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 the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on December 23, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 21-33 have been added. Claims 8-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-33 appear to be directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 21-33 appear to include limitations of claims 8-20, previously non-elected without traverse in Applicant response dated 04 August 2025 prior to the cancellation of claims 8-20 in the most recent response dated 23 December 2025. Please see the restriction requirements of the Requirement for Restriction/Election dated 04 June 2025 for a specific analysis for restriction.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-33 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurikuma et al. (US 20130325235 A1) herein Kurikuma, in view of Hirozawa et al. (US 20150090506 A1) herein Hirozawa and Zhang et al. (CN112195730A) herein Zhang.
In regards to Claim 1, Kurikuma discloses the following:
1. A hybrid powertrain system of a paver, (see at least abstract and Fig. 1 “excavator”) comprising:
Examiner Note: The term “paver” is interpreted in view of Applicant specification:
[0015] This disclosure relates to a controller, which is applicable to any machine that includes a hybrid powertrain system (e.g., a powertrain driven by one or more engines and one or more electric motors). For example, the machine may be a vehicle, a compactor machine, a paving machine, a cold planer, a grading machine, a backhoe loader, a wheel loader, a harvester, an excavator, a motor grader, a skid steer loader, a tractor, a dozer, a hydraulic fracturing system, a boat, a pump, a pump system, a generator system, and/or another machine that uses power generated via a hybrid powertrain system.
[0016] Fig. 1 is a side elevational view of an example machine 100. Fig. 1 shows an example where the machine 100 is a paving machine. However, as described above, the machine 100 may be any machine that includes a hybrid powertrain system.
Accordingly, while Kurikuma does not explicitly disclose the ordinary meaning of a paver, the metes and bounds of a paver in view of Applicant disclosure includes the excavator of Kurikuma.
In the alternative, Applicant also admits (see Applicant disclosure [0003]) that an electrically driven paver that includes a power unit with a diesel engine, a generator driver, and a motor is known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the excavator features of Kurikuma into a paver, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an electromotive drive device for a construction machine, which enables an operating time restricted by an electric power storage device mounted to the construction machine to be longer than conventional by the effect of power generation by a motor-generator. (Kurikuma, [0006]) One of ordinary skill would clearly understand that these benefits could also be applied to a paver.
Further in the Alternative: A hybrid paver is known in the art as taught by Zhang. (See at least [0007] “an electric drive paver” and “hybrid mode”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include the teachings of Zhang with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the overall fuel economy and reducing product noise of a paver. (Zhang, 0007])
Kurikuma discloses the following:
an electric machine that is configured to operate as both an electric motor and a generator, the electric machine being mechanically coupled to a pump; (see at least Fig. 2 and [0036] “hydraulic pump 29 and a pilot pump 30 both driven by the motor-generator 27”, and more specifically for the embodiment outlined below, see Fig. 10 and [0086], same.)
one or more batteries configured to provide power to, or receive power from, the electric machine; (see Fig. 10, “electric power storage device 7” and [0036] “electric power storage device (battery device) 7”)
an engine mechanically coupleable to the electric machine and the pump via a clutch; (see at least Fig. 10 and [0086] “a clutch mechanism 49 is provided at a connecting portion between a motor-generator 27 and an engine 48”)
and a controller (Fig. 10, controller 47) configured to:
Kurikuma is silent, but Hirozawa teaches the following:
cause, based on a state of charge (SOC) of the one or more batteries at least meeting an SOC threshold, the pump to be powered using the electric machine by disengagement of the engine from the electric machine and the pump via the clutch; (see at least Fig. 7, step S2 “Yes” and S3-S6)
cause, based on the SOC of the one or more batteries being below the SOC threshold, (see at least Fig. 7, step S6 “yes” and Return to S1) the pump to be powered using at least the engine by engagement of the engine with the electric machine and the pump via the clutch; (see at least Fig. 7, step S1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirozawa with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly reducing noise and vibrations of engine running without discharging exhaust emissions when unnecessary, (Kurikuma, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of directly utilizing the power of an engine as the power of a hydraulic pump, and to efficiently perform power generation and engine assist. (Hirozawa, Abstract)
Kurikuma is silent, but Zhang teaches the following:
cause, based on the pump being powered, a paving function to be performed by the paver. (see at least [0007] “an electric drive paver” and “hybrid mode”, [0008] “electric hydraulic pump station”, [0013] “electric hydraulic pump station includes a motor, transmission mechanism I… transmission mechanism II, a drive wheel, a motor driver and… an actuator”, [0007] “diesel engine drives the transfer case, which in turn drives the hydraulic pump” (in an alternative embodiment), and [0027] “range-extending power unit consists of a diesel engine, a generator, a generator driver, a motor)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include the teachings of Zhang with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the overall fuel economy and reducing product noise of a paver. (Zhang, 0007])
In regards to Claim 2, Kurikuma is silent, but Hirozawa teaches the following:
2. The hybrid powertrain system of claim 1, wherein the controller, to cause the pump to be powered using at least the engine, is configured to:
cause the pump to be powered using only the engine based on a level of demand of the pump being below a threshold that is based on a power rating of the engine, (see at least Fig. 7, step S7 “No” and [0053] “in Step S7, it is judged whether assisting the engine by the motor 16 is enabled, based on the amount of charge of the battery 19 and based on the driving state of the engine 14 (including the load by the hydraulic pump 18)”
Kurikuma discloses the following:
wherein the electric machine is to be driven by the engine to generate power to charge the one or more batteries. (see at least [0060]-[0065] “regenerative control”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirozawa with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly reducing noise and vibrations of engine running without discharging exhaust emissions when unnecessary, (Kurikuma, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of directly utilizing the power of an engine as the power of a hydraulic pump, and to efficiently perform power generation and engine assist. (Hirozawa, Abstract)
In regards to Claim 3, Kurikuma is silent, but Hirozawa teaches the following:
3. The hybrid powertrain system of claim 1, wherein the controller, to cause the pump to be powered using at least the engine, is configured to:
cause the pump to be powered using the engine and the electric machine based on a level of demand of the pump at least meeting a threshold that is based on a power rating of the engine. (see at least Fig. 7, step S7 “Yes” and [0053], same)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirozawa with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly reducing noise and vibrations of engine running without discharging exhaust emissions when unnecessary, (Kurikuma, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of directly utilizing the power of an engine as the power of a hydraulic pump, and to efficiently perform power generation and engine assist. (Hirozawa, Abstract)
In regards to Claim 4, Kurikuma discloses the following:
4. The hybrid powertrain system of claim 1, wherein the controller, to cause the pump to be powered using at least the engine, is configured to:
cause, based on the engine operating in an idling mode, the pump to be powered using only the engine, (see at least [0043]-[0045] “idle operation”, see also [0086] “When the motor-generator 27 is decelerated and stopped, a bidirectional converter 28 (or 28A) may control the clutch mechanism 49 to disconnect the motor-generator 27 and the engine 48 from each other. Thus, the bidirectional converter is capable of performing regenerative control to convert an inertial force of a rotor of the motor-generator 27 to power and charge an electric power storage device 7.”)
wherein the electric machine is to be driven by the engine to generate power to charge the one or more batteries. (see at least [0043]-[0045] “idle operation”, see also [0086], same)
See also Hirozawa Fig. 7, step S7 “No” and [0053], which also teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of an idling mode (i.e. a mode when vehicle load is low).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirozawa with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly reducing noise and vibrations of engine running without discharging exhaust emissions when unnecessary, (Kurikuma, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of directly utilizing the power of an engine as the power of a hydraulic pump, and to efficiently perform power generation and engine assist. (Hirozawa, Abstract)
In regards to Claim 5, Kurikuma is silent, but Hirozawa teaches the following:
5. The hybrid powertrain system of claim 1, wherein the controller, to cause the pump to be powered using at least the engine, is configured to:
cause the pump to be powered using the engine and the electric machine based on the engine operating in an operational mode. (see at least Fig. 7, step S7 “Yes”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirozawa with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly reducing noise and vibrations of engine running without discharging exhaust emissions when unnecessary, (Kurikuma, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of directly utilizing the power of an engine as the power of a hydraulic pump, and to efficiently perform power generation and engine assist. (Hirozawa, Abstract)
In regards to Claim 6, Kurikuma is silent, but Hirozawa teaches the following:
6. The hybrid powertrain system of claim 1, wherein the controller, to cause the pump to be powered using at least the engine, is configured to:
cause the pump to be powered using the engine and the electric machine by increasing a power output of the electric machine to the pump as a level of demand of the pump increases. (see at least Fig. 7, step S7 “Yes” and [0053] “in Step S7, it is judged whether assisting the engine by the motor 16 is enabled, based on the amount of charge of the battery 19 and based on the driving state of the engine 14 (including the load by the hydraulic pump 18)”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirozawa with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly reducing noise and vibrations of engine running without discharging exhaust emissions when unnecessary, (Kurikuma, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of directly utilizing the power of an engine as the power of a hydraulic pump, and to efficiently perform power generation and engine assist. (Hirozawa, Abstract)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurikuma in view of Hirozawa and Zhang, as applied, in further view of Northrop et al. (US 20200108732 A1), herein Northrop.
In regards to Claim 7, Kurikuma is silent, but Northrop teaches the following:
7. The hybrid powertrain system of claim 1, wherein the SOC threshold is based on an output of a machine learning model. (see at least [0004]-[0006] “reference state of charge”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirozawa with the invention of Kurikuma, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly reducing noise and vibrations of engine running without discharging exhaust emissions when unnecessary, (Kurikuma, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of maximizing the energy use from the battery without running out of battery. (Northrop, [0029])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
March 14, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669