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 .
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al., US20210254310, hereinafter “Jung” in view of Geun-taek et al., KR100527344 B1, hereinafter “Geun-taek”. (Note: the English translation of this foreign document is available in resources (like IP.com, Espacenet and Google patent), however, in all of resources, inventor name is written in native language. Therefore, examiner used google translate for transferring the inventor’s names to English.)
Regarding Claims 1, Jung discloses:
Dual Control to optimize work modes for operator preference, (at least [0002], “a method of controlling an engine and a hydraulic pump in construction machinery such as an excavator and a control system for construction machinery for performing the same” reads on dual control, [0006], [0058], [0066]-[0067])
comprising: a programmable controller includes control software ([0016]-[0023], [0040]), said programmable controller receives performance data from an engine and a pump ([0016], [0051]), said performance data is monitored by said control software ([0016]-[0017], [0086]);
an engine speed adjustment device ([0016], “an engine control unit configured to adjust an engine rpm”);
a swash plate angle adjustment device ([0016], “a pump regulator configured to adjust a swash plate angle of the hydraulic pump”);
wherein adjustment of said engine and swash plate angle adjustment devices is capable of optimizing the efficiency of a piece of heavy equipment ([0006], [0024], [0066]).
It is noted that Jung does not explicitly disclose software. However, it is the position of the Office that the controller 100 of Jung is a digital computer-based controller that inherently includes software and software storage. Therefore, Jung fully meets the above claim limitations.
In the Alternative, and for the purpose of compact prosecution, it is also noted that Geun-taek teaches control algorithm to control the engine and pump according to the working conditions that are stored in storage means 200 (see at least page 3, fourth paragraph from bottom and page 4, third paragraph from bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung with an algorithm/software for controlling/monitoring the performance data as taught by Geun-taek, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving controlling of a heavy equipment and automating the control system by providing algorithm in the control software.
Further, Jung doesn’t explicitly teach a control panel includes a display interface includes a machine efficiency graphical display, an engine rpm display and a swash plate angle display, data from said control software is displayed on said machine efficiency graphical display, said engine rpm display and said swash plate angle display.
However, Geun-taek discloses a method and system for automatic gain tuning of a heavy equipment with different types of working modes and teaches:
a display interface includes a machine efficiency graphical display, an engine rpm display and a swash plate angle display, data from said control software is displayed on said machine efficiency graphical display, said engine rpm display and said swash plate angle display (Abstract, “display means for displaying gain”, Page 4 e.g, three first paragraphs, six paragraph “displaying the calculated optimum gain”, Page 4 third paragraph from the bottom “calculates the engine rotation speed or inclination angle of the swash plate [] outputs it to the user through the display means”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung with display interface as taught by Geun-taek, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of having ease-of-use for the operator for controlling the heavy equipment and have access to different settings and modifying the setting according to a specific job requirement.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Geun-taek, further in view of blog by Danny Freeman (5/17/2018) from Volvo Construction Equipment at https://www.volvoce.com/united-states/en-us/resources/blog/2018/how-excavator-work-modes-can-boost-productivity-and-reduce-costs/#:~:text=Our%20newly%20redesigned%20lineup%20of,Let's%20break%20them%20down:, hereinafter referred to as “Freeman”.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Jung in view of Geun-taek teaches the dual control to optimize work modes of claim 1, however, Jun in view of Geun-taek doesn’t teach wherein: said engine rpm display is at least one of an engine rpm graphical display and an engine rpm dial display and wherein: said display interface includes a display of work modes.
Using an rpm graphical or dial display is common and well-known in construction machine, for example, Freeman from Volvo Construction Equipment as cited above teaches:
wherein: said engine rpm display is at least one of an engine rpm graphical display and an engine rpm dial display and wherein: said display interface includes a display of work modes (the Freeman reference shows an excavator with different working mode and including a display according to the second image from the top, showing engine rpm and work modes on a digital display).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung with displaying a digital or graphical rmp on a display interface as taught by Freeman, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of having ease-of-use for the operator for controlling different operating setting of engine according to job requirement.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Geun-taek, further in view Freeman, and further in view of Myers et al., DE 102020208048 A1, hereinafter “Myers”, and further in view of blog by Allison Grettenberg (11/7/2023) from Construction Demolition Recycling at https://www.cdrecycler.com/article/in-cab-excavator-technologies-aid-attachment-operation/ , hereinafter Grettenberg.
Regarding claim 4, Jung in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the dual control to optimize work modes of claim 3, however, aforementioned prior arts doesn’t teach wherein: said display of work modes includes an idle mode, a grading mode, a lift mode, a standard mode, a power mode and an attachment mode.
Freeman teaches wherein: said display of work modes includes an idle mode, (Freeman in the cited blog teaches idle mode, general mode, fine mode and Heavy mode that meets the limitations of idle mode, standard mode, power mode as recited in the claims)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung with having different work modes as taught by as taught by Freeman, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the optimal efficiency level by choosing the right work mode.
As a note, the specifically claimed power modes have limited discussion in the specification. It is understood that various efficiency modes can be achieved by regulating power provided by the power plant to various implements based on desired fuel consumption, work needs, or a combination of these criteria, as discussed in the blog by Freeman.
Further, the specification does not provide express definitions or a discussion of the specific structures encompassed by the claimed grading mode and lifting mode; however, it is well-known in the construction arts that various work modes are achieved by virtue of the positioning and usage of various work implements. For example, in a grading mode, the front plow would be engaged with the ground while the treads are pushing the vehicle forward, thus achieving a grading function and operating in a grading mode. For the purpose of compact prosecution, for example, Myers teaches lift mode and grading mode (see at least [0033], “parallel lift mode”, [0037], “grading operation”).
Further, Grettenberg teaches display of attachment mode (according to first image of Grettenberg)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung in view of Geun-taek with displaying different modes like grading mode, lift mode, and attachment mode as taught at least by Myers and Grettenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of the heavy equimment.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Geun-taek, further in alternative rejection in view of Song, US20130255241, hereinafter “Song” or Sorbel, US6450081, hereinafter “Sorbel”, and further in view of Grettenberg.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Jung in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the dual control to optimize work modes of claim 1, however, Jung implicitly teaches attachment modes. Jung discloses that the operation performed by the construction machinery is divided into a plurality of subordinate work (at least abstract, [0008]-[0009], [0051]-[0056], [0075]) which, according to at least paragraph [0056], as an example, the subordinate work is a digging work, boom raising, swing work, dump work. Also, Jung discloses according to at least paragraph [0075], a subordinate work determiner that determine a current subordinate work by using data from data receiver. Therefore, it is obvious that determining current subordinate work corresponds to determining a current attachment that is in use. Therefore, Jung implicitly teaches , wherein: said ([0057], “digging work”), sheer ([0057], __ shear attachment reads on a boom lowering work as this attachment is used for sheering materials and the work depends on boom and arm work__), thumb , rake, grapple ([0057], __thumb and rake reads on dump work in the reference) ) and bracket ([0043], __ any attachments like bucket might require a bracket so it is obvious to use bracket attachment).
In alternative, Song discloses a method of controlling a flow rate of an attachment for construction equipment by adjusting an engine rmp and an angle of a swash plate of a pump and teaches attachment modes includes hammer, sheer, thumb, rake, grapple and bracket (at least Abstract, [0004] “various attachments such as a bucket, a breaker, a vibrator, a hammer, and the like are used by being attacked by a coupler”). Moreover, Song teaches, at least according to Figs. 3 and 4, a display for controlling the setting of an attachment, therefore, it would be obvious that attachment mode is displayed on the screen which meets the limitation.
Further, it is well known in the construction art to utilize different tool attachment on an excavator for the intended use based on the job needing to be performed, For example an excavator can have a rake attachment with tines fitted to the boom to allow for sifting and sorting rocks and debris. The same types of excavators with the boom can have these rake attachment removed and replaced with a grapple attachment for sorting work requiring movement of larger objects such as logs, boulders, and steel beams. It is ubiquitous in the construction arts to change attachments based on job function so that the same machine can be used for different tasks requiring specific tools. For the purpose of compact prosecution and as an example, Sorbel teaches different attachments like thumb, grapple, rake, for a working machine like an excavator (See at least Col 1, Lines 20-25 of Sorbel.)
Jung doesn’t explicitly teach wherein: said display interface includes a display of attachment modes.
Nevertheless, display interface including attachment modes is a well-known technology in the art. For example, Grettenberg teaches a display showing an attachment mode according to the first image in the cited blog and also in Section titled “Stored settings save time”, first paragraph teaches when changing hydraulic attachments, owners and operators easily can select the appropriate preset via LCD screens or touch-screen panels to optimize excavator and attachment functionality. Therefore, it is obvious that attachment modes are displayed.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery including determining a current subordinate work (at least paragraph [0075]), which corresponds to attachment modes, as taught by Jung in view of Song and Sorbel with displaying different attachment mode in use (corresponding to different subordinate works) on a user interface as for example taught by Song or Grettenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of having ease-of-use for the operator for controlling the heavy equipment and have access to different settings and modifying the setting according to a specific job requirement.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Geun-taek, further in view of Freeman.
Regarding claim 7, Jung discloses:
Dual Control to optimize work modes for operator preference, (at least [0002], “a method of controlling an engine and a hydraulic pump in construction machinery such as an excavator and a control system for construction machinery for performing the same” reads on dual control, [0006], [0058], [0066]-[0067])
comprising: a programmable controller includes control software ([0016]-[0023], [0040]), said programmable controller receives performance data from an engine and a pump ([0016], [0051]), said performance data is monitored by said control software ([0016]-[0017], [0086]);
a control panel includes an engine speed adjustment device ([0016], “an engine control unit configured to adjust an engine rpm”);
a swash plate angle adjustment device ([0016], “a pump regulator configured to adjust a swash plate angle of the hydraulic pump”);
wherein adjustment of said engine and swash plate angle adjustment devices is capable of optimizing the efficiency of a piece of heavy equipment ([0006], [0024], [0066]).
It is noted that Jung does not explicitly disclose software. However, it is the position of the Office that the controller 100 of Jung is a digital computer-based controller that inherently includes software and software storage. Therefore, Jung fully meets the above claim limitations.
In the Alternative, and for the purpose of compact prosecution, it is also noted that Geun-taek teaches control algorithm to control the engine and pump according to the working conditions that are stored in storage means 200 (see at least [0009])" And then add an obvious to combine statement with that.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung with an algorithm/software for controlling/monitoring the performance data as taught by Geun-taek, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving controlling of a heavy equipment and automating the control system by providing algorithm in the control software.
Further, Jung doesn’t explicitly teach a control panel includes a work mode on and off button; and a display interface includes a machine efficiency graphical display, an engine rpm display and a swash plate angle display, data from said control software is displayed on said machine efficiency graphical display, said engine rpm display and said swash plate angle display.
However, Geun-taek relates to a method and system for automatic gain tuning of a heavy equipment with different types of working modes and teaches:
a display interface includes a machine efficiency graphical display, an engine rpm display and a swash plate angle display, data from said control software is displayed on said machine efficiency graphical display, said engine rpm display and said swash plate angle display (Abstract, “display means for displaying gain”, Page 4 e.g, three first paragraphs, six paragraph “displaying the calculated optimum gain”, Page 4 third paragraph from the bottom, “calculates the engine rotation speed or inclination angle of the swash plate [] outputs it to the user through the display means”).
Further, Freeman teaches a work mode on and off button (second image shows that the work mode button turns on when switching between modes);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung with display interface as taught by Geun-taek, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of having ease-of-use for the operator for controlling the heavy equipment and have access to different settings and modifying the setting according to a specific job requirement.
Regarding claims 8-11, claims are dependent from independent claim 7 that is rejected over the foregoing prior arts relied upon (See rejection for claim 7). Claims 8-11 recite similar feature to claims 3-6 originating from independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 8-12 are rejected over teaching of the same arts used for the rejections of claim 3-6. Therefore, claims 8-12 are rejected over the combination of the prior arts relied upon for the rejection of claim 7 and the prior arts relied upon for the rejections of claim 3-6 with the same motivation as stated for the rejections of claims 3-6.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent from claim 10 (dependent from 7), and recites similar features as in claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected over the combination of the prior arts relied upon for the rejection of claim 7, 10 (similar to claim 5) and similar prior art used for the rejection of claim 2, under the same motivation statement. please see the rejection for claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view Geun-taek, further in view of Grettenberg (or in alternative further in view of Song).
Regarding claim 13, Jung discloses:
Dual control to optimize work modes for operator preference (at least [0002], “a method of controlling an engine and a hydraulic pump in construction machinery such as an excavator and a control system for construction machinery for performing the same” reads on dual control, [0006], [0058], [0066]-[0067]), comprising: a programmable controller includes control software ([0016]-[0023], [0040]),
It is noted that Jung does not explicitly disclose software. However, it is the position of the Office that the controller 100 of Jung is a digital computer-based controller that inherently includes software and software storage. Therefore, Jung fully meets the above claim limitations.
In the Alternative, and for the purpose of compact prosecution, it is also noted that Geun-taek teaches control algorithm to control the engine and pump according to the working conditions that are stored in storage means 200 (see at least page 3, forth paragraph from bottom and page 4, third paragraph from bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung with an algorithm/software for controlling/monitoring the performance data as taught by Geun-taek, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving controlling of a heavy equipment and automating the control system by providing algorithm in the control software.
Further, Jung doesn’t explicitly teach said control software includes a tuning algorithm for recording commonly used engine rpm and swash plate angle settings for combinations of work mode and attachment settings in an algorithm database;
a manual override button; and a toggle algorithm button, wherein said manual override button is capable of overriding manual settings, said toggle algorithm button is capable of displaying different combinations of settings for engine rpm and swash plate angle for work mode and attachment combinations.
However, Grettenberg teaches recording commonly used engine rpm and swash plate angle settings for combination of work mode and attachment settings in an algorithm database (e.g., second paragraph and section titled Stored settings save time, first paragraph, “owners and operators easily can select the appropriate preset via LCD screens or touch-screen panels to optimize excavator and attachment functionality.”, section titled Flow options optimize performance, and first two figures which shows stored setting for attachment in use, work mode, engine rpm and lmp (which reads on swash plate angle)).
In alternative rejection, Song teaches said control software includes a tuning algorithm for recording commonly used engine rpm and swash plate angle settings for combinations of work mode and attachment settings in an algorithm database (Figs. 2-4, shows different settings stored for rmp and lpm (an angle of a swash plate (LPM) of a pump, according to [0009]), [0049];
Further Song teaches:
a manual override button wherein said manual override button is capable of overriding manual settings ([0036], “resetting an engine rmp while adjustment to the flow rate is necessary”, Fig. 4 and [0038],, “is set through a user setting maximum flow rate on a flow rate setting screen on the instrument panel 110.” __resetting an engine rmp reads on overriding manually);
and a toggle algorithm button wherein said toggle algorithm button is capable of displaying different combinations of settings for engine rpm and swash plate angle for work mode and attachment combinations (Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery including determining a current subordinate work (at least paragraph [0075]), which corresponds to attachment modes, as taught by Jung in view of Song and Sorbel with displaying different attachment mode in use (corresponding to different subordinate works) on a user interface as for example taught by Song or Grettenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of having ease-of-use for the operator for controlling the heavy equipment and have access to different settings and modifying the setting according to a specific job requirement.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control method and system for construction machinery as taught by Jung in view of Geun-taek with adding manual control button/settings on the display interface in order to manually override/modify the default/current settings, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of having ease-of-use for the operator for controlling the heavy equipment and being able to modify the settings when required in order to improve the performance of the work machine/heavy equipment.
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent from independent claim 13 and is similar to claim 3 originating from claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected over the combination of the prior arts relied upon for claim 13 and same prior art used for the rejection of claim 3 and under the same motivation statement. Please see the rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent from independent claim 14 (dependent from independent claim 13) and is recited similar feature as in claims 4. Therefore, it is rejected over the combination of the prior arts relied upon for claim 13 and same prior art used for the rejection of claim 4 and under the same motivation statement. Please see the rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent from independent claim 13 and is similar to claim 5 originating from claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected over the combination of the prior arts relied upon for claim 13 and same prior art used for the rejection of claim 5 and under the same motivation statement. Please see the rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent from independent claim 16 (dependent from independent claim 13) and is recited similar feature as in claims 6. Therefore, it is rejected over the combination of the prior arts relied upon for claim 13 and same prior art used for the rejection of claim 6 and under the same motivation statement. Please see the rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent from independent claim 13 and recites similar feature as in claims 1 and 3. Therefore, it is rejected over the combination of the prior arts relied upon for claim 13 and same prior art used for the rejection of claims 1 and 3, under the same motivation statement. Please see the rejection for claim 1 and 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669