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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on December 11, 2025. Claims 1-3 were previously pending, of which claims 1 and 3 have been amended, claim 2 has been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-11 filed December 11, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, applicant’s amendment to claim 3 has addressed the condition recited in the objection. Therefore, the objection to the claim 3 is withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 3 have not addressed the condition using drive source, controller, or lock operation member. Therefore, the interpretation is maintained by the examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(b) Rejection , applicant’s amendment to claim 3 no longer recites "even if." Instead, the term "when" is used as suggested in the Office Action. Therefore, the rejection to claim 3 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding U.S.C. $102(a)(1) rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the Kaneda reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are not clearly defined in the prior art so the rejection to the amended independent claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, the new limitations from the amended claim 1 are not allowable in view of Misaki under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, the amended limitations of claim 3 merely remove the dependency by combining the original claim 1 limitations with the claim 3 amendment, thereby maintaining the 102(a)(1) rejection to the new independent claim 3. Therefore, the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/103 is presented in the Final Office Action below.
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:
“lock operation member” in claims 1 and 3. A review of the specification shows that it is a lock lever 5 (Fig.4) that allows a lock operation for invalidating the lever operation and a lock release operation for validating the lever operation applied to the operation levers 60L, 60R [0031].
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 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 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 being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaneda et al., US 2024/0060270 Al (Hereinafter, “Kaneda”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kaneda discloses a work machine, comprising: a drive source; a controller that controls start and stop of the drive source; See [0031], “FIG. 2 is a block diagram schematically showing a configuration of control and hydraulic systems of the hydraulic shovel 1. The hydraulic shovel 1 is provided with an electric motor 61.”
a controller switch that allows an on-operation for activating the controller and an off- operation for stopping the controller to be applied to the controller switch; See at least [0044], “Further, the hydraulic shovel 1 is provided with a key cylinder 91. A key for the operator to give a command for drive-on, drive-start, and drive-off with respect to the drive of the electric motor 61 is inserted in the key cylinder 91. The key cylinder 91 incorporates a sensor that detects the key's tum positions (key on position, key start position, and key off position) which correspond to the drive-on, the drive-start, and the drive-off, respectively.”
an operation lever that allows a lever operation for moving an operation target to be applied to the operation lever; In [0026], “In particular, the levers 41b include a cut-off lever 41b2 other than an operation lever 41bl for driving the hydraulic actuator 73. The cut-off lever 41b2 is so provided on the left of the operation seat 41a as to turn up and down. The tum position of the cut-off lever 41b2 is detected by a cut-off switch 41c (see FIG. 2). The cut-off switch 41c is placed at a base end part of the cut-off lever 41b2.”
a lock operation member that allows a lock operation for invalidating the lever operation and a lock release operation for validating the lever operation to be applied to the lock operation member; See [0028], “Thus, the hydraulic shovel 1 of the present embodiment has the cut-off lever 41b2 that is turned up and down by the operator, and the cut-off switch 41c that, in conjunction with the action of turning the cut-off lever 41b2 upward, de-powers and cuts off the electromagnetic valve 75.”
a drive source switch that allows a start operation for starting the drive source and a stop operation for stopping the drive source to be applied to the drive source switch, wherein the controller is configured to start the drive source when judging that the lock release operation is applied to the lock operation member and the start operation is applied to the drive source switch in a state where the on-operation is applied to the controller switch and the controller has been activated, and configured to suspend the start of the drive source, when the lock release operation is not applied to the lock operation member the controller is configured to stop the drive source, during the driving of the drive source, when judging that an application of the lock operation to the lock operation member has been performed; In [0050], “Next, the startability seen when the operator turns the key thereby to start the electric motor is to be explained. FIG. 4 shows the turn position of the cut-off lever 41b2 and the turn position of the key, relative to the startability of the electric motor. When the operator is seated on the operation seat 41a and immediately turns the cut-off lever 41b2 downward ( cut-off switch 41c is on), the ECU 80 determines that safety is not secured. In this case, even the operator inserting the key into the key cylinder 91 thereby to turn the key fails to cause the ECU 80 to output the rotation command to the inverter 63, failing to start the electric motor 71 (start check function). Meanwhile, when the cut-off lever 41b2 is turned upward (cut-off switch 41c is off), the ECU 80 determines that safety is secured. In this case, the operator inserting the key into the key cylinder 91 thereby to turn the key from the key-off position via the key-on position to the key-start position causes the ECU 80 to output the rotation command to the inverter 63 based on the input of the key-start position detection signal.”
wherein the controller is configured to suspend the start of the drive source, after judging that the lock operation is applied to the lock operation member to stop the drive source, when judging that the start operation is applied to the drive source switch, and the lock release operation is applied to the lock operation member; See at least [0050], “FIG. 4 shows the turn position of the cut-off lever 41b2 and the turn position of the key, relative to the startability of the electric motor. When the operator is seated on the operation seat 41a and immediately turns the cut-off lever 41b2 downward (cut-off switch 41c is on), the ECU 80 determines that safety is not secured. In this case, even the operator inserting the key into the key cylinder 91 thereby to turn the key fails to cause the ECU 80 to output the rotation command to the inverter 63, failing to start the electric motor 71. “
start the drive source, after judging that the lock operation is applied to the lock operation member to stop the drive source, when judging that the lock release operation is applied to the lock operation member and the start operation is applied to the drive source switch. See at least [0050], “when the cut-off lever 41b2 is turned upward (cut-off switch 41c is off), the ECU 80 determines that safety is secured. In this case, the operator inserting the key into the key cylinder 91 thereby to turn the key from the key-off position via the key-on position to the key-start position causes the ECU 80 to output the rotation command to the inverter 63 based on the input of the key-start position detection signal. “ And [0052], “The inverter 63 supplies power to the electric motor 61 based on the rotation command. This causes the electric motor 61 to start (begin) rotating, and the rotation speed of the electric motor 61 slowly increases. Rotating of the electric motor 61 revolves the pilot pump 70 and the hydraulic pump 71.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda in view of Misaki et al., US 2022/0154427 A1 (Hereinafter, “Misaki”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kaneda discloses a work machine (1) comprising: a drive source (61); a controller (80) that controls start and stop of the drive source; See [0031], “FIG. 2 is a block diagram schematically showing a configuration of control and hydraulic systems of the hydraulic shovel 1. The hydraulic shovel 1 is provided with an electric motor 61.”
a controller switch (91) that is switched from an off-position to an on-position or from the on-position to the off-position, and allows an on-operation for activating the controller and an off-operation for stopping the controller to be applied to the controller switch; In [0044], “Further, the hydraulic shovel 1 is provided with a key cylinder 91. A key for the operator to give a command for drive-on, drive-start, and drive-off with respect to the drive of the electric motor 61 is inserted in the key cylinder 91. The key cylinder 91 incorporates a sensor that detects the key's tum positions (key on position, key start position, and key off position) which correspond to the drive-on, the drive-start, and the drive-off, respectively.”
an operation lever (41b) that allows a lever operation for moving an operation target to be applied to the operation lever; In [0026], “In particular, the levers 41b include a cut-off lever 41b2 other than an operation lever 41bl for driving the hydraulic actuator 73. The cut-off lever 41b2 is so provided on the left of the operation seat 41a as to turn up and down. The tum position of the cut-off lever 41b2 is detected by a cut-off switch 41c (see FIG. 2). The cut-off switch 41c is placed at a base end part of the cut-off lever 41b2.”
a lock operation member that allows a lock operation for invalidating the lever operation and a lock release operation for validating the lever operation to be applied to the lock operation member; See [0028], “Thus, the hydraulic shovel 1 of the present embodiment has the cut-off lever 41b2 that is turned up and down by the operator, and the cut-off switch 41c that, in conjunction with the action of turning the cut-off lever 41b2 upward, de-powers and cuts off the electromagnetic valve 75.”
a drive source switch that allows a start operation for starting the drive source and a stop operation for stopping the drive source to be applied to the drive source switch, wherein the controller is configured to start the drive source when judging that the lock release operation is applied to the lock operation member and the start operation is applied to the drive source switch in a state where the on-operation is applied to the controller switch and the controller has been activated, and configured to suspend the start of the drive source, when the lock release operation is not applied to the lock operation member or when the start operation is not applied to the drive source switch, in a state where the on-operation is applied to the controller switch and the controller has been activated , and the controller is configured to stop the drive source, during the driving of the drive source, when judging that any of an application of the off-operation to the controller switch, an application of the lock operation to the lock operation member, and an application of the . In [0050], “Next, the startability seen when the operator turns the key thereby to start the electric motor is to be explained. FIG. 4 shows the turn position of the cut-off lever 41b2 and the turn position of the key, relative to the startability of the electric motor. When the operator is seated on the operation seat 41a and immediately turns the cut-off lever 41b2 downward ( cut-off switch 41c is on), the ECU 80 determines that safety is not secured. In this case, even the operator inserting the key into the key cylinder 91 thereby to turn the key fails to cause the ECU 80 to output the rotation command to the inverter 63, failing to start the electric motor 71 (start check function). Meanwhile, when the cut-off lever 41b2 is turned upward (cut-off switch 41c is off), the ECU 80 determines that safety is secured. In this case, the operator inserting the key into the key cylinder 91 thereby to turn the key from the key-off position via the key-on position to the key-start position causes the ECU 80 to output the rotation command to the inverter 63 based on the input of the key-start position detection signal.”
Kaneda discloses a work machine that includes a controller switch and a cut-off lever, but does not exclusively disclose a separate drive source switch. However, Misaki teaches a work machine with an emergency stop switch. See at least [0029], “The emergency stop switch 48 is configured to function as a switch to stop movement of the excavator 100 … the emergency stop switch 48 outputs a command to an engine control unit, to stop the engine 11. Note that the emergency stop switch 48 may be a hand-push switch arranged around the driving seat.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kaneda’s electric work machine with the emergency stop limitations disclosed in Misaki with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the operator to stop all movement of the work machine, see Misaki [0029].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669