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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 and 12/08/2025 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-16, and 18-23 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-16 are currently amended.
Claims 18-23 are newly added claims.
Claims 7, 12, and 17 are canceled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US 20060229786 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Sawada, in view of Fillman et al. (US 5417193 A), herein after will be referred to as Fillman.
Regarding Claim 1, Sawada teaches a shovel comprising (A hydraulic excavator with a boom, arm, and bucket; [0025]):
a prime mover (The diesel engine as the prime mover; [0027]); and
a hardware processor configured to (Engine controller receives input signals; [0030] [0032])
selectively use an operation mode among a plurality of operation modes having different output characteristics related to an operation of the shovel in accordance with an input from a user (Three user selectable operation modes via selector switches; [0027] [0033] [0037]), and
store…a setting of an output related to the prime mover which output is used in the operation mode used before the switching…the output being changeable by the user (Stores engine output torque characteristics per mode where each mode has its own stored engine output defining characteristic and the engine output is changeable by the operator via fuel dial; [0044] [0045] [0049] [0030]).
Sawada does not explicitly teach store, when switching the operation mode, a setting of an output related to the prime mover which output is used in the operation mode used before the switching in association with the operation mode used before the switching.
However, Fillman teaches an engine speed control apparatus with three operator selectable modes (governor mode, throttle mode, off mode) (Col 4 lines 9-19). Fillman teaches when a mode (the governor mode or throttle mode) is switched, the electronic speed control unit stores the operator set engine speed limit, set via increase/decrease control for each mode, and that the stored limit “remains in effect whenever the same mode is again selected” (Col 7-8 lines 57-4 Col 4 lines 20-32). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the electronic speed control unit stores the engine speed limit, set by the operator via increase/decrease selector, which the engine speed is an output related to the prime mover and the speed limit is the limit preserved and stored in the governor or throttle mode when switching , “remains in effect whenever the same mode is again selected”.
Sawada is considered to be analogous to the claim invention because Sawada is in the same field of hydraulic excavators and Fillman is pertinent to the same issue of managing engine speed across multiple operator modes on a vehicle with hydraulic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sawada to incorporate the teachings of storing and recalling the engine speed when the operator returns to that mode as taught by Fillman based on the motivation to save the operator from having to set the engine speed each time the operator switches back to a mode they used before. Fillman explicitly teaches “this upper or lower engine speed limit remains in effect whenever the same mode is again selected, until a new engine speed limit is selected” (Col 7-8 lines 57-4). The combination used two known parts, Sawada’s multiple operating modes with engine output control and Filman’s save and restore of the operator’s selected engine speed for each mode, to reach the predictable result of automatically bringing back the operator’s preferred engine speed for whichever mode the operator switches back.
Regarding Claim 2, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 1. Sawada further teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to selectively set the operation mode from among the plurality of operation modes in accordance with the input from the user (Operation mode selector switches for selecting the operation modes; [0027]),
selectively set a level of the output related to the prime mover which level is to be used in the operation mode to be used after the switching from among a plurality of levels of the output related to the prime mover in accordance with another input from the user, the plurality of levels each being defined for a corresponding one of the plurality of operation modes (Each mode has its own corresponding engine output level (set revolution speed for lifting 1480 RPM and active 2050 RPM) and a fuel dial for operator adjusting the engine output via throttle input; [0030] [0038]).
Sawada does not explicitly teach store, when switching the operation mode, the level used in the operation mode used before the switching in association with the operation mode used before the switching in a storage.
However, Fillman teaches when a mode (the governor mode or throttle mode) is switched, the electronic speed control unit stores the operator set engine speed limit, set via increase/decrease control for each mode, and that the stored limit “remains in effect whenever the same mode is again selected” (Col 7-8 lines 57-4 Col 4 lines 20-32). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the electronic speed control unit stores the engine speed limit, set by the operator via increase/decrease selector, which the engine speed is an output related to the prime mover and the speed limit is the limit preserved and stored in the governor or throttle mode when switching , “remains in effect whenever the same mode is again selected”. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the electronic speed control unit stores the engine speed limit associated with the currently used mode, where the speed limit is preserved and stored in the governor or throttle mode when switching , “remains in effect whenever the same mode is again selected”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada’s engine output to incorporate Fillman’s storing and recalling the engine speed for each modes when the mode is switched based on the motivation to preserver the specific level that the operator chose within each mode so that the operator’s preferred level for that mode is automatically used the next time the mode is selected. The combination yields predictable result of a system in which each mode retains the operator’s chosen level among the different mode levels so that the operator does not have to set the level each time the mode is switched back.
Regarding Claim 3, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada further teaches a characteristic of one or more parameters representing the output related to the prime mover at each of the plurality of levels are defined in advance for each of the plurality of operation modes (Engine controller stores mapped engine output torque characteristics corresponding to the modes; [0044] [0045]).
Regarding Claim 4, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 3. Sawada further teaches the one or more parameters representing the output related to the prime mover include a torque of the prime mover (Engine controller stores mapped engine output torque characteristics; [0044]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada does not explicitly teach the hardware processor is further configured to, when switching the operation mode, sets a level stored in association with the operation mode to be used after the switching in the storage as the level to be used in the operation mode to be used after the switching.
However, Fillman teaches that when the operator returns to a mode, the electronic speed control unit automatically goes back to the engine speed limit that was previously set in that mode (Col 7-8 lines 57-4). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the operator sets an engine speed limit level that is associated with the mode in use, then the level is stored after switching to another mode and recalled upon reentry of the previous mode in use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada to incorporate the teachings of storing the level within the specific mode after switching to another mode and recalling the level when re-entering the mode as taught by Fillman based on the motivation to eliminate the operator’s need to manually re-set the preferred level each time the operator returns to a previously used mode. This combination would predictably result in a system that automatically applies the previous saved value used in the mode when re-entering the same mode.
Regarding Claim 13, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada does not explicitly teach the hardware processor is further configured to, when switching the operation mode store the level set in the operation mode used before the switching in association with the operation mode used before the switching so as to overwrite the level stored in association with the operation mode used before the switching when the level stored in association with the operation mode used before the switching already exists.
However, FIllman teaches that each mode’s engine speed limit remains in effect “until a new engine speed limit is selected”, where the new selection necessarily replaces and overwrites the previously saved limit for that mode (Col 7-8 lines 57-4). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because a new selection of the engine speed limit overwrites the prior saved value, where each new operator set engine speed limit is written to the same memory location for that mode, replacing any previously saved value so that the most recent operator set value is kept. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of overwriting the previously stored value as taught by Fillman based on the motivation to keep only the most recent adjusted value so that the operator’s latest preference is restored when switched back to that mode. This modification would have the predictable result of a system that holds one current value per mode, the most recent operator selection, to recall the same previous value when switching back to that mode and overwriting the current value when a new value is selected and the mode is switched.
Regarding Claim 14, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 1. Sawada further teaches the plurality of operation modes includes a reference operation mode as a reference and an operation mode to improve a predetermined performance relative to the reference operation mode (An active mode = reference (speed/power), excavation mode = improvement on fuel efficiency; lifting mode = improvement on fine controllability; [0033]).
Regarding Claim 15, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 1. Sawada further teaches the plurality of operation modes includes two or more operation modes usable for the same work (Both active mode and excavation mode used for exaction work on the same shovel; [0033] [0025]).
Regarding Claim 16, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 1. Sawada further teaches the plurality of operation modes includes two or more operation modes usable with the same end attachment attached (Bucket and suspending hook usable in all 3 modes; [0025] [0027]).
Claim(s) 6, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Fillman, as applied in claim 2, and in further view of Heyne et al. (US 20020084135 A1), herein after will be referred to as Heyne.
Regarding Claim 6, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada and FIllman does not explicitly teach the hardware processor is further configured to store the set level in use in association with the set operation mode in use when stopping the shovel.
However, Heyne discloses a method of automatically setting an auxiliary valve’s flow rate and returning to that flow rate on a work vehicle such as a backhoe. Heyne teaches two memory types for setting a particular flow rate in memory, “either RAM or ROM, as desired, of controller 26. It is preferably persevered in RAM, and is therefore deleted when vehicle 10 is turned off.” ([0049]). The language “as desired” confirms that choosing ROM (so that the value is retained when power is off) is a design alternative in the system.
Sawada, Fillman, and Heyne are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they address issues pertaining to control systems on work vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of ROM memory in the controller so that memory is retained when the power is off as taught by Heyne based on the motivation to keep the operator’s last set engine speed for each mode in memory when the shovel is stopped and when the shovel is started again the preferred settings for each mode is automatically available without manually adjusting the levels. Heyne’s explicitly teaches that “either RAM or ROM, as desired, of controller 26. It is preferably persevered in RAM and is therefore deleted when vehicle 10 is turned off.” ([0049]) is a known design choice for choosing ROM to retain the data in memory and keeping the operator set value when the system is stopped and turned off.
Regarding Claim 18, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 1. Sawada and Fillman does not explicitly teach the hardware processor is further configured to, when switching the operation mode, determine whether the operation mode to be used after the switching has a history of use after start-up of the shovel, and store the setting of the output related to the prime mover used in the operation mode used before the switching in response to determining that the operation mode to be used after the switching has the history of use after the start-up of the shovel.
However, Heyne teaches a controller that keeps the value set by the operator in RAM memory, checking whether a previously saved value exist ([0049] [0055]). If a previously saved value is present, the system applies the appropriate signal for that existing value and if there is no previously saved value, the system sends signal that causes a maximum value to be applied ([0055]-[0056]). Heyne further teaches that the values are persevered in RAM memory and is deleted when the vehicle is turned off ([0049]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of determine whether the operation mode to be used after the switching has a history of use after start-up of the shovel, and…in response to determining that the operation mode to be used after the switching has the history of use after the start-up of the shovel because the system checks whether there is a previously saved value, in a system with RAM memory data is erased at power off, provides the answer whether there has been a history of use after start-up. Furthermore, Heyne’s provides the condition portion via its checking of a saved value in the RAM for history usage after start-up, while the storing the setting of the output value is taught by the base system of Sawada and Fillman from claim 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of determining whether the mode has a value stored in memory and has been previously used as taught by Heyne based on the motivation to determine whether the last saved value has been used in the current session so that the operator set value is still with the same operator. This modification would predictably result in the controller saving the prior mode’s value only when the new mode has been used since the same session.
Regarding Claim 19, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 18. Sawada and Fillman does not explicitly teach set the setting of the output related to the prime mover stored in association with the operation mode to be used after the switching in response to determining that the operation mode to be used after the switching has the history of use after the start-up of the shovel.
However, Heyne teaches that the controller checks whether a previously saved value exist in memory and when it does, the controller applies that saved value ([0055]). The memory is erased when the vehicle is turned off ([0049]), so a saved value exists for a given mode only when the mode has been used since the vehicle was last started. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the controller applies the saved value for the selected mode only when a saved value exists. The memory is erased when the system is powered off whereas a saved value exists only when the mode has been used since the system was started, keeping a history of use. This applies the saved value to the switched mode only when the new mode has been previously used since the system was started. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of checking for a saved value and applying it to the system when a saved value is present as taught by Heyne based on the motivation to avoid applying a value from a previous session of the system that may be in a different workspace or application. This would provide the benefit of ensuring that saved values are only applied and configured within the start-up session of the system.
Regarding Claim 20, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 19. Sawada and Fillman does not explicitly teach to set a predetermined setting as the setting of the output related to the prime mover for the operation mode to be used after the switching in response to determining that the operation mode to be used after the switching has no history of use after the start-up of the shovel.
However, Heyne teaches that if the controller does not detect a previously saved value, the controller applies a signal for a maximum value to the system ([0055]-[0056]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because when the system does not have a previously used value, the switching has no history use, the controller outputs a maximum predetermined value to the system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of applying a fixed predetermined value to the system when no saved value exists for the newly selected mode based on the motivation to prevent the controller from being in an undefined state and giving the operator a starting point to adjust the mode. This modification would predictably result in a system that applies a predetermined value when no value or history of use exists in memory.
Regarding Claim 21, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 1. Sawada and Fillman does not explicitly teach to determine whether the operation mode to be used after the switching has a history of use after start-up of the shovel, and set a predetermined setting as the setting of the output related to the prime mover for the operation mode to be used after the switching in response to determining that the operation mode to be used after the switching has no history of use after the start-up of the shovel.
However, Heyne teaches that the controller checks to see if there is a previously saved value in the memory in a system that deletes the saved values when the vehicle is turned off ([0055] [0049]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “determine whether the operation mode to be used after the switching has a history of use after start-up of the shovel” because the controller determines if there is a value in memory implying a history of use when a value is present. Heyne further teaches that if the controller does not detect a previously saved value, the controller applies a signal for a maximum value to the system ([0055]-[0056]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because when the system does not have a previously used value, the switching has no history use, the controller outputs a maximum predetermined value to the system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of the controller checking if there is a saved value in memory and if there is no value saved, applying a default maximum value to the system as taught by Heyne based on the motivation to provide a check for the system if a mode has been used in the current session and if not, apply a predetermined default value. This provides the benefit of preventing the controller from being in an undefined state and giving the operator a starting point to adjust the mode to their preference.
Regarding Claim 22, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada further teaches determine whether the operation mode to be used after the switching is a lifting mode for performing a lifting operation in response to determining that the operation mode to be used after the switching has the history of use after the start-up of the shovel (The controller identifies the selected mode from the mode command signal and recognizes the lifting mode via dedicated selector switch; [0027] [0033]), compare a rotation speed of the prime mover at the level stored in association with the operation mode to be used after the switching and a current rotation speed of the prime mover in response to determining that the operation mode to be used after the switching is the lifting mode (The controller references the stored target RPM for the post-switching lifting mode against the current RPM from the revolution sensor; [0030] [0044] [0036]-[0038]), and set the level to be used in the operation mode to be used after the switching based on a result of said comparing (The controller transmits the governor drive signal so the engine output corresponds to the selected mode; [0032] [0036]).
Sawada and Fillman does not explicitly teach determine whether the operation mode to be used after the switching has a history of use after start-up of the shovel.
However, Heyne teaches that the controller checks whether a previously saved value exist in memory and when it does, the controller applies that saved value ([0055]). The memory is erased when the vehicle is turned off ([0049]), so a saved value exists for a given mode only when the mode has been used since the vehicle was last started. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the controller applies the saved value for the selected mode only when a saved value exists. The memory is erased when the system is powered off whereas a saved value exists only when the mode has been used since the system was started, keeping a history of use. This applies the saved value to the switched mode only when the new mode has been previously used since the system was started. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of checking the memory for an existing value in the current working session as taught by Heyne based on the motivation from preventing the controller restoring a value not relevant to the current work session. This modification predictably results in a system that only applies values in the current start-up of the shovel when the operator switches to the lifting mode and a saved value from the current session exists.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Fillman, as applied in claim 2, and in further view of Ozawa et al. (US 20060161324 A1), herein after will be referred to as Ozawa.
Regarding Claim 8, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada does not explicitly teach set a level stored in association with the…operation mode in the storage as the level to be used in the…operation mode.
However, Fillman teaches that the electronic speed control unit brings back the engine speed limit previously set in the same mode when the operator returns to that mode (Col 7-8 lines 57-4). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the engine speed limit is stored and “is arranged to return to the engine speed limit previously set in the governor or throttle mode” where the governor and throttle mode are modes of operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of restoring the engine speed limit previously set in the same mode when the operator returns to that mode as taught by Fillman based on the motivation to automatically restore the latest operator preference when switching back to that operating mode and improve operational safety by saving the operator from operating a vehicle and manually setting the level.
Sawada and Fillman does not explicitly teach the hardware processor is further configured to, upon start-up of the shovel, set a predetermined operation mode among the plurality of operation modes.
However, Ozawa discloses an engine output controller in a bulldozer that keeps multiple engine output torque curves in storage and applies a specific curve as the default when the engine starts. Ozawa teaches a plurality of pre-stored output curves (N1 higher, N2 medium, N3 lower) where the N3 lower output curve is used as a default setting at the time when the engine starts ([0058] [0060] [0071]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the engine start default, N3 the stored lower output curve, is a predetermined operation mode/setting that is selected from a plurality of modes and is automatically defaulted upon engine start.
Sawada, Fillman, and Ozawa are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of controlling the engine output of a work vehicle that has more than one operating mode the operator can select . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of a default engine start-up mode to start the engine at a safe low output level as taught by Ozawa based on the motivation to ensure that the machine does not make any unexpected moves when the operator powers it on. This modification would predictably result in a safe and consistent engine output behavior when the engine is started by automatically applying a predetermined default mode at start-up instead of leaving the previous mode for the operator to manual change.
Regarding Claim 9, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada does not explicitly teach upon an operation on an actuator of the shovel becoming effective after the start-up of the shovel, set a level stored in association with the predetermined operation mode in the storage as the level to be used in the predetermined operation mode.
However, Fillman teaches during the off-mode operation, the operator controls the ground speed and engine speed of the vehicle and the electronic speed control unit saves the operator engine speed limit for each selectable mode when the operator returns to that specific mode, the system automatically recalls and applies the engine speed limit previously set in that mode as the engine speed control value (Col 7-8 lines 57-4). This teaching is equivalent to the claim limitation because the electronic speed control unit saves the operator set engine speed limit for each selectable mode where the governor mode’s limit and the throttle mode’s limit are saved and upon returning to either mode by use of the toggle, the system is “arranged to return to the engine speed limit previously set in the governor or throttle mode” by applying the saved value from the previous usage of that mode which “remains in effect whenever the same mode is again selected.” Each saved limit is the value the operator chose for that mode and that value is the “set a level stored in association with the predetermined operation mode in the storage as the level to be used in the predetermined operation mode” when the vehicle is moving and operating after start-up. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada to incorporate the teachings of the operator setting the engine speed limit for each mode is stored and reapplied each tiem the operator returns to that mode as taught by Fillman based on the motivation to eliminate the need for the operator to manually re-enter the preferred engine speed every time the operator returns to a previously used mode. This combination predictably results in an engine controller automatically applying the operator’s set engine speed value for the predetermined mode when the operator selects a mode after start-up.
Sawada and FIllman does not explicitly teach upon start-up of the shovel, set a predetermined operation mode among the plurality of operation modes, and set a first level among the plurality of levels as the level to be used in the predetermined operation mode, the first level being lower than one or more of the other levels of the plurality of levels.
However, Ozawa teaches three prestored output curves that are arranged in order of magnitude: N1 is the higher output curve, N2 is the medium output curve, and N3 is the lower output curve ([0058]). Ozawa explicitly teaches that the N3 lower output curve is used as the default setting at the time the engine starts ([0071]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because when the engine starts, the controller sets the N3 output curve as the default selection, N3 being a predetermined mode of a plurality of output curves stored in the storage device. Setting the N3 lower output curve at the time the engine starts is the same act of setting a predetermined operation mode of start-up with a first level lower than one of more of the other levels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of a default lower output curve at engine start as taught by Ozawa based on the motivation to start the engine at a safe low output level so the machine does not make any unexpected movements when powered on. Ozawa explicitly states “the lower output curve N3 is used as a default setting at the time when the engine 2 starts”, starting at a low engine output level until the operator is ready to operate is a well-known safety practice on construction machinery. The combination of prior art elements produces Ozawa’s default N3 lower output curve applied as the predetermined mode’s first level at engine start, N3 is one of the plurality of prestored output curves. After start-up, when the shove is operating and the operator selects a predetermined mode, Fillman’s electronic speed control unit applies the engine speed limit previously set for that mode.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Fillman, and in view of Ozawa, as applied in claim 9, and in further view of Kimura et al. (US 20200048867 A1), herein after will be referred to as Kimura.
Regarding Claim 10, Sawada, Fillman, and Ozawa remains as applied above in claim 9. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the operation on the actuator becomes effective when a gate lock lever becomes an operation state corresponding to a state of a gate bar in which a user is disabled from getting on and off a cockpit.
However, Kimura discloses a controller mounted on a small-sized hydraulic excavator that determines whether a gate lock lever is at a lock position. Kimura teaches a gate lock lever with two positions of a lock position (a raising position) that opens the cab entrance and prohibits driving the hydraulic actuator and a lock release position (a lowering position) that blocks the cab entrance allowing the actuator to drive ([0031] [[0032]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the lock release position (lowering position) of the gate lock lever allows the drive of the hydraulic actuator and blocks the entrance of the cab which disables the operator from exiting and entering the cab.
Sawada, Fillman, Ozawa, and Kimura are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of operator controlled hydraulic work vehicles . Therefore, 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 base system to incorporate the teachings of the gate lock lever mechanism as taught by Kimura based on the motivation to ensure that the operator is secured inside the cab before the hydraulic actuators can be driven, preventing unintended actuator drive operations while the operator is entering or exiting the cab. This modification would predictably result in improved operator safety when operating the machine by making sure the gate lock lever is in the lock release position before driving the hydraulic actuator.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Fillman, and in view of Ozawa, as applied in claim 2, and in further view of Moriya et al. (US 5692377 A), herein after will be referred to as Moriya.
Regarding Claim 11, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada further teaches the hardware processor is further configured to, when switching the operation mode to a predetermined operation mode among the plurality of operation modes (Three operator selectable modes: active, excavation, and lifting. All modes selected via mode selector switches; [0027] [0037).
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach set the level to be used in the predetermined operation mode so that a rotation speed of the prime mover after the switching does not exceed a rotation speed of the prime mover at the level in the operation mode before the switching.
However, Moriya discloses an engine, as a prime mover, that drives the hydraulic pumps of the hydraulic shovel (Col 6 lines 26-28) and an operation mode selection to select between an ordinary operation mode or a lifting operation mode (Col 8 lines 8-12). Morita further teaches that in the lifting operation mode, the controller sets the operation speed levels of the actuators to be slower than the operation speeds of the ordinary operation mode (Col 5 lines 3-8, Col 8 lines 12-17). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the lifting operation mode is controlled by the controller to operate at speeds lower than the ordinary operation mode.
Sawada, Fillman, and Moriya are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work vehicles powered by engines with hydraulic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of setting the lifting mode operation speed to be smaller than the ordinary mode operation speeds as taught by Moriya based on the motivation to prevent the lifted load from swinging dangerously during crane operations. Moriya explicitly teaches “the running speed of the hydraulic shovel during the lifting operation is slower than that of during the ordinary operation, which is effective in suppressing the lifted load from swinging.” The modification predictably results in safer crane operations on the shovel, when the operator switches to the lifting mode, the controller sets the lifting mode rotation speed below the pre-switch rotation speed, preventing dangerous load swing.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Fillman, and in view of Ozawa, as applied in claim 2, and in further view of Horii et al. (US 20200115886 A1), herein after will be referred to as Horii.
Regarding Claim 23, Sawada and Fillman remains as applied above in claim 2. Sawada and Fillman does not explicitly teach a number of the plurality of levels differs between the plurality of operation modes.
However, Horii discloses a work machine that includes a prime mover with a hydraulic pumps and operator selectable modes with a number of engine output speed levels. Horii teaches the operator selecting a first setting member having a plurality of switching positions for setting the revolving speed of the prime mover ([0044]). For each switching position, the operator selects a speed switching position and the storage portion holds a speed level assigned to each combination of switching position and speed switching position ([0048]). Furthermore, Horii taches that the number of speed levels available differs from one switching position to another where switching position R7 and R1 have different revolving speed target values ([0049]).
Sawada, Fillman, and Horii are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of control systems for work machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sawada and Fillman to incorporate the teachings of the different engine output levels the operator can select with the different operating modes as taught by Horii based on the motivation to provide the operator a flexibility of configurations of speed choices in different operating modes. This modification would predictably result in each operation mode having a count of engine output levels that fits that mode so the operator can choose different speed choices that the mode can operate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9 through 11, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 13, and 17 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Yamashita in view of Buschmann fails to teach storing a setting of an output related to the prime mover in association with the operation mode are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground of rejection is made based on the combination of Sawada et al. (US 20060229786 A1) in view of Fillman et al. (US 5417193 A). Sawada discloses an engine controller that “stores mapped engine output torque characteristics corresponding to the lifting mode and the active mode” ([0044]). Fillman discloses an electronic speed control unit that saves the operator set engine speed limit separately for each operating mode and restores it upon returning to that mode. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amended claims.
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights