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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on June 26, 2026 amended claims 1, 2, and 5, canceled claim 3, and added new claims 6 and 7. No new matter has been added. Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are currently pending herein. Furthermore, amendments to drawings have overcome examiner’s objection to the drawings in the Office Action of March 30, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026, including addition of “Feature A” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments not rendered moot by the claim amendments have been addressed below.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant states that amended claim 1 including Feature A is patentable because Anders does not teach each element recited in amended claim 1. While Applicant is correct that Anders, when considered in isolation, does not recite all elements of amended claim 1, the combination of Anders, Kojima, and Yamagishi, as applied to claim 1 below discloses each element recited in amended claim 1, including Feature A.
On page 7, Applicant states that Kojima also fails to disclose Feature A because of absence of a cooling device. While Kojima, when considered alone or in combination with Anders, does not recite a cooling device, the aforementioned combination of Anders, Kojima, and Yamagishi discloses all elements of amended claim 2, including a cooling device as well as other elements of Feature A.
On page 8, Applicant states that Anders, Kojima, Yamagishi, and Kawashima do not disclose each element of Feature A because Kawashima is silent with regard to any cooling device. Applicant fails to note that Yamagishi teaches a cooling device, as presented in the combination applied to claim 1 below. Therefore, as stated earlier, the combination of Anders, Kojima, and Yamagishi discloses all elements of Feature A. Moreover, addition of Kawashima to the combination teaches every limitation of claim 4.
On pages 8 and 9, and with respect to claim 5, Applicant states Suzuki, considered together with the aforementioned combination does not disclose Feature A because Suzuki is silent as to hydraulic oil and a cooling device to cool the hydraulic oil. Applicant fails to acknowledge hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic storage device, pump, and accumulator recited by Anders, and the cooling device of Yamagishi configured to cool hydraulic oil. Note that further addition of Suzuki to the combination teaches every limitation of claim 5.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “a third flow path configured to connect the hydraulic pump and the accumulator”. However, specifications, drawings, and claim 2, upon which claim 6 depends refute such description. Specifications state that the third flow path “connects an intermediate portion of the first flow path P1 between the hydraulic pump 22 and the first check valve 28 and an intermediate portion of the second flow path P2 between the oil cooler 32 and the second check valve 31 to each other” (p. 7, lines 9-12). Figure 2 shows the hydraulic pump and the accumulator connected by the first flow path, not the third flow path. Specifications further support figure 2: “hydraulic pump 22 is connected to the accumulator 23 via a first flow path P1” (p. 6, lines 8-9). Similarly, claim 2 recites “first flow path is configured to connect the accumulator and the hydraulic pump to each other”. Examiner has understood the third flow path as described in the specifications and illustrated in figure 2.
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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders (US 2013/0006457 A1) and further in view of Kojima (JP 2020172973 A) and Yamagishi (JP H11269917 A).
Regarding claim 1, Anders discloses a work vehicle (machine 10, Fig. 1, ¶[0014]) comprising:
an electric motor (any one of electric motor/generators 34 or 46 shown in Fig. 2 and described in ¶¶[0019]-[0020]);
a traveling body (cab 16, Fig. 1) configured to be driven by the electric motor (“operation of motor/generator 46 results in cab 16 rotating relative to chassis 12”, ¶[0020], Figs. 1-2);
a hydraulic oil tank configured to store a hydraulic oil (“hydraulic storage device”, ¶[0022]);
a hydraulic pump (any one of hydraulic pump/motors 48a and 48b shown in Fig. 2 and described in ¶[0021]) configured to be driven by regenerative electric power of the electric motor, which is generated by braking of the traveling body (“…motor/generator 46 may be capable of slowing and stopping rotation of cab 16 in a regenerative manner that results in electric energy being generated that may be routed … to electric storage device 42”, ¶[0020], Fig. 2), and to pump the hydraulic oil in the hydraulic oil tank (“…electric energy in electric storage device 42 may be routed … to motor/generator 34, which may then use the electric energy to supplement engine 32 and/or drive one or more of hydraulic pump/motors 48a and 48b”, ¶[0020], Fig. 2); and
an accumulator configured to accumulate a pressure of the hydraulic oil pumped from the hydraulic pump (“Accumulator 54 is configured to store hydraulic energy captured during operation of power system 30”, ¶[0023], Fig. 2).
Anders does not identify a first flow path and a second flow path with a load element and a cooling device absorbing regenerative electric power. Kojima discloses a vehicle (industrial vehicle 100 shown in Fig. 1 and described in ¶[0023]) with a braking force regeneration system (¶[0026], Fig. 2) further comprising:
a first flow path (“Flow Path 1” shown in annotated figure 2 below, connecting the accumulator 40 to the pump 51),
wherein when the pressure of the accumulator is over a predetermined relief threshold (according to the first embodiment of the braking force regeneration system described in ¶[0030] and illustrated in annotated figure 2 below, relief valve 52 is controlled in an open state, allowing hydraulic oil to flow at set pressure P2 when a signal transmitted from the brake sensor 112 indicates the brake pedal 111 has been stepped on), the hydraulic oil is caused to flow via a second flow path (“Flow Path 2” shown in annotated figure 2 below, connecting an intermediate portion of Flow Path 1 and the tank 30),
the hydraulic oil flowing through the second flow path causes at least a first portion of the regenerative electric power to be absorbed by at least one load element (orifice 90, Fig. 4) located along the second flow path (as disclosed in ¶[0055], the second embodiment of the braking force regeneration system can include both the orifice 90 and the relief valve 52).
Anders and Kojima do not recite a cooling device for cooling the hydraulic oil. Yamagishi recites a construction machine (¶[0003], Fig. 4) wherein:
a second portion of the regenerative electric power is absorbed (“the first and second cooling fans 52 and 53 may be attached to the output shaft of the electric motor 52d”, ¶[0039], Fig. 1) by a cooling device (the cooling device described in ¶[0046] and shown in Figs. 1-2, comprising oil cooler 50, and first and second cooling fans 52 and 53), which is configured to cool the hydraulic oil (“in the cooling device for the construction machine, the cooling device cools the high-temperature working oil returned to the traveling device, the working device, and the like”, ¶[0019]) at a downstream side of the at least one load element (“hydraulic oil is discharged from the hydraulic pump 26 and heat is generated due to the pressure loss in the hydraulic circuit during the circulation of returning to the oil cooler 50 side, which occurs when the hydraulic oil is released from the relief valve”, ¶[0007]), being driven.
Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the work vehicle disclosed by Anders with the braking force regeneration system disclosed by Kojima and the cooling device disclosed by Yamagishi. The motivation for combining the braking force regeneration system would have been to generate braking force by increasing the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic oil flowing in the oil passage (¶[0037], Kojima). The motivation for combining the cooling device would have been to maintain the temperature of the working oil below the maximum usable temperature and avoid deterioration of seals or the like and seizure of moving parts (¶¶[0007]-[0008], Yamagishi). The combined vehicle would predictably achieve the desired results.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the first flow path is configured to connect the accumulator and the hydraulic pump to each other (annotated figure 2 below based on figure 2 of Kojima shows “Flow Path 1” connecting the accumulator 40 to the pump 51),
the second flow path is configured to connect an intermediate portion of the first flow path and the hydraulic oil tank to each other (“Flow Path 2”, shown in annotated figure 2 below, connecting an intermediate portion of Flow Path 1 and the tank 30), and
the work vehicle further comprising:
a solenoid valve (Kojima: “The relief valve 52 is a relief valve with an electromagnetic switching valve.”, ¶[0030], Fig. 2) provided in the second flow path (Relief valve 52 shown in Flow Path 2 in annotated figure 2 below) and configured to be controlled in an open state while the electric motor outputs the regenerative electric power and the hydraulic pump is driven (according to the first embodiment of the braking force regeneration system described by Kojima in ¶[0030] and illustrated in figure 2, relief valve 52 is controlled in an open state, allowing hydraulic oil to flow at set pressure P2 when a signal transmitted from the brake sensor 112 indicates the brake pedal 111 has been stepped on); and
a choke (orifice 90, Fig. 4, Kojima) provided downstream of the solenoid valve (as disclosed by Kojima in ¶[0055], the second embodiment of the braking force regeneration system described in ¶¶[0042]-[0045] and illustrated in figure 3, can include both the orifice 90 and the relief valve 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders, Kojima, and Yamagishi as applied to claim 1 above , and further in view of Kawashima et al. (WO 2017099063 A1) hereinafter “Kawashima”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1 further comprising:
a battery (Anders: “Electric storage device 42 may include one or more batteries and/or ultra-capacitors configured to store electric energy”, ¶[0019], Fig. 2); and
a charging device configured to charge the battery with the regenerative electric power of the electric motor (Anders: “Inverter 44 is electrically coupled to an electric motor/generator 46”, ¶[0020], Fig. 2).
Although Anders recites a control strategy for adjusting the level of power to be supplied or consumed by the electric and hydraulic storage devices (¶[0070], Fig. 5A), Anders does not specifically teach driving the hydraulic pump when a charging rate of the battery is a predetermined value or more. Kawashima discloses a working machine (§Description, p. 2, lines 67-68, Fig. 2) that operates the hydraulic pump 312 to supply hydraulic fluid to the pressure accumulator 315 when surplus power is supplied from the second drive system 320 (§Description, p. 4, lines 145-148). Kawashima recites the second drive system 320 comprising an electric power storage device as the energy supply unit (§Description, pp. 3-4, lines 120-127). Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the work vehicle disclosed by the combination with Kawashima’s operation of the hydraulic pump using surplus electric power. The motivation would have been to use or store surplus power across primary and secondary drive systems (Kawashima: §Description, p. 5, lines 169-172). The combined vehicle would predictably achieve the desired result.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders, Kojima, and Yamagishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2002203583 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1 further comprising:
a fuel cell (Anders: “Engine 32 may be supplemented by a hydrogen-powered engine, fuel-cell, solar cell, and/or any power source known to those skilled in the art.”, ¶[0018], Fig. 2), but the combination fails to recite the fuel cell supplying electric power to the electric motor. The combination is also silent regarding a cooling device for cooling the fuel cell. Suzuki discloses a fuel cell system (¶[0010], Fig. 1) configured to supply electric power to the electric motor (“the fuel cell stack 1 generates electric power to drive the drive motor 12”, ¶[0032], Fig. 1); wherein the cooling device (a cooling water supply pump for supplying cooling water to the fuel cell and a radiator fan for cooling the cooling water described in ¶[0023]) is configured to be driven by the regenerative electric power of the electric motor and to cool the fuel cell (as described in ¶[0013], surplus electric power including regenerative electric power is consumed by the external auxiliary device; where “…external auxiliary device is, for example, … the cooling water supply pump …, a radiator fan”, [¶0040]).
Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the work vehicle disclosed by the combination with the fuel cell system of Suzuki. The motivation would have been to provide “a control device for a fuel cell system that can always maintain a sufficient charge level and reliably consume surplus power” (Suzuki: ¶[0009]). The combined vehicle would predictably achieve the desired results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a third flow path connecting an intermediate portion of the first flow path between the hydraulic pump and a first check valve and an intermediate portion of the second flow path between the oil cooler and a second check valve to each other, in combination with all other limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 6. The closest reference, Kojima (JP 2020172973 A) teaches first (“Flow Path 1” shown in annotated figure 2 above, connecting the accumulator 40 to the pump 51) and second (“Flow Path 2” shown in annotated figure 2 above, connecting an intermediate portion of Flow Path 1 and the tank 30) flow paths, but is silent regarding a third flow path connecting intermediate portions of the two flow paths.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 is allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art of record relates to hydraulic and regenerative systems having features relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD OMID NEYZARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9530. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/MOHAMMAD OMID NEYZARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights