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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 1/15/25. New and amended Claims 1-17 are pending.
Regarding the previous drawing objections, applicant’s replacement drawings remedy most of the previous objections. Regarding Claim 6, there are a number of inputs from various sensed values claimed but not shown.
Regarding the previous claim objections, these have been remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 112(f) interpretations, these are no longer applicable given the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 112(a) written description rejection of Claim 7, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
1098
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
As applicant has admitted both machine learning and cost functions are well-known, the 112(a) is withdrawn. As MPEP 2145 I states, an argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, these have been overcome by the claim amendments. Applicant has clarified the structure claimed by the language “hydraulic machine”.
Regarding the previous prior art rejection under 102 by Peterson, applicant has amended the claims such that Peterson is no longer anticipatory. Please see the following action for treatment of the amended claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 1 limitation (“at least one outfeed valve...” - currently two outfeed valves 22a, 22b in Fig. 1 are shown to accomplish the claim limitations instead of using only one valve, applicant finds support at [0026]);
Claim 4 limitation (“wherein the first and second outfeed valves are ...hydraulically, or pilot hydraulically controllable or actuable” - current depiction covers claimed electrically or electromagnetically);
Claim 6 limitation (“based on one or more of...a temperature and/or a viscosity class of the hydraulic fluid, a rotational speed and/or a swing angle of the hydraulic machine...and/or at least one bearing sensor of the hydraulic consumer” - other sensed values are depicted)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first hydraulic connection between the first hydraulic line and the hydraulic outfeed line and the second hydraulic connection between the second hydraulic line and the hydraulic outfeed line are independently controllable by the at least one outfeed valve”. This is indefinite, as the claimed structure is not clear how one valve can independently control two hydraulic connections; it may be that Claim 2 should be directed to including two outfeed valves.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-16, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 20160265559) in view of DE 102019220501, hereinafter DE501 (machine translation accompanies this office action).
Examiner note: Claim 1 recites “a hydraulic machine configured to be driven by an electric machine”; for the purposes of examination, the claim is being treated as this is not an active recitation of the “electric machine” (contrast with the positive recitations in Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 1, Peterson teaches
A hydraulic drive for a hydraulic consumer alternately pressurized in opposite directions during operation, comprising:
a first hydraulic drive output port (at 58) and a second hydraulic drive output port (at 60);
a hydraulic machine (68) configured to be driven by an electric machine (18, [0016]), said hydraulic machine comprising a first hydraulic working output port (ex. to 70) connected via a first hydraulic line (with 70) to the first drive output port (at 58), and comprising a second hydraulic working output port (ex. to 72) connected via a second hydraulic line (72) to the second drive output port (at 60);
an infeed device comprising an infeed pump (with 86) which is configured to feed hydraulic fluid from a tank (90) by way of an infeed line (from pump to 82) in a pressure-dependent manner into the first and/or the second line; and
an outfeed device comprising at least one outfeed valve (with 80a, 80b or 98a, 98b) configured to selectively open or close in a controllable manner a first hydraulic connection (from one of either 80a or 80b; or from one of 98a or 98b) between the first hydraulic line and a hydraulic outfeed line hydraulically connected to the tank (note 94), and to selectively open or close in a controllable manner a second hydraulic connection (from other of either 80a or 80b; or from other of 98a or 98b) between the second hydraulic line and the hydraulic outfeed line (note 94).
Peterson does not teach
an electronic controller configured to:
determine control signals for actuating the at least one outfeed valve via a machine learning-based algorithm that has been trained to optimize switching timepoints of the at least one outfeed valve; and
actuate the at least one outfeed valve according to the control signals.
DE501 teaches
For a hydraulic drive (p. 1-11 of the translation),
determine control signals for actuating the at least one outfeed valve via a machine learning-based algorithm that has been trained to optimize switching timepoints (“valve parameters”) of the at least one outfeed valve (control language is throughout cited document,
examples including from p. 2 -
“The method comprises a step of receiving a setpoint value of a movement parameter of the hydraulic cylinder by means of a control unit. The method further comprises a step of determining a setpoint value of a valve parameter of a valve unit assigned to the hydraulic cylinder as a function of the received setpoint value of the movement parameter by means of the control unit. Here, the setpoint value of the valve parameter is determined using a data-based model, in particular an artificial neural network, and taking into account a predefined and / or predeterminable tolerance range for the setpoint value of the valve parameter. The method further comprises a step of controlling the valve unit assigned to the hydraulic cylinder as a function of the determined setpoint value of the valve parameter by means of the control unit in order to control the hydraulic cylinder of the mobile work machine.”
Example from p. 4 - “The data-based model is set up, based on the training data sets, for example by means of a regression method, to output a value of the valve parameter for any value of the movement parameter that can be technically realized by means of the hydraulic cylinder. In other words, the data-based model is set up to determine links or correlations for combinations of values not included in the training data sets or to learn them by machine. In this case, the data-based model is preferably not given a physical-technical model of the hydraulic cylinder. That is, in other words, the data-based model is a model that is generated using a machine learning method”); and
actuate the at least one outfeed valve according to the control signals
(ex. p. 2 - “The present invention also relates to a control unit for controlling a hydraulic cylinder of a, in particular mobile, work machine, the control unit being set up to execute or control the steps of the above-described method for controlling the hydraulic cylinder”).
Since both references are directed to hydraulic drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic drive of Peterson to include control by a machine learning-based algorithm as taught by DE501 such that the tolerance range can be adapted depending on the quality or quality of the databased model for various movement parameters, whereby the efficiency of controlling the hydraulic cylinder or the attachment is increased while ensuring the safety of the operation (p. 6).
Regarding Claim 2,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein the first hydraulic connection between the first hydraulic line and the hydraulic outfeed line and the second hydraulic connection between the second hydraulic line and the hydraulic outfeed line are independently controllable by the at least one outfeed valve (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one outfeed valve comprises a first outfeed valve and a second outfeed valve (80a, 80b; or 98a, 98b), the first outfeed valve (80a; or 98a) is hydraulically connected to the first line and the outfeed line and includes a closed-switch position in which no volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the first line and the outfeed line, and an open-switch position in which volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the first line and the outfeed line, and the second outfeed valve (80b; or 98b) is hydraulically connected to the second line and the outfeed line and includes a closed-switch position in which no volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the second line and the outfeed line, and an open-switch position in which a volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the second line and the outfeed line.
Regarding Claim 4,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 3, wherein the first and second outfeed valves (Fig. 2) are electrically, electromagnetically, hydraulically, or pilot hydraulically controllable or actuable.
Regarding Claim 6,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller (Peterson - 100, ([0048])) is configured to determine the control signals via the machine learning-based algorithm to optimize the switching timepoints based on one or more of: a pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the first line, a pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the second line, a pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the infeed line, a temperature and/or a viscosity class of the hydraulic fluid, a rotational speed and/or a swing angle of the hydraulic machine, an operating cycle history, signals of at least one position sensor, and/or at least one bearing sensor of the hydraulic consumer (DE501 - p. 5 “It is advantageous here if the permitted range of values, in particular the size of the permitted range of values, furthermore depends on an actual value of a further parameter of the hydraulic cylinder and / or the working machine. The further parameter can correspond to a time derivative of the movement parameter. The further parameter can be a pressure, for example a pressure of a hydraulic fluid of the hydraulic cylinder. It is also conceivable that the further parameter is a temperature of a hydraulic fluid of the hydraulic cylinder. It is also conceivable that the further parameter is a speed of a motor of the work machine.”).
Regarding Claim 7,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 6, wherein: the at least one outfeed valve comprises a first outfeed valve and a second outfeed valve (80a, 80b; or 98a, 98b), the first outfeed valve is hydraulically connected to the first line and the outfeed line and features a closed-switch position in which no volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the first line and the outfeed line, and an open-switch position in which volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the first line and the outfeed line, the second outfeed valve is hydraulically connected to the second line and the outfeed line and features a closed-switch position in which no volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the second line and the outfeed line, and an open-switch position in which a volumetric flow of hydraulic fluid is possible between the second line and the outfeed line, and the electronic controller is further configured to determine the switching timepoints for the first and second outfeed valves (Peterson - ex. [0042-0049] and DE501 - ex. p. 2 - “The present invention also relates to a control unit for controlling a hydraulic cylinder of a, in particular mobile, work machine, the control unit being set up to execute or control the steps of the above-described method for controlling the hydraulic cylinder”).
Regarding Claim 8,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, further comprising a pressure relief valve (92) provided in the outfeed device or between the outfeed line and the tank.
Regarding Claim 10,
The hydraulic drive according claim 1, wherein: the infeed line is hydraulically connected to the first line via a first check valve (84a), and the infeed line is hydraulically connected to the second line via a second check valve (84b).
Regarding Claim 11,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein the infeed line is hydraulically connected to the outfeed line via a check valve (annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
252
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, further comprising: a first adjustable pressure relief (98a) valve provided between the first line and the second line in order to limit the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the first line, and a second adjustable pressure relief valve (98b) provided between the second line and the first line in order to limit the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the second line.
Regarding Claim 14,
A compression device for fluids, comprising: a compression device comprising a double-acting hydraulic actuator (54/56) having a first chamber (58) and a second chamber (60); and the hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein the first drive output is hydraulically connected to the first chamber, and the second drive output is hydraulically connected to the second chamber (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15,
A hydraulically driven device, comprising: a double-acting hydraulic actuator (54/56) having a first chamber (58) and a second chamber (60) or a hydraulic motor a first drive input port (with 58) and a second drive input port (with 60; also [0018, 0019]); and the hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein the first drive output port is hydraulically connected to the first chamber or the first drive input port, and the second drive output port is hydraulically connected to the second chamber or the second drive input port (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16,
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein the machine learning-based algorithm is a neural network (DE501 - “neural network”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of DE501 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102019209335, hereinafter DE335 (US 11788560 (previously cited) is being used as the English language equivalent for translation purposes).
Regarding Claim 5, Peterson as modified teaches
The hydraulic drive according to claim 3, wherein the first and second outfeed valves are 2/2-way valves (80a, 80b).
Peterson as modified does not teach
wherein the first and second outfeed valves are 4/2-way valves.
DE335 teaches
For a hydraulic drive (ex. Fig. 1),
replacing a 2/2 valve with a 4/2 valve (Col. 3, lines 40-49).
Since both references are directed to hydraulic drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the 2/2 valves of Peterson to instead be 4/2 valves as taught by DE335 in order to provide an appropriate type of valves that would perform with predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of DE501 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadamori et al. (US 9683588).
Regarding Claim 9, Peterson teaches
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, further comprising: pressure sensors ([048]).
Peterson does not explicitly teach
a first pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the first line; and/or a second pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the second line.
Sadamori teaches
For a hydraulic drive (Fig. 1),
a first pressure sensor (93) configured to measure the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the first line; and/or a second pressure sensor (94) configured to measure the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the second line.
Since both references are directed to hydraulic drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic drive of Peterson to use an pressure sensors as taught by Sadamori in order to provide an appropriate sensors for measuring pressure in the lines to control motion of the actuator.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of DE501 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miki et al. (US 20050246082).
Regarding Claim 12, Peterson teaches
The hydraulic drive according to claim 1, wherein the infeed device comprises a hydraulic pump (86), said pump having a suction side hydraulically connected to the tank and an output side hydraulically connected to the infeed line (Fig. 2).
Peterson does not explicitly teach
a hydraulic pump driven by an electric motor.
Peterson discloses “Power source 18 may produce a mechanical or electrical power output” ([0016]) but does not explicitly name an electric motor.
Miki teaches
For a hydraulic drive (ex. Fig. 1)
a hydraulic pump driven by an electric motor (52 by 54, or 46 by 45, or 46 by 45).
Since both references are directed to hydraulic drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic drive of Peterson to use an electric motor as taught by Miki in order to provide an appropriate manner of driving the pump.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of DE501 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of AAPA (remarks filed 1/15/25).
Regarding Claim 17, Peterson as modified teaches the claimed invention except for
wherein the machine learning-based algorithm has been trained to optimize the switching timepoints of the at least one outfeed valve via a cost function.
AAPA states
“A cost-function is a well-known tool in machine learning that quantifies the difference between predicted and actual values”.
Since both references are directed to control with machine learning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the algorithm of Peterson to include a cost-function as taught by AAPA in order to quantify the difference between predicted and actual values.
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 MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights