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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
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 limitations are:
Claim 1: Processing means for controlling; Consumption management module configured for managing operation; limiting module configured for regulating;
Claim 6: control means configured for selecting;
Claim 7: measurement means designed for measuring;
Claim 8: consumption module configured for automatically selecting;
Claim 10: hydraulic limiting module configured to determine a maximum power; traction module configured to determine maximum power;
Claim 11: a traction modulation module and hydraulic modulation module configured to determine;
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 (Page 9 of the specification, Lines 5-20).
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 (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 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, and 5-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TASAKA (JP-2013203490-A) in view of Koebler (US2019283592A1).
Regarding claim 1, TASAKA discloses a self-propelled operating machine (1) comprising:
at least one motor (21, 22) ([0025]: "The motor drive device 300 drives the traveling motor M1, the cargo handling motor M2, and the steering motor M3");
- processing means for controlling at least the operation of the motor comprising a consumption management module (31) configured for managing operation of the motor (21, 22) on the basis of a plurality of general consumption levels ([0024]: "ECU (Electronic Control Controller) 110 is a processor for controlling the entire forklift 600, ECU controls the motors by means of the motor drive device 300; see [0025]: "The motor drive device 300 drives the traveling motor Mt ... based on the ... control command value S3 from the ECU 110; [0029]: "Output control unit 302'; [0029]: "Output control unit 302 ... reduces the allowable output power PTOTAL of motor drive device 300 as a whole according to the decrease of VBA T.” ; Note: modes are broadly interpreted as levels; [0030]: "output control unit 302 is configured to be able to switch between a plurality of predetermined modes (for example, an energy saving mode, a normal mode, and a power mode).")
- which correspond to various energy consumptions allowed by the motor (21, 22), each general consumption level comprising in turn one or more operational consumption levels, which correspond to respective energy consumptions allowed for the motor (21, 22) as a function of various operating conditions of the machine (1) ([0030]: "different allowable output power PTOTAL is determined for each mode. Specifically, the allowable output power is the maximum value PMAX in the power mode, the minimum value PMIN in the energy saving mode, and the value PNORM between them in the normal mode; P1, P2, P3, etc. );
- wherein the processing means comprises a limiting module (32) configured for regulating the maximum power deliverable from at least one source of electricity of the machine (1) to the motor or to the motors (21, 22) as a function of the residual charge level of the energy source ([0029] : "Output control unit 302 monitors battery voltage VBA T, and reduces the allowable output power PTOTAL of motor drive device 300 as a whole according to the decrease of VBA T.”)
However, TASAKA does not explicitly state regulating the maximum power deliverable from at least one source of electricity of the machine (1) to the motor or to the motors (21, 22) as a function of the temperature.
On the other hand, Koebler teaches regulating the maximum power deliverable from at least one source of electricity of the machine (1) to the motor or to the motors (21, 22) as a function of the temperature ([0015]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the TASAKA reference and include features from the Koebler reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides the advantage of reducing power consumption while suppressing reduction of an operation feeling, as disclosed in the Abstract of TASAKA.
Regarding claim 5, TASAKA discloses said consumption management module (31) is configured for managing the operation of the motor (21, 22) on the basis of three general consumption levels, of which a saving level ([0030]:" an energy saving mode") which corresponds to energy consumptions allowed for the motor lower than a first threshold, a normal level, which corresponds to energy consumptions allowed by the motor between the first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold ([0030]: "a normal mode) and a performance level ([0030]: "a power mode"), which corresponds to energy consumptions allowed for the motor greater than the second threshold ([0030]: "output control unit 302 is configured to be able to switch between a plurality of predetermined modes (for example, an energy saving mode, a normal mode, and a power mode)”; See also figure 5 for the gradual threshold values corresponding to each P value, and mode).
Regarding claim 6, TASAKA discloses control means, which can be operated by an operator, connected to said processing means and configured for selecting said general consumption levels ([0039]: "The output control unit 302 switches between the normal mode, the energy saving mode, and the power mode according to the instruction of the user”).
Regarding claim 7, TASAKA discloses measurement means designed for measuring the operational consumption levels ([0039]: " the output control unit 302 monitors the state of the forklift 600").
Regarding claim 8, TASAKA discloses the processing means comprises a setting module configured for automatically selecting said operational consumption levels as a function of the measurements performed by said measurement means ([0039]: "Alternatively, the output control unit 302 monitors the state of the forklift 600 and switches the mode autonomously according to the detected state”).
Regarding claim 16, TASAKA discloses each general consumption level comprises two or more operational consumption levels ([0030]).
Claims 2-3, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TASAKA and Koebler in further view of KUNIKATA (JPH107399A; Examiner relied on English translation attached herein).
Regarding claim 2, TASAKA discloses a plurality of operating apparatuses including locomotion means (11) (Fig. 1).
However, TASAKA does not explicitly state operating boom (12), accessory (13) carried by said boom, stabilisers (14) and rotary tower (16).
On the other hand, KUNIKATA teaches operating boom (12), accessory (13) carried by said boom, stabilisers (14) and rotary tower (16) (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the TASAKA reference and include features from the KUNIKATA reference with a reasonable expectation of success, and perform the functions disclosed in the TASAKA reference to the plurality of operating apparatuses in KUNIKATA. Doing so provides the advantage of reducing power consumption while suppressing reduction of an operation feeling, as disclosed in the Abstract of TASAKA.
Regarding claim 3, TASAKA discloses a first electric motor (21) to which locomotion means are functionally connected and a second electric motor (22) to which at least another operating apparatus is functionally connected (Fig. 1, M1 and M2; [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, TASAKA discloses the processing means comprise a hydraulics limiting module (33) configured to determine a maximum power which can be delivered to said second electric motor (22), as a function of said maximum power deliverable from the at least one source of electricity; and a traction limiting module (34), configured to determine a maximum power which can be delivered to the first electric motor (21), as a function of said maximum power deliverable from the at least one source of electricity ([0027]: “The second power converter 102 supplies power corresponding to the second control command value S2 to the cargo handling motor M2, and controls the rotation thereof. The elevator body 606 is connected to the hydraulic actuator 116. The hydraulic actuator 116 converts the rotational motion generated by the cargo handling motor M2 into a linear motion, and controls the lifting and lowering body 606”; [0031]: "The second power converter 102 supplies power corresponding to the second control command value S2 to the cargo handling motor M2, and controls the rotation thereof. The elevator body 606 is connected to the hydraulic actuator 116. The hydraulic actuator 116 converts the rotational motion generated by the cargo handling motor M2 into a linear motion, and controls the lifting and lowering body 606 ..... The output control unit 302 gives priority to the first power conversion device 100, the second power conversion device 102, and the third power conversion device 104, and limits power consumption in order from the power conversion devices with lower priorities. In other words, the traveling motor Mt, the cargo handling motor M2, and the steering motor M3 are ranked'').
Regarding claim 12, TASAKA does not explicitly state the operating conditions include at least two of the following: a position of a load transported on the accessory (13), a weight of the load, whether an operating surface is flat or inclined, whether the operating boom (12) is moving up or down, whether the machine (1) is stationary or moving, whether the machine is stabilized or not, type of accessory (13) mounted on the operating boom (12), an oil flow rate required to perform an operation of the operating boom (12), a translation speed, a road circulation condition, a static operating condition, a dynamic operating condition or a status of an energy source.
On the other hand, KUNIKITA teaches the operating conditions include at least two of the following: a position of a load transported on the accessory (13), a weight of the load ([0004]), whether an operating surface is flat or inclined, whether the operating boom (12) is moving up or down, whether the machine (1) is stationary or moving ([0007]; [0012]; [0016]), whether the machine is stabilized or not, type of accessory (13) mounted on the operating boom (12), an oil flow rate required to perform an operation of the operating boom (12), a translation speed, a road circulation condition, a static operating condition, a dynamic operating condition or a status of an energy source.
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the TASAKA reference and include features from the KUNIKATA reference with a reasonable expectation of success, and perform the functions disclosed in the TASAKA reference to the plurality of operating apparatuses in KUNIKATA. Doing so provides the advantage of reducing power consumption while suppressing reduction of an operation feeling, as disclosed in the Abstract of TASAKA.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TASAKA, Koebler, KUNIKATA in further view of HUISSOON (US2018106017A1: Note: This is the US version of the CN105813874A reference cited by the applicant in the IDS dated 12/21/2023).
Regarding claim 4, TASAKA does not explicitly state a hydraulic pump actuated by said second motor (22) and one or more hydraulic actuators powered by said pump and designed to actuate one or more of said operating apparatuses ([0080]; [0091]; [0095]: " the hydraulic pump 300 in the sub-frame 2 is coupled to an electric motor 303, which in turn is coupled to a suitable battery”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the TASAKA reference and include features from the HUISSOON reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides the advantage of reducing power consumption of said operating apparatus while suppressing reduction of an operation feeling, as disclosed in the Abstract of TASAKA.
Claims 11, 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TASAKA, Koebler, KUNIKATA, in further view of Abbott (US-20200076337-A1).
Regarding claim 11, TASAKA discloses the consumption management module (31) is configured to determine an operating traction power and an operating hydraulic power as a function of the general consumption level selected and of the operating condition of the machine (1) and wherein the processing means include a traction modulation module (35) and a hydraulics modulation module (36) configured to determine, respectively, a limit of an instantaneous power deliverable to the first motor (21) and a limit of an instantaneous power deliverable to the second motor (22) on the basis of the above-mentioned maximum traction power and maximum hydraulic power ([0039]-[ 0041]: “The output control unit 302 switches between the normal mode, the energy saving mode, and the power mode according to the instruction of the user.”; FIG. 5: the power mode, the normal mode, and the energy saving mode can be switched in order; [0041]: “At this time, the allowable output power PTOTAL decreases in the order of PMAX, PNORM, and PMIN according to the switching of the mode”, “When the allowable output power PTOTAL decreases to the intermediate value PNORM, the power consumption P2 of the second power conversion device 102 with low priority is limited. When the allowable output power PTOTAL decreases to the minimum value PMIN, the power consumption Pt of the first power conversion apparatus 100 with the next lowest priority is limited”).
However, TASAKA does not explicitly state operating traction power and hydraulics thresholds.
On the other hand, Abbott teaches operating traction power and hydraulics thresholds ([0018]; [0023]; [0126]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the TASAKA reference and include features from the Abbott reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides the advantage of reducing power consumption of said operating apparatus while suppressing reduction of an operation feeling, as disclosed in the Abstract of TASAKA.
Regarding claim 18, TASAKA discloses the limit of the instantaneous power deliverable to the first motor and the limit of the instantaneous power deliverable to the second motor do not exceed the maximum power deliverable from the at least one source of electricity ([0039]-[0041]: determining a total allowable power based on battery conditions and distributes this power among multiple motors, such that the power supplied to each motor is limited in accordance with the available total power, thus constrained by a maximum power).
Regarding claim 19, TASAKA discloses a sum of an actual instantaneous power delivered to the first motor, an actual instantaneous power delivered to the second motor and an actual instantaneous power delivered to accessory user devices is less than the maximum power deliverable from the at least one source of electricity ([0039]-[0041]; Fig. 5: the sum of the power delivered to the motors does not exceed the total available power)
Regarding claim 20, TASAKA discloses the limit of the instantaneous power deliverable to the first motor and the limit of the instantaneous power deliverable to the second motor are calculated dynamically to maximize a power available to the first motor and the second motor ([0039]-[0041]: the allocation of the power among the motors is dynamically adjusted based on system conditions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 17 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666