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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a lifting device to raise and lower a working device” in Claim 5 - interpreted as lifting device 8, ex. [0034]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 controller is configured or programmed to control the control valve by performing the first control when the driven structure is raised even in a case that the controller is in the second mode.” This is indefinite. Claim 2 depends from Claim 1. Claim 1 claims “the first mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a first control based on a target flow rate of hydraulic fluid to actuate the hydraulic actuator and a deviation of an actual position of the driven structure from a target value” and “the second mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a second control including controlling the target flow rate to be lower than the first control when the deviation is more than zero and less than a predetermined deviation.” Claim 2 is indefinite as to the metes and bounds of “control” and “mode” as claimed. If “even in a case that the controller is in the second mode” of Claim 2 is attempting to also claim “more than a predetermined deviation” of Claim 1, this is not clear. If “even in a case that the controller is in the second mode” is attempting to also claim during “less than a predetermined deviation” then this would appear to contradict Claim 1, which would be a 112(d) issue. If the “even in a case that the controller is in the second mode” is attempting to claim something else, this is not clear. The metes and bounds of Claim 2 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel et al. (US 6196327).
Regarding Claim 1,
A working machine comprising:
a driver (ex. 20, 38, Fig. 2) including:
a hydraulic actuator (38) to be actuated by hydraulic fluid; and
a driven structure (20) to be raised and lowered by the hydraulic actuator;
a control valve (one of 66, 68 depending on direction) to control the hydraulic actuator; and
a controller (52) configured or programmed to control the control valve to cause the driven structure to move to a target position;
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to switch between a first mode (ex. within soft limits, Figs. 5-6) and a second mode (ex. between soft and hard limits, Figs. 5-6), the first mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a first control based on a target flow rate of hydraulic fluid to actuate the hydraulic actuator and a deviation of an actual position of the driven structure from a target value (ex. Col. 8, lines 47-59), the second mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a second control including controlling the target flow rate to be lower than the first control when the deviation is more than zero and less than a predetermined deviation (ex. Col. 8, line 60-Col. 9, line 9).
Regarding Claim 5,
The working machine according to claim 1, wherein
the driver includes a lifting device (20) to raise and lower a working device;
the hydraulic actuator (38) includes a lift cylinder; and
the driven structure includes a lift arm (ex. 34) to be driven by actuating the lift cylinder.
Regarding Claim 6,
The working machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the control valve by performing the second control when the driven structure is lowered in a case that the controller is in the second mode (ex. Figs. 5-6, ex. Col. 8, line 60-Col. 9, line 9).
Regarding Claim 7,
A method of controlling a working machine which includes a driver (ex. 20, 38, Fig. 2) including a hydraulic actuator (38) to be actuated by hydraulic fluid and a driven structure (20) to be raised and lowered by the hydraulic actuator, a control valve (one of 66, 68) to control the hydraulic actuator, and a controller (52) to control the control valve to cause the driven structure to move to a target position, the method comprising:
causing the controller to switch between a first mode (ex. within soft limits, Figs. 5-6) and a second mode (ex. between soft and hard limits, Figs. 5-6), the first mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a first control based on a target flow rate of hydraulic fluid to actuate the hydraulic actuator and a deviation of an actual position of the driven structure from a target value (ex. Col. 8, lines 47-59), the second mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a second control including controlling the target flow rate to be lower than the first control when the deviation is more than zero and less than a predetermined deviation (ex. Col. 8, line 60-Col. 9, line 9).
Claims 1-7, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mortonson et al. (US 4132273).
Regarding Claim 1,
A working machine comprising:
a driver (with 22, 11, Figs. 1-2) including:
a hydraulic actuator (22) to be actuated by hydraulic fluid; and
a driven structure (with 11, ex. Col. 2, lines 41-63) to be raised and lowered by the hydraulic actuator;
a control valve (28) to control the hydraulic actuator; and
a controller (Fig. 1) configured or programmed to control the control valve to cause the driven structure to move to a target position;
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to switch between a first mode (ex. raising/lowering with 69 off) and a second mode (ex. raising/lowering with 69 switched on), the first mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a first control (raising) based on a target flow rate of hydraulic fluid to actuate the hydraulic actuator and a deviation of an actual position of the driven structure from a target value (note 50, 98), the second mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a second control including controlling the target flow rate to be lower than the first control when the deviation is more than zero and less than a predetermined deviation (note 50, 98, ex. Col. 4, line 63-Col. 5, line 6).
Examiner note: As “less than predetermined deviation” is not further limited by the claim, the breadth of the claim is met by the range detected in Mortonson by the entirety of the predetermined operating range of the hitch.
Regarding Claim 2,
The working machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the control valve by performing the first control when the driven structure is raised even in a case that the controller is in the second mode (ex. Col. 4, lines 23-31).
Examiner note: As best understood given the indefiniteness of the claim , the prior art meets the limitations as 69 is described as “The switch 69 operates as a "soft set down" control, limiting the speed at which an implement connected to the hitch may engage the ground.”; 69 is not described as limiting raising movement while switched on.
Regarding Claim 3,
The working machine according to claim 1, further comprising:
a switch (69) to be operated to perform switching between the first mode and the second mode of the controller;
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to switch between the first mode and the second mode in response to an operation of the switch (ex. Col 4, lines 23-31).
Regarding Claim 4,
The working machine according to claim 1, further comprising:
a manual operator (61) to change a maximum flow rate of hydraulic fluid to actuate the hydraulic actuator;
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the control valve based on the maximum flow rate changed via the manual operator (ex. Col. 3, line 55-Col. 4, line 23).
Regarding Claim 5,
The working machine according to claim 1, wherein
the driver includes a lifting device (with 11) to raise and lower a working device;
the hydraulic actuator (22) includes a lift cylinder; and
the driven structure includes a lift arm (ex. 15) to be driven by actuating the lift cylinder.
Regarding Claim 6,
The working machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the control valve by performing the second control when the driven structure is lowered in a case that the controller is in the second mode (“soft set down”).
Regarding Claim 7,
A method of controlling a working machine which includes a driver (with 22, 11, Figs. 1-2) including a hydraulic actuator (22) to be actuated by hydraulic fluid and a driven structure (with 11, ex. Col. 2, lines 41-63) to be raised and lowered by the hydraulic actuator, a control valve (28) to control the hydraulic actuator, and a controller (Fig. 1) to control the control valve to cause the driven structure to move to a target position, the method comprising:
causing the controller to switch between a first mode (ex. raising/lowering with 69 off) and a second mode (ex. raising/lowering with 69 switched on), the first mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a first control (raising) based on a target flow rate of hydraulic fluid to actuate the hydraulic actuator and a deviation of an actual position of the driven structure from a target value (note 50, 98), the second mode being a mode in which the controller controls the control valve by performing a second control including controlling the target flow rate to be lower than the first control when the deviation is more than zero and less than a predetermined deviation (note 50, 98, ex. Col. 4, line 63-Col. 5, line 6).
Examiner note: As “less than predetermined deviation” is not further limited by the claim, the breadth of the claim is met by the range detected in Mortonson by the entirety of the operating range of the hitch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention related to working machines.
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 Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-time).
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
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights