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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hita et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0356163 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13 (Currently amended); Hita discloses a power control device (FIG. 3), method and program in an electric construction machine (Hybrid construction machine (¶ 3) equipped with a plurality of joint components (3, 12D, 12E, 12F; FIG. 1) and an electric power source (Electricity storage device 31, FIG. 2) that supplies power to a plurality of electric drive units (plural electric actuators ¶ 5) that drive the plurality of joint components (12F, 12E; FIG. 2), comprising:
a drive information acquisition unit that acquires drive information of the plurality of electric drive units (Revolving base requiring output calculation portion 43A, Boom-raising base requiring output calculating portion 43B, Other base requiring output calculating portion 43C; FIG. 9);
an identification unit that identifies the operation performed by the electric construction machine by the plurality of joint components based on the drive information (44A, 44B and 44C; FIG. 10); and
a determination unit that determines power to be supplied to the plurality of electric drive units in accordance with the identified operation of the electric construction machine (Output for Revolving electric motor and Boom cylinder, FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Hita discloses the power control device, wherein the drive information is at least one of an operation command received by an operation unit of the electric construction machine and a drive command for each of the plurality of electric drive units (operator can actively select mode configuration ¶ 19), and wherein
the identification unit identifies the operation performed by the electric construction machine based on the correspondence between the operation and the drive information stored in a storage unit and the acquired drive information (Operator mode selection ¶ 63 and engine control dial operable by operator ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 3, Hita discloses the power control device, wherein the joint component is at least one of a lower traveling body that can travel on the ground, an upper rotating body that is rotatably attached to the lower traveling body, a boom capable of being raised and lowered that is attached to the upper rotating body, an arm that is bendably attached to the boom, and a bucket that is bendably attached to the arm (3, 12; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently amended), Hita discloses the power control device, wherein the operation of the electric construction machine is a traveling operation (operating state of the traveling operation of the lower traveling structure ¶ 42), and wherein the determination unit determines that more power is supplied to the electric drive unit that drives the lower traveling body than power supplied to the electric drive units that drive the upper rotating body, the boom, the arm, and the bucket (43E, 43F; FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently amended), Hita discloses the power control device, wherein the operation of the electric construction machine is a rotating operation, and wherein
the determination unit determines that more power is supplied to the electric drive unit that drives the upper rotating body than power supplied to the electric drive units that drive the lower traveling body, the boom, the arm, and the bucket (43E, FIG. 9; FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently amended), Hita discloses the power control device, wherein the operation of the electric construction machine is at least one of a digging operation, a rotating and loading operation, a trench digging operation (Excavating operation ¶¶ 39, 42), and a ground leveling operation using the boom, the arm, and the bucket, and wherein the determination unit determines that more power is supplied to the electric drive units that drive the boom, the arm, and the bucket than power supplied to the electric drive unit that drives the lower traveling body (¶¶ 49-51).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently amended), Hita discloses the power control device, further comprising:
a power demand acquisition unit that acquires power demand of each of the plurality of electric drive units (FIGS. 7 and 9); and
an available power acquisition unit that acquires at least one of a charge rate and a dischargeable amount of a battery as available power, wherein the determination unit determines the power to be supplied to the plurality of electric drive units in accordance with the identified operation of the electric construction machine when the total of the power demand exceeds the available power (Discharge power limit value based on battery storage rate SOC, FIG. 5).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hita et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0356163 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0121940 A1).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently amended), Hita teaches the power control device, wherein each of the electric drive units includes a motor that generates rotational power (Motor generator output, FIG. 8).
Hita is silent to wherein the drive information includes at least one of a rotation speed of each of the motors and a current command value of the motor. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kawaguchi teaches a control apparatus for a hybrid construction machine configured with electric drive system including a generator, battery and a rotation sensor for detecting rotation speed of the electric swinging motor (¶ 38).
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 electric drive units including a motor taught by Hita to wherein the drive information includes at least one of a rotation speed of each of the motors and a current command value of the motor as taught by Kawaguchi to enhance fuel efficiency strategies (¶ 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights