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 group 1, vehicle 1 (fig. 3) and management system of figure 10 (encompassed in elected claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Method claims 14-19 are withdrawn.
System claims 1-13 are addressed below.
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) in claim 1 is/are:
“a power device that … generates power for driving a traveling device of the haul vehicle by causing hydrogen to react with oxygen”. Paragraph 43 of the US PgPub indicates “the power device 24 includes a fuel cell 29 that generates electric power by causing electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen”.
“a traveling device”. Paragraph 40 of the US PgPub indicates “The traveling device 23 includes wheels 27 and tires 28.”
“a storage unit that stores a sprinkling position of the work site”. Paragraphs 118 and 120 of the US PgPub describes the correspond structure(s) to be computer data storage.
“a sprinkling device that … sprays water generated in the power device” in claim 1. Paragraphs 45-50 of the US PgPub indicates describes the correspond structure(s) to be sprayers.
“a sprinkling control unit that outputs a control command in such a manner that the sprinkling device sprinkles water to the sprinkling position” in claim 1. Paragraphs 74, 120-122 of the US PgPub describes the correspond structures to be computer programs.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de KONTZ (US20160298306) in view of Anderson (US20190351784).
Regarding claim 1, de KONTZ discloses a sprinkling system (Figs. 1-4) at a work site (100, fig. 1), comprising:
a power device (truck engine that is inherently included in the type of truck 102 shown in fig. 3) that is mounted on a haul vehicle (truck, tractor) that has a traveling device (wheels 426)
a storage unit (402) that stores a sprinkling position of the work site (par. 43);
a sprinkling device (spray heads 202, par. 31; “fluid delivery system 304”; par. 32-33) that is mounted on the haul vehicle and sprays water (“water”, par. 32-33)
a sprinkling control unit (306, 410) that outputs a control command in such a manner that the sprinkling device sprinkles water to the sprinkling position (par. 33).
De KONTZ is silent regarding the power device generating power for driving a traveling device of the haul vehicle by causing hydrogen to react with oxygen and that the vehicle sprays water generated by the power device.
However, Anderson discloses a comparable vehicle system (fig. 1) with a spraying system (par. 24; fig. 1). The system includes a power device (fuel cell 104) that is mounted on a haul vehicle (fig. 1) and generates power for driving a traveling device of the haul vehicle (par. 16: “The electricity produced by the fuel cell is used to power electric motors that may indirectly or directly drive the wheels of the vehicle for propulsion”) by causing hydrogen to react with oxygen (par. 14-15), which generates water 112 stored in water storage 106 for spraying (par. 24) controllable via the control system 206 (par. 37).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de KONTZ to incorporate the teachings of Anderson to provide the power device generates power for driving a traveling device of the haul vehicle by causing hydrogen to react with oxygen and that the vehicle sprays water generated in the power device. Doing so would improve fuel efficiency, compared to combustion engine, and reduce emissions (par. 17-18) while generating fresh water that can be utilized on demand, which is a more cost effect, energy effective, and environmentally friendly way to provide propulsion of these vehicles (par. 12).
Regarding claim 2, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 1, de KONTZ further discloses a position sensor (location device 422; par. 40) that detects a position of the haul vehicle, wherein the sprinkling control unit outputs the control command on a basis of a detection signal of the position sensor and the sprinkling position stored in the storage unit (par. 40: “Location device 422 may, in real-time or periodically, generate and communicate to flow controller 410 a signal indicative of the location of fluid delivery machine 106 on worksite 100 (e.g., in latitude and longitude) for use in the disclosed fluid delivery processes”; par. 43: “Fluid delivery information database 402 may contain information enabling fluid delivery machine 106 to identify locations on worksite 100 at which to deliver fluid”).
Regarding claim 3, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 1, wherein a sprinkling permissible level is set for each of a plurality of the sprinkling positions (par. 69: “the fluid delivery plan identifies a plurality of geographic locations within a worksite and an amount of fluid to distribute per unit area to each geographic location”), and
the sprinkling control unit (410) controls a sprinkling amount from the sprinkling device on a basis of the sprinkling permissible level (par. 69, par. 77: “The fluid delivery plan may identify an amount of fluid (e.g., water and/or other dust suppressant) to be distributed to each of the first, second, and third locations based on the first environmental data, second environmental data, and interpolated environmental conditions”).
Regarding claim 4, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 3, wherein the sprinkling control unit controls the sprinkling amount (par. 95: “adjust the fluid delivery requirement”) from the sprinkling device on a basis of sprinkling result information (using data from the trailing machine) indicating an already-sprinkled sprinkling position (position data from the trailing machine) and sprinkling amount (adjusted delivery requirement) and a detection signal of a sprinkling determination sensor (various sensors of the system that directly or indirect contribute to the sprinkling action; par. 94: trailing machine detects moisture value and undue dust condition that persists after fluid is delivered, which indirectly indicate the need to adjust fluid delivery; par. 95: “if the trailing machine data indicates that undue dust conditions associated with a location have subsided since the fluid delivery machine delivered fluid to the location, the fluid delivery requirement for that location may be lowered (or reduced to zero). If the trailing machine data indicates that undue dust conditions associated with a location persist even after the fluid delivery machine delivered fluid to the location, the fluid delivery requirement for that location may remain the same, be increased, or be lowered, depending on precise dust conditions at the location”).
Regarding claim 5, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 4, where de KONTZ does not teach but Anderson discloses a water storage tank (106, fig. 1 in Anderson) that stores water generated in the power device (fuel cell 104) and sprinkled from the sprinkling device (110); and a water amount sensor (208; par. 36: “the one or more sensors 208 may be used to monitor the water level of a water storage, the operational status of auxiliary systems and components of auxiliary systems…”) that detects a water amount of the water storage tank (106), wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the water amount sensor (208).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de KONTZ to incorporate the teachings of Anderson to provide a water storage tank that stores water generated in the power device and sprinkled from the sprinkling device; and a water amount sensor that detects a water amount of the water storage tank, wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the water amount sensor. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating monitoring of water supply and sprinkling capability for efficiency and refilling when needed.
Regarding claim 6, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 4, wherein de KONTZ further discloses a dust sensor that detects dust at the work site (par. 73: “a machine may periodically obtain environmental data as it travels throughout a worksite. In one embodiment, a dust sensor located on the machine may sense (i.e., sample) the dust conditions in the air surrounding the machine according to a preset sampling rate.”), wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the dust sensor (par. 77: “the fluid delivery plan may identify an amount of fluid (e.g., water and/or other dust suppressant) to be distributed to each of the first, second, and third locations based on the first environmental data, second environmental data,”).
Regarding claim 7, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 4 , de KONTZ further discloses an inclination angle sensor (par. 41: “tilt sensor”) that detects an inclination angle of a road surface of the work site, wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the inclination angle sensor (part of the various sensors associated with/contributing to the sprinkling action).
Regarding claim 8, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 4 , de KONTZ further discloses a slip sensor (par. 60: “The received machine data may include an anti-lock braking system (ABS) status, a traction control system (TCS) status, a dynamic stability control (DSC) status”) that detects a slip amount of tires mounted on driving wheels of the traveling device (par. 20-21; par. 61: “An active ABS, TCS, or DSC status may indicate that the ground surface is so dry or so wet that the surface is slippery. Moreover, the moisture values represent the moisture level of the ground at the associated GPS location, which may affect, for example, the compactness of the soil or the slipperiness of the surface”), wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the slip sensor (part of the various sensors associated with/contributing to the sprinkling action).
Regarding claim 9, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 4, de KONTZ further discloses a weather sensor that detects weather at the work site, wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the weather sensor (fig. 1; weather station 112, par. 47).
Regarding claim 10, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 4, de KONTZ further discloses a temperature sensor (510) that detects a temperature of a road surface of the work site, wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the temperature sensor (par. 48).
Regarding claim 11, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 4, de KONTZ further discloses a humidity sensor (540) that detects humidity at the work site, wherein the sprinkling determination sensor includes the humidity sensor (par. 47, 51).
Regarding claim 12, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 1, de KONTZ further discloses a monitor that is mounted on the haul vehicle
De KONTZ does not explicitly indicate the monitor displaying the sprinkling position.
However, paragraph 44 of de KONTZ does state “Operator interface 406 may also display information to the machine operator based on signals received from flow controller 410”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to display any relevant information to the machine operator, including sprinkling position accessed/provided in the database relevant to the current sprinkling action, for machine monitoring, operation, delivery adjustment and/or manual steering when necessary. No inventive effort would have been required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de KONTZ to incorporate the monitor displaying the sprinkling position. Doing so would allow operator to verify machine performance and status for accuracy and to provide prompt intervention when needed.
Regarding claim 13, de KONTZ, as modified above, discloses the sprinkling system of a work site according to claim 1, de KONTZ further discloses an input unit (406; par. 44) mounted on the haul vehicle, wherein the sprinkling control unit (306, 410) outputs the control command on a basis of an input signal from the input unit (par. 44: “In connection with the disclosed fluid delivery processes, operator interface 406 may receive input from a machine operator, and may generate and communicate corresponding command signals to flow controller 410.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights