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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 1/30/25. Amended Claims 1-5 are pending.
Regarding the previous specification objection, this is overcome by the specification amendments.
Regarding the previous drawing objections, the deletion of the Claim 1 subject matter from the claim renders this objection moot. Regarding the unlabeled rectangular boxes, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Reference characters (MPEP 608.02 V quoting 37 CFR 1.84(p)) are distinct from graphical drawing symbols and labeled representations (MPEP 608.02 V quoting 37 CFR 1.84(n); see also MPEP 608.02 IX).
Regarding the previous 112(f) interpretations, these were not argued. Examiner notes Claim 5 has been amended to now depend from Claim 2, thereby changing the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding the previous 112(b)/112(f) issue, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
902
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In the previous office action on pages 7-8, options (a) to (d) were given as ways to clarify the record. Applicant’s arguments appear to most closely align with (b) (“Applicant submits claim 1 recites sufficient structure.”) but this is contradicted by applicant’s citation to the language in the specification for structure, not language in the claim itself. Applicant’s arguments relying on the specification suggest the language is intended to invoke 112(f); if this is the case, the use of “means” is advised. The current claim language remains indefinite.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image2.png
76
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see the following action for treatment of the amended claims.
Regarding the previous prior art rejection under 103, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image3.png
200
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In Anand, the charge pump 178 is connected to lines 192 and 194 through check valves, as annotated below:
PNG
media_image4.png
264
217
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The charge pump 178 (“second hydraulic pump”) “produce[s] hydraulic power” for the “circuit”, contrary to applicant’s argument. Examiner notes the fluid supplied by pump 178 also supplies the actuator of the valve 306 in Fig. 3 for example. However examiner notes the language applicant is arguing is indefinite (please see below) so there may be some distinction that is not currently understood. Applicant is invited to more particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. In an effort to expedite examination and promote compact prosecution, please see the multiple rejections below with the understanding Anand may still be applicable depending on resolution of the 112(b) issues.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) (fv, dv, cd, s, cu, ui, v) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels; alternatively, graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate (MPEP 608.02 V and IX).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
i. “sensing device arranged for sensing properties of the hydraulic fluid” in claim 2 (interpreted as “sensing devices S”, p. 8, line 18-19, see specification objection above)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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.
Examiner notes:
The preamble has been interpreted as a statement of intended use (MPEP 2111.02 II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “the second hydraulic pump being configured to also produce hydraulic power for the open loop hydraulic circuit provided with the at least one hydraulic auxiliary actuator.” This is indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the open loop hydraulic circuit provided with the at least one hydraulic auxiliary actuator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Earlier in Claim 1, there is “the open hydraulic circuit” but this is claimed as “an open hydraulic circuit arranged as a common rail hydraulic circuit and configured to provide hydraulic fluid for the flushing system and for at least one auxiliary hydraulic actuator coupled to the open hydraulic circuit”; that is, the “open hydraulic circuit” is “coupled to” the “auxiliary hydraulic actuator”, where the elements are claimed as distinct from one another. Even if the clause were to read “the open [[loop]] hydraulic circuit provided with the at least one hydraulic auxiliary actuator” this too would lack antecedent basis as this in not in agreement with, and instead contradicts, the earlier claim language where the elements are distinct. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 1 limitation “at least one feed arrangement arranged for feeding a limited amount of additional hydraulic fluid to the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit from a separate hydraulic fluid source” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while “means” is not present the non-structural term “arrangement” is present. There is functional language but the elements that would seem to be invoked (pump Hp2) are also claimed in Claim 1 separately. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 5 recites “the control unit is configured to detect an operational state of the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit and is configured to generate control signals in response to the detected operational state for controlling at least the discharge valve of the flushing system”. This is indefinite. As best understood, there is no corresponding supporting structure for this claim limitation. The “control unit” is described as taking data from a “sensing device” but the controller itself is not understood as doing “detecting”. There may be a 112(a) written description issue. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (US 9845813).
A mining vehicle, comprising: at least one hydraulic system (Fig. 5), wherein the at least one hydraulic system is provided with at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit (ex. A) comprising: at least one first hydraulic pump (60) driven by at least one first motor (50); at least one hydraulic actuator (1), wherein pressurized hydraulic fluid is directed to circulate in the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit from an outlet port of the at least one first hydraulic pump to an inlet port of the at least one hydraulic actuator and further from an outlet port of the at least one hydraulic actuator to an inlet port of the at least one first hydraulic pump; and a flushing system including at least one feed arrangement (note 17a, 17b) arranged for feeding a limited amount of additional hydraulic fluid to the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit from a separate hydraulic fluid source (note 18), and a discharge arrangement (ex. with 27; or with 39) arranged for discharging a limited amount of used hydraulic fluid from the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit to the separate hydraulic fluid source, wherein the discharge arrangement includes at least one discharge valve (ex. 27; or 39), which is actively controlled under control of at least one control unit (57) and wherein fluid flow through the discharge valve is selectively controllable, the at least one hydraulic system including an open hydraulic circuit (with 61; or with 62) arranged as a common rail hydraulic circuit and configured to provide hydraulic fluid for the flushing system and for at least one auxiliary hydraulic actuator (3; or 5) coupled to the open hydraulic circuit, wherein the open hydraulic circuit is provided with a second hydraulic pump (61; or 62) driven by at least one dedicated second motor (51; or 52) arranged under control of the at least one control unit, the second hydraulic pump being configured to also produce hydraulic power for the open loop hydraulic circuit provided with the at least one hydraulic auxiliary actuator (Fig. 5).
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.
Claim 1, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dybing (US 9217447, previously cited) in view of Ramm (US 8443596, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Dybing teaches
A mining vehicle, comprising:
at least one hydraulic system, wherein the at least one hydraulic system is provided with at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit (with 212, 218, Fig. 2) comprising:
at least one first hydraulic pump (212) driven by at least one first motor (208);
at least one hydraulic actuator (218), wherein pressurized hydraulic fluid is directed to circulate in the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit from an outlet port of the at least one first hydraulic pump to an inlet port of the at least one hydraulic actuator and further from an outlet port of the at least one hydraulic actuator to an inlet port of the at least one first hydraulic pump; and
a flushing system including at least one feed arrangement (note 17a, 17b or note either 27 or 39) arranged for feeding a limited amount of additional hydraulic fluid to the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit from a separate hydraulic fluid source (ex. “reservoir”, ex. Col. 5, lines 30-37), and a discharge arrangement (with 248) arranged for discharging a limited amount of used hydraulic fluid from the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit to the separate hydraulic fluid source, wherein the discharge arrangement includes at least one discharge valve (248, ex. Col. 5, lines 37-43), which is actively controlled under control of at least one control unit and wherein fluid flow through the discharge valve is selectively controllable, the at least one hydraulic system including an open hydraulic circuit (with 202) arranged as a common rail hydraulic circuit and configured to provide hydraulic fluid for the flushing system (note 222, 224) and for at least one auxiliary hydraulic actuator (note one of 230, 232) coupled to the open hydraulic circuit, wherein the open hydraulic circuit is provided with a second hydraulic pump (202), the second hydraulic pump being configured to also produce hydraulic power for the open loop hydraulic circuit provided with the at least one hydraulic auxiliary actuator.
Dybing does not teach
a second hydraulic pump driven by at least one dedicated second motor arranged under control of the at least one control unit.
Dybing does state “In other embodiments, a dedicated motor may be used for the charge pump 202.” (Col. 4, lines 25-27).
Ramm teaches
For a vehicle with a hydraulic system,
a second hydraulic pump (15) driven by at least one dedicated second motor (19) arranged under control of the at least one control unit (4).
Ramm teaches this as an alternative to both pumps actuated by the same power source (Fig. 1).
The separate drive for the charge pump makes it possible for the pressure in the charge pressure circuit to be controlled according to the present demand and to therefore be independent of the operation of the internal combustion engine and of the main pump. Accordingly, the charge pump provides a sufficient volume flow of pressurized fluid at all times, even at low rotational speeds of the internal combustion engine and generally over the entire working range of the hydraulic machine. Said volume flow is at least approximately constant over the entire working range of the hydraulic machine and is in particular not dependent on the rotational speed of the internal combustion engine. The charge pump can therefore be of optimum design, which in physical terms means that it can be of significantly smaller design and have a lower power than is necessary in the prior art. The reduction in the power demand of the drive according to the invention of the charge pump leads to a corresponding improvement in the power balance of the hydraulic drive. Since no excess pressure must be dissipated in the charge pressure circuit, no unnecessary waste heat is generated here. This results in an advantageous reduction in cooler size and in coolant demand (Col. 2, lines 8-28).
Since both references are directed to vehicles with hydraulic systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second hydraulic pump of Dybing to be driven by a second motor as taught by Ramm in order to provide a sufficient volume flow of pressurized fluid at all times, even at low rotational speeds of the internal combustion engine and generally over the entire working range of the hydraulic machine. Additionally, the charge pump can therefore be of optimum design, which in physical terms means that it can be of significantly smaller design and have a lower power than is necessary in the prior art. The reduction in the power demand of the drive according to the invention of the charge pump leads to a corresponding improvement in the power balance of the hydraulic drive (Col. 2, lines 8-28).
Examiner note: In an effort to promote compact prosecution, examiner notes that pump 210 of Dybing could instead be considered the claimed “second hydraulic pump” with corresponding changes to citations and appropriate modification by Ramm.
Claims 2-5, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dybing in view of Ramm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rousseau et al. (US 20140150880, previously cited).
Regarding Claims 2-5, Dybing as modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit is provided with at least one sensing device arranged for sensing properties of the hydraulic fluid, and wherein the at least one control unit is configured to receive sensing data from the sensing device and is configured to generate control signals in response to the received sensing data for controlling at least the discharge valve of the flushing system,
wherein the sensing device is a temperature sensor arranged for sensing temperature of the hydraulic fluid,
wherein the at least one sensing device is a fluid condition monitoring sensor arranged for sensing fluid properties of the hydraulic fluid,
wherein the at least one control unit is configured to detect an operational state of the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit and is configured to generate control signals in response to the detected operational state for controlling at least the discharge valve of the flushing system.
Dybing states “Depending on specific application needs, an optional solenoid 248 may be utilized if further management of the charge flow is required. This will help ensure proper cooling and maximum pressure requirements through the cases of the motor 218 and the closed-loop pump 212. The solenoid 248 may be controlled by the electronic controller 240, depending on specific operating conditions.” (Col. 5, lines 37-43). Dybing also shows sensors in Figs. 3-5.
Rousseau teaches
For a hydraulic system,
wherein the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit is provided with at least one sensing device arranged for sensing properties of the hydraulic fluid, and wherein the at least one control unit is configured to receive sensing data from the sensing device and is configured to generate control signals in response to the received sensing data for controlling at least the discharge valve of the flushing system,
wherein the sensing device is a temperature sensor (93 or 95) arranged for sensing temperature of the hydraulic fluid,
wherein the at least one sensing device is a fluid condition monitoring sensor (93 or 95) arranged for sensing fluid properties of the hydraulic fluid,
wherein the at least one control unit is configured to detect (via 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 or 99; ex. [0034-0042]) an operational state of the at least one closed loop hydraulic circuit and is configured to generate control signals in response to the detected operational state for controlling at least the discharge valve (90) of the flushing system.
Since both references are directed to hydraulic systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic system of Dybing to use sensors and control as taught by Rousseau in order to provide feedback over the operation of the system; this provides the advantage of allowing for control over operational conditions, such as the temperatures is too low(ex. [0038]) or too high (ex. [0037, 0041)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gepraegs on the 892 teaches elements of the instant invention.
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 MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am-4pm.
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)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745