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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2023 and 09/04/2024 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 09/27/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-6, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 20080296522 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Yamashita, in view of Buschmann et al. (US 20120010787 A1), herein after will be referred to as Buschmann.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamashita teaches a shovel (A hydraulic work operating as a crusher or breaker; [0048];)
configured to 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 (A Relief Pressure Selection Mode between crushing apparatus or the breaker is selected as the working apparatus and determines the output for the flow rate and pressure of the circuits; [0030] [0066]-[0069]).
Yamashita does not explicitly teach store, when the operation mode is switched, a setting of a user-changeable output related to an operation of the shovel in association with the operation mode used before switching, the setting being used in the operation mode before switching.
However, Buschmann discloses a construction machine control system that stores a manually adjusted position of a drive component when the machine is in a first mode and automatically restores the stored position when the operator switches back to the first mode from the second mode ([0023] [0031]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the position of a drive is a setting that is set by the operator in a first mode and is stored in memory to be restored when the mode is switch back from the second mode to the first mode.
Yamashita and Buschmann are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of control systems for construction machinery. 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 Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of storing the operator’s manual settings upon switching modes and restoring the settings when switching back as taught by Buschmann based on the motivation to improve the operations of the machine and assisting the operator’s efficiency by reducing the manual adjustments when switching between modes. This provides the benefit of preventing operator errors and ensuring the machine settings are consistent and uniform when switching between working modes.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 1. Yamashita further teaches an operation mode setting unit configured to selectively set an operation mode to be used from among a plurality of operation modes having different output characteristics related to an operation of the shovel in accordance with an input from the user (A controller and display/operation unit that allows the user to select the mode between crusher and breaker; [0050] [0054] [0067]);
a level setting unit configured to selectively set a level to be used in the operation mode from among a plurality of levels of an output related to an operation of the shovel defined for each of the plurality of operation modes in accordance with an input from the user (The display/operation unit allows the user to select specific output levels for the selected mode; [0060] [0068]);
Yamashita does not explicitly teach a storage unit configured to store, when the operation mode is switched by the operation mode setting unit, the level set in the operation mode before switching in association with the operation mode before switching.
However, Buschmann discloses a control system with memory that stores user-adjusted settings when the machine is in a first operating mode and restores the settings when the mode is switched back to the first operating mode ([0030]-[0031] [0023]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the memory performs the function of saving the user’s specific adjustment associated with the selected mode before switching modes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of the memory storing the user’s settings before switching modes as taught by Buschmann based on the motivation to improve machine operations and the operator’s experience by reducing the amount of settings that need to be changed when switching back and forth between the modes. This provides the benefit of improving operational safety by ensuring that the machine returns to the exact settings set by the operator for the selected mode.
Regarding Claim 3, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 2. Yamashita further teaches a characteristic of a parameter representing an output related to an operation of the shovel at each of the plurality of levels is defined in advance, for each of the plurality of operation modes (The relief pressure and flow rate parameters for each level (SET1 to SET9) are preliminary set, equivalent to defined in advanced, by a serviceman before operation; [0030] [0056]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 3. Yamashita further teaches the parameter representing the output related to the operation of the shovel includes at least one of a parameter related to an output of a hydraulic pump that supplies hydraulic oil to a hydraulic actuator (A pump regulator that controls the discharge flow rate of the hydraulic pump controlled by the controller; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 3. Yamashita does not explicitly teach the operation mode is switched by the operation mode setting unit, the level setting unit sets the level to a previous level stored in the storage unit in association with the operation mode after switching.
However, Buschmann discloses a control system that automatically restores, when switched back to the specific operating mode, the position that was saved in memory associated with that mode ([0023]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system automatically moves the drive to the stored position upon re-entering the mode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of automatically restoring the settings when switching back to the same mode as taught by Buschmann based on the motivation to improve the operations of the machinery by eliminating the need to re-enter the desired settings every time the operator switches back to the specific mode. This provides the benefit of ensuring that each mode performs consistently once it is set by the operator.
Regarding Claim 6, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 2. Yamashita does not explicitly teach when the shovel is stopped, the storage unit stores the set level in use in association with the set operation mode in use.
However, Buschmann discloses that the construction machine is provided with a recording key and actuates the recording key to store operating modes and sets values at the end of a work session ([0027]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the machine is stopped at the end of a work session and the operating mode and the set values are stored together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of storing the settings and modes after a work session as taught by Buschmann based on the motivation to improve the operational efficiency of the machine by preserving the machine’s state at the end of a shift. This provides the benefit of improving the operations of the machine by allowing the operator to resume operations without re-entering the settings.
Regarding Claim 13, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 2. Yamashita does not explicitly teach when the operation mode is switched by the operation mode setting unit, the storage unit stores the level set in the operation mode before switching in association with the operation mode before switching so as to overwrite the level when the level stored in association with the operation mode before switching already exists.
However, Buschmann teaches that the sensor will transmit the data of the current level to the control system and stores the data so that the system can automatically moves to the previously stored position when the operator changes back to the mode ([0033]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because in order to restore the most recently used settings (previously stored), the memory must necessarily overwrite the previous data associated with that mode with the new current data every time the operator makes an adjustment and switches modes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of overwriting the stored settings with the new settings when switching modes as taught by Buschmann based on the motivation to improve restoration settings and allow the operator to recall the latest updated settings. This provides the benefit of ensuring the machine always recalls the most updated settings defined by the operator.
Regarding Claim 17, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 3. Yamashita further teaches the parameter is multiple parameters (The control systems control multiple parameters simultaneously, relief pressure and flow rate; [0051]-[0052]).
Claim(s) 7, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Buschmann, as applied in claim 2, in further view of Moriya et al. (US 5692377 A), herein after will be referred to as Moriya.
Regarding Claim 7, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 2. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach when the shovel is stopped, the storage unit erases stored contents.
However, Moriya teaches a control system for a hydraulic excavator where the control unit utilizes a storage device specifically comprising of Random Access Memory (RAM) to store the operational signals and processing results (Col 7 lines 58-65). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because when the shovel is stopped and power is discontinued to the controller, the RAM (as a volatile memory) are automatically erased and resets the system’s settings when powered on.
Yamashita, Buschmann, and Moriya are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of control systems for construction machinery. 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 Yamashita and Buschmann to incorporate the teachings of using RAM as the storage medium as taught by Moriya based on the motivation to utilize a standard and cost-effective memory type for control processing and ensure that temporary operational settings are automatically cleared when shutting the machine down. This provides the benefit of allowing the operator to assess and fine-tune the settings each operational period.
Regarding Claim 11, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 2. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach a prime mover, wherein, when the operation mode is switched to a second operation mode among the plurality of operation modes by the operation mode setting unit, the level setting unit sets the level in the second operation mode so that a rotation speed of the prime mover after switching does not exceed a rotation speed of the prime mover at the level in the operation mode before 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). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of a prime mover and the operation mode switched to a second operation mode among the plurality of operation modes by the operation mode setting unit because the operation model selection contains an ordinary operation mode or a lifting operation mode. 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 of the level setting unit sets the level in the second operation mode so that a rotation speed of the prime mover after switching does not exceed a rotation speed of the prime mover at the level in the operation mode before switching because the lifting operation mode is controlled by the controller to operate at speeds lower than the ordinary operation mode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita and Buschmann to incorporate the teachings of limiting the output speed in the lifting operation mode to be smaller than the previous mode as taught by Moriya based on the motivation to improve operation performance and prevent the lifted load from swinging. This provides the benefit of improving operational safety during critical operations of lifting and moving heavy loads.
Regarding Claim 12, Yamashita, Buschmann, and Moriya remains as applied above in claim 11. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the second operation mode is an operation mode for performing a lifting operation.
However, Moriya discloses an operation mode selection to select between an ordinary operation mode or a lifting operation mode (Col 8 lines 8-12). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the lifting operation mode is one of two operation modes and performs the function of lifting a load. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita and Buschmann to incorporate the teachings of a lifting operation mode as taught by Moriya based on the motivation to improve the functionality of the shovel to handle lifting and suspended loads. This provides the benefit of improving the safety and functionality of the machine when utilized as a crane.
Regarding Claim 16, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 1. Yamashita and Buschmann does not explicitly teach the plurality of operation modes includes two or more operation modes that can be used with the same end attachment attached.
However, Moriya discloses a hydraulic shovel equipped with a bucket attachment that allows the operator to select between an ordinary operation mode and a lifting operation mode using a selection switch (Col 7 lines 34-37; Col 6 lines 16-20). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the shovel utilizes the bucket for digging task in the ordinary mode and lifting task in the lifting mode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita and Buschmann to incorporate the teachings of providing distinct control modes for the same attachment as taught by Moriya based on the motivation to allow attachments to be used for a variety of task and providing the benefit of improving the versatility of the machine.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Buschmann, as applied in claim 2, in further view of Ozawa et al. (US 20060161324 A1), herein after will be referred to as Ozawa.
Regarding Claim 8, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 2. Yamashita does not explicitly teach the level setting unit sets the level to a previous level stored in the storage unit in association with the first operation mode.
However, Buschmann teaches the logic that when a specific mode is selected, the system automatically restores the stored first position setting associated with that mode ([0023]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system sets the previous stored first position setting in association to that specific mode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of automatically restoring the stored first position settings associated to the modes as taught by Buschmann based on the motivation to provide the operator with consistent settings when working with the machinery and provides the benefit of improving the workflow process when switching between modes.
Yamashita and Buschmann does not explicitly teach when the shovel is started up, the operation mode setting unit sets a first operation mode among the plurality of operation modes, the first operation mode being predetermined, and wherein
However, Ozawa discloses a control system for a bulldozer that automatically selects a predetermined default mode upon engine startup. Specifically, stored engine torque output curves noted as N1, N2, and N3 where the lower output curve N3 is used as a default setting when the engine starts ([0060] [0071]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because N3 is a specific operation mode that is selected automatically by the controller upon the startup of the engine.
Yamashita, Buschmann, and Ozawa are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of control systems for construction machinery. 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 Yamashita and Buschman to incorporate the teachings of automatically selecting a predetermine default mode upon engine startup as taught by Ozawa based on the motivation to initialize the machine with known safe settings. This provides the benefit of ensuring that the system’s settings are not tampered in a unsafe manner from a previous work session.
Regarding Claim 9, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 2. Yamashita does not explicitly teach sets the level to a previous level stored in the storage unit in association with the first operation mode when an operation on the actuator becomes effective.
However, Buschmann discloses the control system automatically restores the settings of the drive from the previous stored position when the operating mode is selected again ([0023]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because when the operation mode is selected and it restores the previous settings stored in the memory. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of automatically restoring the stored first position settings when selected as taught by Buschmann based on the motivation to provide the operator with consistent settings when working with the machinery and provides the benefit of improving the workflow process when selecting modes.
Yamashita and Buschmann does not explicitly teach when the shovel is started up, the operation mode setting unit sets a first operation mode among the plurality of operation modes, the first operation mode being predetermined, and wherein the level setting unit sets the level to a relatively low first level among the plurality of levels when the shovel is started up.
However, Ozawa discloses a control system that defaults to the lower predetermined engine torque output state N3 at startup from a plurality of operation modes N1, N2, and N3 ([0060] [0071]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations because the lower predetermined engine torque output state is the default selection upon engine startup. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Yamashita and Buschmann to incorporate the teachings of a lower predetermined engine torque output that is the default selection upon engine startup based on the motivation to improve the safety operations of the machine by preventing the machine from operating at a high output at startup. This provides the benefit of enhancing the operational safety at startup while maintaining the convenience of a resume function of the machinery.
Regarding Claim 14, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 1. Yamashita and Buschmann does not explicitly teach the plurality of operation modes includes a third operation mode as a reference and a fourth operation mode to improve a predetermined performance to the third operation mode.
However, Ozawa discloses the control system that includes a normal running mode and a higher speed running mode, where the high-speed mode is selected to allow the machine to operate at higher output speed than the normal running mode ([0092]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the normal running mode serves as the standard reference state and the higher speed running mode is designed to improve the speed time performance relative to the referenced state. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita and Buschmann to incorporate the teachings of a normal mode and a high-performance mode as taught by Ozawa based on the motivation to allow the operator to select a higher output mode required for specific task. This provides the benefit of optimizing the machine’s performance level to the specific loads required for the task.
Regarding Claim 15, Yamashita and Buschmann remains as applied above in claim 1. Yamashita and Buschmann does not explicitly teach the plurality of operation modes includes two or more operation modes that can be used for the same work.
However, Ozawa discloses a control system that includes a normal running mode and a higher speed running mode, both of which are used for the work of traveling or running with the blade lifted ([0092]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because both modes perform the same function but provide different performance characteristics of speed output for the operator’s needs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamashita and Buschmann to incorporate the teachings of providing multiple modes for the same specific work as taught by Ozawa based on the motivation to provide the operator with a range of output performance for the same work. This provides the benefit of allowing a finely-tuned control over the machine’s behavior when needed for specific task.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Buschmann, 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, Yamashita, Buschmann, and Ozawa remains as applied above in claim 9. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the case where the operation on the actuator becomes effective is a case where 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 safety device for excavators that links the enabling of hydraulic actuators at the cab entrance by a gate lock lever located at the cab entrance where the operator pulls the lever down to the lock release position to block the entrance of the cab and enabling the hydraulic operators to operate ([0031]-[0032]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the lock release position is a mechanical barrier that blocks the entrance of the cab and allows the hydraulic actuator to operate.
Yamashita, Buschmann, Ozawa, and Kimura are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of control systems for construction machinery. 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 Yamashita, Buschman, and Ozawa to incorporate the teachings of using a physical gate lock lever that blocks the exit as the trigger for enabling the operation of actuators as taught by Kimura based on the motivation to improve the operational safety of the machine by ensuring that the operator is secured inside the cockpit with the exit blocked. This provides the benefit of a mechanical safety interlock that operates with the control system of the machine.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Kinugawa (US 5999872 A)
Morris (US 20090055058 A1)
Saito (US 20230091890 A1)
Miura (US 20070068381 A1)
Ono (US 20210010239 A1)
Kusuyama (US 20020083825 A1)
Conclusion
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