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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed with RCE on 02/19/2026 for application number 18/603,552, in which claims 1-9 were originally presented for examination on 03/13/2024. Claims 1, 2 & 9 are currently amended, and claims 7 & 8 have been previously cancelled. Accordingly, Claims 1-6 & 9 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT-102023000004806, filed on 03/14/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2024 has been received and considered.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission(s) filed on 02/19/2026 has/have been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1) and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Garramone (EP-3933121-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite …
However, Garramone fails to disclose the above-quoted claim limitation. …
However, as described in Paragraph [0061] of Garramone, this adaptation of the hydraulic transmission requires increasing the displacement of the pump. In fact, it is unclear how a hydraulic transmission could maintain a constant vehicle speed with reduced prime mover (engine) speed without increasing pump displacement. This is the opposite of reducing displacement. Thus, Garramone fails to disclose limiting the displacement of a variable displacement hydraulic pump when the current speed is lower than a predetermined speed threshold” (see Remarks pages 5-7; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claims 1 & 9 apparently to overcome the current anticipation rejection under §102(a)(1) as recited in the Final Office Action mailed on 02/19/2026. Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below. In response to Applicant’s argument that the references is unclear on certain features, it is noted that the said reference has same Applicant and Inventors of the instant application.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §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 & 3-9 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Patent Publication No. EP-3933121-A1 to Garramone et al. (hereinafter “Garramone”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 05/02/2024
As per claim 1, Garramone discloses a method for controlling a propulsion system of a work or agricultural vehicle, the propulsion system comprising a prime mover and a hydraulic transmission comprising a variable displacement hydraulic pump, the variable displacement hydraulic pump configured to be driven in rotation by the prime mover and a variable displacement hydraulic motor operatively connected to the variable displacement hydraulic pump by a forward hydraulic line and a return line (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 [reproduced here for convenience], Abstract and ¶¶30-41, discloses a method of controlling a propulsion system of a work or agricultural vehicle that comprises a Prime Mover to drive a variable geometry Hydraulic Pump (HP) in rotation, which feeds a Hydraulic Motor (HM), for vehicle propulsion, through a hydraulic line forward F and return R, hydraulic motor and hydraulic transmission), the method comprising:
operating the propulsion system in a first operating mode in which an inclination of an accelerator lever of the work or agricultural vehicle indicates a proportional rotational speed of the prime mover and a corresponding proportional displacement of the variable displacement hydraulic pump (Garramone, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 2 and ¶¶59-61, discloses a first operating mode in which the inclination of the accelerator lever determines proportionally a rotation speed of the prime mover and consequently a proportional vehicle speed, wherein the adaptation of the hydraulic transmission includes the fact of increasing the displacement of the pump and/or of reducing the displacement of the hydraulic); and
PNG
media_image1.png
690
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Garramone’s Fig. 1
operating the propulsion system in a second operating mode in which inclination of the accelerator lever indicates a speed of the work or agricultural vehicle while the prime mover is operated at a predetermined fixed limit speed and a displacement of the variable displacement hydraulic pump is regulated to reach the indicated vehicle speed (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶59-66, discloses a second operating mode in which the inclination of the accelerator lever indicates a vehicle speed, while the prime mover is operated at a predetermined approximately fixed operating point, regardless of the vehicle speed, wherein the prime mover is operated at a predetermined engine point, while the accelerator lever controls only the hydraulic transmission, and a feedback control is activated which to control the displacement of the pump and/or hydraulic motor so as to keep the vehicle speed constant. Garramone further discloses the hydraulic pump is first checked until a target displacement which is approximately close to the maximum displacement is reached, then the feedback control on the hydraulic motor is activated, keeping the pump displacement unchanged), wherein operating the propulsion system, in the second operating mode comprises:
acquiring a current speed of the work or agricultural vehicle (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶13-19 & 59-66, discloses the second operating mode, wherein the speed of the vehicle is monitored. Garramone, in claim 13 ln. 7, further discloses the second operating mode wherein said lever inclination determines a vehicle speed);
comparing the current speed of the work or agricultural vehicle to a predetermined speed threshold (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶13-19 & 59-66, discloses a feedback control is activated which to control the displacement of the pump and/or hydraulic motor so as to keep the vehicle speed constant [i.e., comparing the current speed … to a predetermined speed threshold]); and
reducing the displacement of the variable displacement hydraulic pump when the current speed is lower than the predetermined speed threshold (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶13-19 & 59-66, discloses the second operating mode, wherein the prime mover is operated at a predetermined engine point, while the accelerator lever controls only the hydraulic transmission, and a feedback control is activated which to control the displacement of the pump and/or hydraulic motor so as to keep the vehicle speed constant. Garramone further discloses the hydraulic pump is first checked until a target displacement which is approximately close to the maximum displacement is reached, then the feedback control on the hydraulic motor is activated, keeping the pump displacement unchanged. Garramone also discloses the processing unit that controls the operation of the prime mover and the transmission causes a reduction in the displacement of the hydraulic motor. See ¶¶16 & 61).
As per claim 3, Garramone discloses the method according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Garramone further discloses wherein a first limit threshold is set by a man/machine interface (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶38-40, discloses vehicle processing unit UCM interfaces with the ECU engine control processing unit and controls the hydraulic transmission HY as well as monitors the position of the vehicle’s control levers, buttons and controls [implies man/machine interface means], both in relation to vehicle movement and arms, shovels operation etc., which the work vehicle is or can be equipped with, wherein a single processing unit can control both the prime mover and all other vehicle functions and monitor the activation of controls by the operator).
As per claim 4, Garramone discloses the method according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Garramone further discloses wherein the predetermined speed threshold is set by means of a man/machine interface (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶38-43, discloses AP, the accelerator pedal, and HT the manual accelerator lever, wherein the first "PEDAL" graph refers to the position of the accelerator lever. Zero indicates that the accelerator is fully released, while 100 indicates that the accelerator is fully depressed to obtain the maximum possible forward (or backward) speed of the vehicle).
As per claim 5, Garramone discloses the method according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Garramone further discloses wherein operating the propulsion system in the second operating mode comprises in cyclical succession:
monitoring a current operating condition;
when the current operating condition is an economy mode, proceeding with the method, otherwise returning to monitoring the current operating condition;
acquiring the vehicle speed; and
when the vehicle speed is lower than the predetermined speed threshold;
setting of a displacement limit threshold for the hydraulic pump; otherwise,
elimination of the displacement limit threshold of the variable displacement hydraulic pump (Garramone, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 3 and ¶¶13-21 & 59-66, discloses the ECO operating mode is interrupted, returning to the basic accelerator operating mode, wherein ECO mode is maintained within certain operating conditions, avoiding continuous switching between the first and second operating modes. Garramone, in claim 13 ln. 7, further discloses the second operating mode wherein said lever inclination determines a vehicle speed. Garramone also discloses said second step determined the changeover to the second operating mode, wherein the second operating mode is defined hereafter as “ECO” mode, wherein the speed of the vehicle is monitored [i.e., acquiring the vehicle speed]. Garramone further discloses the second operating mode, wherein the prime mover is operated at a predetermined engine point, while the accelerator lever controls only the hydraulic transmission, and a feedback control is activated which to control the displacement of the pump and/or hydraulic motor so as to keep the vehicle speed constant. Garramone further discloses the hydraulic pump is first checked until a target displacement which is approximately close to the maximum displacement is reached, then the feedback control on the hydraulic motor is activated, keeping the pump displacement unchanged. Garramone also discloses the hydraulic pump is first checked until a target displacement which is approximately close to the maximum displacement is reached, then the feedback control on the hydraulic motor is activated, keeping the pump displacement unchanged).
As per claim 6, Garramone discloses the method according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Garramone further discloses comprising checking whether a travel direction selector of the work or agricultural vehicle is set to forward and, if so, checking a current operating condition, otherwise returning to monitoring of the current operating condition (Garramone, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 3 and ¶¶15, 58 & 63-66, discloses single lever allows to control both directions of travel. Garramone further discloses second step determined the changeover to the second operating mode).
As per claim 9, the claim is directed towards work or agricultural vehicle that recites similar limitations/ steps performed by the method of claim 1. The cited portions of Garramone used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to performed by the vehicle propulsion system of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Garramone (EP-3933121-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2014/0069092-A1 to Elliott et al. (hereinafter “Elliott”)
As per claim 2, Garramone discloses the method according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Garramone further discloses wherein reducing the displacement of the variable displacement hydraulic pump comprises setting a limit displacement threshold (Garramone, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶13-19 & 59-66, discloses the hydraulic pump is first checked until a target displacement which is approximately close to the maximum displacement is reached, then the feedback control on the hydraulic motor is activated, keeping the pump displacement unchanged. Garramone further discloses the processing unit that controls the operation of the prime mover and the transmission causes a reduction in the displacement of the hydraulic motor).
Garramone is silent on being to prevent slipping of a wheel of the work or agricultural vehicle. Elliott; in ¶¶33 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of work vehicles’ hydraulic pump control systems, teaches to prevent slipping of a wheel of the work or agricultural vehicle (Elliott, in at least ¶33, teaches selective reduction of the hydraulic fluid pressure to limit pump displacement and reduce motor torque output allow the operator to directly limit track/wheel slip).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garramone in view of Elliott, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - work vehicles control systems and the combination would provide controlling crowd force and lowering tractive efforts (see at least Elliott’s ¶33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached and previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
Shirao et al. (US-2010/0094515-A2) discloses a construction vehicle in which it is possible to minimize tire slippage, wherein rapid changes in pump displacement can thereby be suppressed, and tire slippage and sudden acceleration can also be suppressed. Shirao’s disclosed construction vehicle having a hydrostatic transmission, wherein the application aims at preventing a rapid change in the pump displacement which may cause the tires to slip or the vehicle to suddenly accelerate. This is achieved by controlling the displacement of a travel hydraulic pump so that the displacement of the travel hydraulic pump gradually changes according to the change in the primary circuit oil pressure while the primary circuit oil pressure is limited so as not to exceed the cut-off pressure value. See at least ¶¶6-8
Yi Xiaogang (WO-2009092230-A1) discloses anti-skidding method for a construction vehicle with a hydraulic transmission, system thereof, and grader, wherein the invention provides a hydraulic transmission engineering vehicle anti-slip system, wherein the displacement of the hydraulic pump is limited. The anti-sliding method for a hydraulic transmission engineering vehicle characterized in that, if the measured rotational speed information indicates that the rotational speed of the hydraulic motor exceeds the maximum allowable rotational speed, the hydraulic motor's displacement is adjusted to the lowest displacement and limits the displacement of the hydraulic pump.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights