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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 11 in the reply filed on 5/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 7-10 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/21/24 and 6/15/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gateau et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 2022118708 (hereinafter “Gateau”) in view of Anderson et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0224845 (hereinafter “Anderson”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Gateau discloses a drive device comprising: a first member (80); a second member (82) rotatable relative (See arrows showing rotation in Figure 2) to the first member so as to move closer to and away from the first member; an electric actuator (10.2 or 10.3) configured (electric motor) to rotate the second member relative to the first member;
Gateau fails to disclose a damper connected to the first member and the second member,wherein the damper is configured to drive in an enabled mode and a disabled mode, the enabled mode enables a function of mitigating an impact load applied to either one of the first member and the second member, and the disabled mode disables the function of mitigating an impact load applied to either one of the first member and the second member.
However, in the same field of endeavor Anderson discloses an active hydraulic vehicle suspension wherein a hydraulic actuator moves fluid to a respective side of a hydraulic actuator to provide preemptive damping to prevent undesired vibration and wherein a controller determines whether the suspension algorithm should be placed in active mode, semi active or passive mode depending on certain threshold. See Figure 1-4 and 1-5 and wherein the suspension system can be operated in a full active (predictive response) mode or a more traditional sense of a semi active mode (See, Paragraph [0884 and 0885] which discloses the two modes. See, Also Paragraph [0881] which disclose that the hydraulic actuation suspension system can be used in an excavator arm (the same field as the primary reference Gateau). See, Also Paragraph [00497].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gateau with the teachings of Anderson, specifically to modify Gateau by including an active suspension system as taught by Anderson because such a modification would produce a smoother response by allowing for the system to actively adjust the dampening to the condition ( as depending on the loading within the bucket a different sort of dampening would be beneficial) required by the system for a given operation, instead of being designed for general operation.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Gateau further discloses a drive device comprising:a boom rotatably coupled to a swing bracket provided on a vehicle body;an arm rotatably coupled to the boom;an attachment rotatably coupled to the arm; an electric actuator provided in at least one of a coupling portion between the swing bracket and the boom, a coupling portion between the boom and the arm, or a coupling portion between the arm and the attachment; Seem Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5.
Examiner notes it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to place a damper at all of the pivot points of the work machine such as the vehicle body and the swing bracket and configured to mitigate an impact load applied to the swing bracket, to reduce vibrations created during operation when actuating the various pivot points.
In Reference to Claim 3:
Gateau as modified further discloses wherein the damper includes an electric fluid actuator, wherein the electric fluid actuator includes: a cylinder (1-102);a fluid pump (1-114) configured to circulate a fluid to the cylinder; and a fluid actuator-adapted electric motor (1-116) configured to drive the fluid pump. See, Anderson Figure 1-4 which shows a simplified version and Figure 1-13 for a more detailed version of the same actuator.
In Reference to Claim 4:
Gateau as modified further discloses an actuator-adapted electric motor (See, Figure 1-13, Figure 21-2 through 21-4 ,and figure 10 which show various embodiment) ; and a speed reducer integrated with the actuator-adapted electric motor (See, Paragraph [0600] which discloses the use of a mechanical coupling featuring gears between the electric motor and pump),wherein the speed reducer includes: a case (the case of the motor housing; and a reduction mechanism (gear ratios) housed in the case and configured to decelerate rotation input from the actuator-adapted electric motor and output the decelerated rotation, and wherein the case also serves as a tank for storing the fluid.
Examiner notes it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a gear reduction as the linkage between the motor and pump output because it is well known due to the torque required by the fluid pump that motors are placed in a gear reduction to reduce the speed but increase their torque output to allow the motor to meet the torque requirement to power the pump.
In Reference to Claim 5:
Gateau as modified further discloses wherein the electric fluid actuator and the electric actuator are integrated together. Examiner notes that the limitation of integrated together without additional structural details is minimally further limiting as electric fluid actuator and the electric actuator are integrated together during operation as the active damper integrates with the actuation of the electric motor to reduce vibration.
In Reference to Claim 6:
Gateau further discloses where in the tube is exposed to external air (via hose). See, Andersen figure 11.4 which shows externally exposed conduits connecting. In addition, Examiner notes that in the field of work machines specifically in Excavator or Backhoes as shown by Gateau the hydraulic system features conduits with external air exposure running from the main chassis where the pump is housed off of the engine (pump receives power from engine).
In reference to Claim 11:
Gateau discloses a method for controlling a drive device, the drive device including: a first member (80); a second member (82) rotatable (See, Figure 2) relative to the first member so as to move closer to and away from the first member; an electric actuator (10.2 and 10.3) configured to rotate the second member relative to the first member; and
Gateau fails to disclose a damper connected to the first member and the second member, the damper being configured to drive in an enabled mode and a disabled mode, the enabled mode enabling a function of mitigating an impact load applied to either one of the first member and the second member, the disabled mode disabling the function of mitigating an impact load applied to either one of the first member and the second member, the control method comprising: putting the damper into the enabled mode when an impact load applied to either one of the first member and the second member exceeds a predetermined threshold; and putting the damper into the disabled mode when an impact load applied to either one of the first member and the second member is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, suspension systems for excavators (See, Paragraph [0881] which discloses Anderson’s applicability to work machines), Anderson discloses an active suspensions system arranged and coupled to an excavator arm or lift boom to provide an active suspension and wherein the determination of whether to enter active suspension is done by a conductor meeting a certain threshold to achieve operator comfort. See, Paragraphs [1482 and 1491]. See also, Figure 18-1 and 18-2 (although geared toward vehicle road suspension the same concept would be applied for excavator arms).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gateau with the teachings of Anderson, specifically to modify Gateau by including an active suspension system as taught by Anderson because such a modification would produce a smoother response by allowing for the system to actively adjust the dampening to the condition ( as depending on the loading within the bucket a different sort of dampening would be beneficial) required by the system for a given operation, instead of being designed for general operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights