of hydraulic fluid from the pump outlet to respective chambers of the first chamber and the second chamber of the hydraulic actuator ([0029]: first, second, third, and fourth individual metering valves).
Regarding claim 3
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MURUGESAN also teaches wherein the hydraulic actuator is a hydraulic piston and cylinder, wherein the cylinder is rotatably coupled to the boom and the hydraulic piston is rotatably coupled to the work vehicle (FIG. 2 shows a hydraulic actuator comprising a piston and a cylinder. FIG. 1 shows actuators rotatably coupled to boom and vehicle).
Regarding claim 4
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MURUGESAN also teaches wherein the hydraulic system does not comprise an accumulator or a dissipating valve ([0048]: “With use of embodiments disclosed herein, manufacturers of machines can do away with use of accumulators”).
Regarding claim 5
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
CARDOSO also teaches wherein the one or more directional valves are further adjustable to a second position configured to direct the flow of hydraulic fluid away from the first chamber and the second chamber of the hydraulic actuator ([0018]: directional control valves used to connect actuator chamber ports A and B to pump pressure outlet P or to connect actuator chamber ports A and B to tank return T).
Regarding claim 7
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above.
MURUGESAN also teaches wherein the load sensor is an electronic circuit comprising a pressure sensor configured to receive the signal associated with the pressure at the hydraulic actuator ([0032]: initial pressure of fluid in the head end chamber is measured by first pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 is a method claim corresponding to claim 1, recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected as per claim 1.
Regarding claim 9
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are substantially the same as claim 2 and are rejected as per claim 2.
Regarding claim 10
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially the same as claim 3 and are rejected as per claim 3.
Regarding claim 11
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
MURUGESAN also teaches wherein the command to engage the ARC mode is associated with a command to reduce oscillations of the work vehicle ([0005]: “a ride control system for operatively attenuating oscillations in a hydraulic actuator of a machine”).
Regarding claim 13
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as claim 7 and are rejected as per claim 7.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 recites every limitation of claim 1, thus is substantially the same as claim 1, and is rejected as per claim 1.
Regarding claim 15
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as claim 2 and are rejected as per claim 2.
Regarding claim 16
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as claim 3 and are rejected as per claim 3.
Regarding claim 17
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as claim 4 and are rejected as per claim 4.
Regarding claim 18
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
MURUGESAN also teaches wherein the command to engage the ARC mode is associated with a command to reduce oscillations of the work vehicle ([0005]: “a ride control system for operatively attenuating oscillations in a hydraulic actuator of a machine”).
Regarding claim 20
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as claim 7 and are rejected as per claim 7.
Claims 6, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURUGESAN-CARDOSO in view of CAZIER (US20040069070A1)3.
Regarding claim 6
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO are not relied on for wherein the load sensor is a load sensor is a load sensing hydraulic circuit.
However, CAZIER in an analogous art teaches a load sensing hydraulic circuit (Abstract: load sensing hydraulic system).
CAZIER is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of hydraulic systems for work vehicles. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of CAZIER to the teachings of MURUGESAN-CARDOSO such that CAZIER’s load sensing hydraulic circuit could be used with MURUGESAN-CARDOSO’s hydraulic system for the purposes of providing a hydraulic pressure indication to the hydraulic system controller.
Regarding claim 12
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as claim 6 and are rejected as per claim 6.
Regarding claim 19
MURUGESAN-CARDOSO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as claim 6 and are rejected as per claim 6.
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 Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 MURUGSEAN is a prior art reference cited in the previous Office action.
2 CARDOSO is a prior art references cited in the previous Office action.
3 CAZIER is a prior art reference cited in the previous Office action.