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 Application
Claims 1, 3-7 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims. Claims 1, 3, and 7 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 10/30/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/30/2025, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims files on 10/30/2025, the rejection of the claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments according to the applicant’s Remarks filed on 10/30/2025, see pages 10-17 “Rejections under 35 U.S.C §§ 102 and 103”, with respect to claims 1 (and claim 7 including similar features), have been fully considered. With respect to claim 1, applicant’s amended claim 1 to clarify regrading term “sampling rate” and amended the claimed limitation to recite “a measurement condition setting section that sets a sampling rate in sampling a measured value of a pressure of the output signal of the pressure sensor during the specific action” and also added new limitation of “wherein the measurement condition setting section sets the sampling rate to be smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure and not to be 0 Sn times (n is an integer) the pulsation frequency.”. Applicant argued that Yamamoto (equivalent to Shinjiro in the non-final office action filed on 07/30/2025 and also in final office action below), fails to disclose or suggest a measurement condition setting that sets a discrete sampling rate relative to the pulsation frequency of the pump pressure which is corresponding to the claim limitation of “a measurement condition setting section that sets a sampling rate in sampling a measured value of a pressure of the output signal of the pressure sensor during the specific action”. The argument is persuasive. However, under the newly applied ground of rejection, Klosinski (the other prior art of the record) teaches setting a sampling rate in sampling a measured value of the output of the pressure sensor (See office action below). Further, applicant argued that Ogura (equivalent to Hiroshi in the non-final office action filed on 07/30/2025 and also in final office action below), concerns a display controller for a construction machine and is directed to how data and fault information are transmitted and displayed to the operator and does not disclose nay measurement condition setting section or sampling rate determination, however, Ogura is relied upon for the teaching of the limitation of “cause the display device to display a screen instructing the operator to operate the construction machine to perform a diagnostic action whicle showing the operator a difference between an actual posture and a diagnostic posture of the construction machine”, according to at least the cited paragraphs of Ogura in the rejection of claim 7 in non-final office action filed on 0/30/2025 or the final office action below. This is the office action that the combination of prior arts relied upon with Ogura would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the teaching of the recited limitation of claim 7. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 maintains (See the new ground of rejection for claim 7 below).
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
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 limitations are: “an action instruction section”, “a measurement condition setting section”, “a calculation section”, “an anomaly determination section”, and “an output section”, in claim 1. According to the instant specification (Fig., 4 and paragraph [0043], US 20240376695 A1), the diagnostic device is installed in the controller. Further paragraph [0043] discloses “The diagnostic device 40 for diagnosing the hydraulic pump 1 is configured to include a processor and a storage device. Various functions of the diagnostic device 40 are implemented by the execution of programs stored in the storage device by the processor.”. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner according to the instant application’s specification, these sections are interpreted as software/programs as part of the controller which are executed by the processor.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 § 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinjiro et al., JP 2013170509A, hereinafter “Shinjiro”, in view of Klosinski et al., US 20100011869 A1, hereinafter “Klosinski”..
Regarding claim 1, Shinjiro discloses A diagnostic device for diagnosing a pump mounted on a construction machine ([0001], “a hydraulic pump abnormality detection device that detects an abnormality in a hydraulic pump, and to a hydraulic working machine that is equipped with this abnormality detection device”, [0037], [0041], “diagnostic device”) and driven by a prime mover of the construction machine to supply pressure oil to a hydraulic actuator of the construction machine ([0002], [0020]-[0023]), by receiving an output signal of a pressure sensor that measures a pressure of the pump ([0052], [0064], [0069], “the pressure detector 51 continues to output a pressure detection signal corresponding to the discharge pressure Pv to the frequency analysis device 53,”), the diagnostic device comprising: an action instruction section that transmits action instruction information for causing the hydraulic actuator to perform a specific action ([0021], __according to the instant application Pg-pub, paragraph [0059], specific action means diagnostic action which reads on the abnormality detection device and diagnostic device as recited in at least the cited paragraph in the reference__); an anomaly determination section that determines whether there is an anomaly in the pump based on the calculated pressure pulsation amplitude ([0037], [0040], [0042]-[0043]); and an output section that causes a display device to display a determination result obtained by the anomaly determination section, ([0044]), “notifies the user of the results of the diagnosis by the diagnosis device 54 through the display device.”).
Shinjiro doesn’t explicitly teach a measurement condition setting section that sets a sampling rate in sampling a measured value of a pressure of the pump from the output signal of the sensor during the specific action, a calculation section that acquires a measured value of the pressure sampled during the specific action at the set sampling rate; and calculates a pressure pulsation amplitude of the pump, and wherein the measurement condition setting section sets the sampling rate to be smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure and not to be 0 Sn times (n is an integer) the pulsation frequency
However, Klosinski teaches a measurement condition setting section that sets a sampling rate in sampling a measured value of a pressure of the pump from the output signal of the sensor during the specific action (Kion, [0009], “sampling a differential pressure along a fluid flow and generating a pulsation diagnostic as a function of the differential pressure.”, [0049]-[0051], “the output rate for average pressure P-A, diagnostic P-D and indicator P-I is between about a tenth of a Hertz and about one Hertz (0.1-1.0 Hz),”, [0056]-[0057], claim 1); a calculation section that acquires a measured value of the pressure sampled during the specific action at the set sampling rate; and calculates a pressure pulsation amplitude of the pump (Koln, Abstract “indicative of a degree of process pulsation in the fluid flow.”, [0008], “The signal processor calculates the standard deviation of the differential pressure, and generates a pulsation diagnostic based on the standard deviation. The pulsation diagnostic indicates the degree of process pulsations in the fluid flow.” , [0009], “Changes in the pulsation diagnostic are indicative of changes in the process pulsation, including changes in pulsation amplitude and frequency.”, __ Note: indicating a degree of process pulsation in the fluid flow reads also on calculating a pressure pulsation amplitude of the pump, because as also mentioned in paragraph [0009] of the reference, changes in the process pulsation includes changes in pulsation amplitude and frequency__, [0034], [0082], [0092]), wherein the measurement condition setting section sets the sampling rate to be smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure and not to be 0.5n times (n is an integer) the pulsation frequency ([0060], “After transition 42, it is joined by a primary (high frequency) pulsation signal with frequency of about 120 Hz and relative amplitude of about 20%. The sampling frequency is approximately 22.2 Hz, corresponding to a sampling period of about 45 ms.”, __Note: According to Klosinski, the sampling frequency is 22.2 Hz and the high frequency component of the pressure signal is 120 Hz, which meets the claimed limitation of a sampling rate is smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure and not to be 0.5n times (n is an integer) the pulsation frequency __);
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 hydraulic pump abnormality detection device included in a working machine, which detects and display the anomaly to the operator as taught by Shinjiro with setting a sampling rate for monitoring the hydraulic pump at a defined value (obtained from the output pressure sensor), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing the number of sampling data and having a diagnostic device based on small dataset in order to improve the efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Shinjiro discloses wherein: the pump includes a plurality of pumps mounted on the construction machine; the calculation section acquires the measured value of the pressure for each of the plurality of pumps ([0080], “The abnormality detection devices 50, 150 described above are applied to the main pump, but may also be applied to the pilot pump, or may be applied to both the main pump and the pilot pump.”), and calculates the pressure pulsation amplitude for each of the plurality of pumps (at least, [0019], [0024], Fig.5, “ the relationship between the discharge pressure of the hydraulic pump and the components (amplitude) of the rotational frequency,”, [0042]-[0043], [0047]-[0050], [0055]); the anomaly determination section determines whether there is an anomaly in each of the plurality of pumps ([0080], “abnormality detection devices [] applied to both the main pump”, [0037], [0040], [0042]-[0043]); and the output section causes the display device to collectively display, in one screen of the display device, a determination result for each of the plurality of pumps ([0080], “abnormality detection devices [] applied to both the main pump”, [0044], [0055]-[0056]).
Although the invention is disclosed in a single reference, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, the claimed invention is a combination of different embodiments. The combination of the embodiments of this reference such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinjiro, in view of Klosinski, further in view of Brown et al., US 20170343575 A1, hereinafter “Brown” and Aoki et al., KR-101909844-B1, hereinafter “Aoki”
Regarding claim 3, Shinjiro disclose the diagnostic device for diagnosing the pump according to claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1), however, Shinjiro doesn’t explicitly teaches wherein: the measurement condition setting section sets a number of revolutions of the prime mover such that a sampling rate is smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure and not to be 0.5n times (n is an integer) the pulsation frequency; and the action instruction section transmits action instruction information for rotating the prime mover according to the set number of revolutions to the construction machine.
Nevertheless, Brown teaches a measurement device and method for assessing the rotational speed of a rotating equipment prime mover controlled by a governor. the measurement condition setting section sets a number of revolutions of the prime mover for setting a sampling rate ([0003], “keep the output of the prime mover at a constant level”, [0004], [0005], [0010], [0018]-[0019], [0020], “A full rotation of the reference gear 5 may take several measurement intervals i.e. sampling periods of the pulse counter. Depending on the structure of engine, e.g. the number of cylinders, a pulse pattern may correspond to one revolution or several revolutions of the reference gear 5”, [0021]-[0025], [0031]).
Klosinski teaches setting a sampling rate is smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure and not to be 0.5n times (n is an integer) the pulsation frequency; (See the rejection of claim 2 for this limitation) ([0009], “sampling a differential pressure along a fluid flow and generating a pulsation diagnostic as a function of the differential pressure.”, __sampling a differential pressure along a fluid flow reads on setting a sampling rate__, [0060], “After transition 42, it is joined by a primary (high frequency) pulsation signal with frequency of about 120 Hz and relative amplitude of about 20%. The sampling frequency is approximately 22.2 Hz, corresponding to a sampling period of about 45 ms.”, __Note: According to Klosinski, the sampling frequency is 22.2 Hz and the high frequency component of the pressure signal is 120 Hz, which meets the claimed limitation of a sampling rate is smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure and not to be 0.5n times (n is an integer) the pulsation frequency __);
Further, Aoki teaches the action instruction section transmits action instruction information for rotating the prime mover according to the set number of revolutions to the construction machine ([0005], “a prime mover control device”, [0023], “The limit selection switch (18) is operated by the operator to “normal” or “limited” and outputs to the controller (10) whether or not to limit the rotation speed of the engine”, __according to the cited paragraph and for example paragraphs [0033]-[0034], [0036], the reference teaches setting the number of revolution of the prime mover by controller if it is in the normal mode or by operator if it is in the limited mode__)
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 hydraulic pump abnormality detection device as taught by modified Shinjiro with adjusting the number of revolutions of the prime mover to control the sampling rate as taught by Brown and combine it with adjusting the revolution to get pressure samples at a defined sampling rate smaller than a pulsation frequency of the pressure as taught by Klosinski, and further include it with outputting the setting of the prime mover number of revolutions (rotation speed) to be adjusted by the operator as taught by Aoki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the increasing improving the controlling efficiency and also increasing the accuracy of the anomaly detection device by sampling the pressures over the entire range of the pressure pulsation amplitude.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinjiro in view of Klosinski, further in view of Sugimoto, US 10724896 B2, hereinafter “Sugimoto”.
Regarding claim 5, Shinjiro discloses the diagnostic device for diagnosing the pump according to claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1), however, Shinjiro doesn’t explicitly disclose the anomaly determination section identifies an anomaly level of the pump by comparing the calculated pressure pulsation amplitude with a plurality of thresholds having different values; and the output section outputs, to the display device, the identified anomaly level of the pump.
Nevertheless, Sugimoto teaches the anomaly determination section identifies an anomaly level of the pump by comparing the calculated pressure pulsation amplitude with a plurality of thresholds having different values; and the output section outputs, to the display device, the identified anomaly level of the pump (e.g., Fig. 3, Col 5, second paragraph, Col 6, Lines 18-25, “a zeroth level, a first level, and a second level, as the oil vibration level on the basis of the relationships in magnitude between the amplitude ΔP of pressure fluctuations and the first reference amplitude value ΔP1 and between the amplitude ΔP of pressure fluctuations and the second reference amplitude value ΔP2.” , Col 6, last paragraph and Col 7, first two paragraphs, and claim 16).
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 hydraulic pump abnormality detection device as taught by Shinjiro with diagnosis unit diagnosing the level of anomaly (oil vibration) by comparing the amplitude of pressure fluctuation to different references as taught by Sugimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the accuracy and precision of the determination results and quantifying the severity of the anomaly which help operator in prioritizing responses and improved system reliability.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinjiro in view of Klosinski, further in view of Hiroshi et al., EP 0990740 B1, hereinafter “Hiroshi”
Regarding claim 6, Shinjiro discloses wherein the construction machine is a hydraulic excavator including a front work device having a boom, an arm, and a bucket (Fig. 1 and [0026]); and the action instruction section outputs an action instruction for causing the display device to display a screen ([0044]).
Furthermore, Shinjiro discloses the display device which output the results of the anomaly determination and notify the operator of normal or abnormal situation; however, Shinjiro doesn’t explicitly disclose instructing an operator of the hydraulic excavator to operate the hydraulic excavator to perform a diagnostic action while showing the operator a difference between an actual posture and a diagnostic posture of the hydraulic excavator.
Nevertheless, Hiroshi teaches instructing an operator of the hydraulic excavator to operate the hydraulic excavator to perform a diagnostic action ([0001], “a display controller [] for a construction machine such as a hydraulic excavator, which can display detection information and fault information from a plurality of control units”, [0006], “the operator must keep particular attention to the display unit and operate the operating sections associated with the display unit”, [0080], “fault information is displayed”), while showing the operator a difference between an actual posture and a diagnostic posture of the hydraulic excavator(Fig 10, and [0043]-[0044] and also [0070]).
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 hydraulic pump abnormality detection device included in a working machine, which detects and display the anomaly to the operator as taught by modified Shinjiro with the step of instructing the operator with the diagnostic action as taught by Hiroshi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of removing the burden from the operator and also improve the speed and efficiency in work.
Regarding claim 7, Shinjiro discloses A construction machine ([0002], “hydraulic working machine”) including a lower traveling body that is able to self-propel, an upper turning body turnably supported relative to the lower traveling body; a front work device provided on the upper turning body (Fig.1, and [0026] teach similar structures for the working machine), a hydraulic actuator that drives the front work device (Fig. 1, [0002], “hydraulic actuator”), a pump that supplies pressure oil to the hydraulic actuator ([0002], “a piston pump (hydraulic pump) that discharges hydraulic oil to be supplied to the hydraulic actuator.”), a pressure sensor that measures a pressure of the pump ([0037], “pressure detector”, [0038]), and a display device that displays various kinds of information to an operator ([0044], “display device”), the construction machine comprising: a controller that causes the display device to display an operation instruction for an action of the front work device and diagnoses the pump ([0041], “The diagnostic device 54 is a device incorporating a microcomputer”, [0044], “notifies the user of the results of the diagnosis by the diagnosis device 54 through the display device.”), determine whether there is an anomaly in the pump based on the calculated pressure pulsation amplitude ([0037], [0040], [0042]-[0043]);and cause the display device to display a result of the determining whether there is an anomaly ([0044]), “notifies the user of the results of the diagnosis by the diagnosis device 54 through the display device.”).
Shinjiro doesn’t explicitly disclose set a sampling rate in sampling a measured value of the pressure during the diagnostic action, calculate a pressure pulsation amplitude of the pump based on a measured value of the pressure sampled during the diagnostic action at the set sampling rate, and the controller is configured to cause the display device to display a screen instructing the operator to operate the construction machine to perform a diagnostic action while showing the operator a difference between an actual posture and a diagnostic posture of the construction machine.
However, Klosinski teaches set a sampling rate in sampling a measured value of the pressure during the diagnostic action (Kion, [0009], “sampling a differential pressure along a fluid flow and generating a pulsation diagnostic as a function of the differential pressure.”, [0049]-[0051], “the output rate for average pressure P-A, diagnostic P-D and indicator P-I is between about a tenth of a Hertz and about one Hertz (0.1-1.0 Hz),”, [0056]-[0057], claim 1); calculate a pressure pulsation amplitude of the pump based on a measured value of the pressure sampled during the diagnostic action at the set sampling rate (Koln, Abstract “indicative of a degree of process pulsation in the fluid flow.”, [0008], “The signal processor calculates the standard deviation of the differential pressure, and generates a pulsation diagnostic based on the standard deviation. The pulsation diagnostic indicates the degree of process pulsations in the fluid flow.” , [0009], “Changes in the pulsation diagnostic are indicative of changes in the process pulsation, including changes in pulsation amplitude and frequency.”, __ Note: indicating a degree of process pulsation in the fluid flow reads also on calculating a pressure pulsation amplitude of the pump, because as also mentioned in paragraph [0009] of the reference, changes in the process pulsation includes changes in pulsation amplitude and frequency__);
However, Hiroshi teaches the controller is configured to cause the display device to display a screen instructing the operator to operate the construction machine to perform a diagnostic action ([0001], “a display controller [] for a construction machine such as a hydraulic excavator, which can display detection information and fault information from a plurality of control units”, [0006], “the operator must keep particular attention to the display unit and operate the operating sections associated with the display unit”, [0080], “fault information is displayed”), while showing the operator a difference between an actual posture and a diagnostic posture of the construction machine (Fig 10, and [0043]-[0044] and also [0070]).
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 hydraulic pump abnormality detection device included in a working machine, which detects and display the anomaly to the operator as taught by Shinjiro with setting a sampling rate for monitoring the hydraulic pump at a defined value (obtained from the output pressure sensor) as taught by Klosinski, and further with the step of instructing the operator with the diagnostic action as taught by Hiroshi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing the number of sampling data and having a diagnostic device based on small dataset in order to improve the efficiency of the device and also removing the burden from the operator and also improve the speed and efficiency in work, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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