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 .
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) are:
Claim 1:
a state detection unit configured to detect a state of work travel
a transmission control unit configured to control transmission states of the travel transmission system;
Claims 13 and 19:
a remaining amount detection unit configured to detect a remaining amount of the energy stored;
transmission control unit configured to control transmission states;
Claims 15 and 21:
a notification unit configured to issue a predetermined notification.
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.
State detection unit and transmission control unit: controller 50; paragraph [0072] of the specification;
Remaining amount detection unit: Controller 60, paragraph [0100] of the specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because claims 15 and 21 purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision for the “notification unit” and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 16 depends from claim 15 include all of its limitations, but does not cure its deficiencies, rendering it rejected under the same rationale.
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 15, 16, and 21 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 limitation “a notification unit configured to issue a predetermined notification” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15, include all of its limitations, but does not cure its deficiencies, rendering it rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OKAZAKI (EP4454447A1).
Regarding claim 1, OKAZAKI discloses an electric work vehicle comprising:
a battery ([0026]: battery 4); a motor configured to generate motive power by receiving supply of electric power from the battery (motor M, [0027]);
a traveling device configured to operate by the motive power ([0030]: Wheels 10, 11; fig. 3);
a work power output portion configured to output the motive power to be supplied to a working device configured to perform work (output shafts 17 and 18; see fig. 3, paragraph [0030]);
a travel transmission system configured to transmit the motive power from the motor to the traveling device (fig. 3, transmission system linking the motor M with the wheels 10 and 11);
a work transmission system configured to transmit the motive power from the motor to the work power output portion (see fig. 3, transmission system linking the motor M with the output shafts 17 and 18); and
a state detection unit configured to detect a state of work travel (fig. 10. Step S11); and
a transmission control unit configured to control transmission states of the travel transmission system and the work transmission system wherein in response to the state detection unit detecting that the work travel is in a predetermined low work travel state, the transmission control unit performs power conservation control for reducing the electric power consumed by the motor (see fig. 6 and 9 showing a controller to control the two transmission systems by actuating on clutches 26, 27 and 72, or a pump swash plate in a hydraulic pump 15a; see also figure 4 for a detailed view of the transmission systems and showing that the transmission control unit reduces the power motor, thus conserving power, name “decrease control”; [0068]-[0080]; [0078]; [0101]);
Regarding claim 2, OKAZAKI discloses in the power conservation control, the transmission control unit reduces the motive power generated by the motor ([0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 3, OKAZAKI discloses the motive power generated by the motor is output via a propeller shaft configured to rotate according to the motive power, and wherein in the power conservation control, the transmission control unit reduces a rotation speed of the propeller shaft ([0082]; [004]).
Regarding claim 4, OKAZAKI discloses the transmission control unit stops transmission of the motive power by the work transmission system upon elapse of a predetermined first time period after the motive power is reduced ([0082]; [0084]).
Regarding claim 5, OKAZAKI discloses in the power conservation control, the transmission control unit stops transmission of the motive power by the work transmission system ([0082]).
Regarding claim 6, OKAZAKI discloses the transmission control unit stops transmission of the motive power by the work transmission system by stopping output of the motive power from the work power output portion ([0072]).
Regarding claim 7, OKAZAKI discloses the low work travel state is a state in which transmission of the motive power to the traveling device in the travel transmission system is stopped ([0082]).
Regarding claim 8, OKAZAKI discloses the travel transmission system comprises a continuously variable transmission configured to change a speed of the motive power, the electric work vehicle further comprises a travel operation tool configured to receive an operation on the continuously variable transmission, and the low work travel state is a state in which the travel operation tool has been operated to a position of operating the continuously variable transmission to a neutral position ([0074] and [0083]).
Regarding claim 9, OKAZAKI discloses the travel transmission system comprises a continuously variable transmission configured to change a speed of the motive power, and wherein the low work travel state is a state in which the continuously variable transmission is at a neutral position ([0074]; [0083]).
Regarding claim 12, OKAZAKI discloses the motor comprises a traveling motor configured to drive the traveling device and a working motor configured to drive the working device, and wherein the transmission control unit reduces the motive power generated by at least one of the traveling motor and the working motor (Motor M; Hydraulic motor 15b).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAZAKI.
Regarding claim 10, OKAZAKI discloses the claimed invention except for the work operation tool configured to receive an operation on the working device, and wherein the low work travel state is a state in which the work operation tool has not been operated for a predetermined second time period or longer.
Nevertheless, examiner takes official notice that the vehicle would detect if the shaft is rotating and if the clutch is closed and would only reduce the motor a time after the clutch is open, i.e. the time required for friction to stop the rotation of the shaft after it has been disconnected. See MPEP 2144.03. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to make this value a predetermined time period (as an arbitrary feature) with the motivation of increasing power consumption efficiency.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAZAKI in view of Ito (US-20150006010).
Regarding claim 11, OKAZAKI does not explicitly state: the working device is attachable to and detachable from the work power output portion, the electric work vehicle further comprises a sensor configured to detect whether or not the working device is attached to the work power output portion, and the transmission control unit stops the power conservation control in response to the sensor detecting that the working device is attached to the work power output portion.
On the other hand, Ito teaches the working device is attachable to and detachable from the work power output portion, the electric work vehicle further comprises a sensor configured to detect whether or not the working device is attached to the work power output portion, and the transmission control unit stops the power conservation control in response to the sensor detecting that the working device is attached to the work power output portion ([0138]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the OKAZAKI reference and include features from the Ito reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more efficient energy consumption process.
Claims 13-14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAZAKI in view of Barik (US2015220340A1).
Regarding claim 13, OKAZAKI discloses a work vehicle comprising:
an energy storage portion configured to store energy ([0026]; 4);
a prime mover configured to generate motive power by receiving supply of the energy ([0027]);
a traveling device configured to operate by the motive power (Fig. 3 and 4, wheels 10 and 11 driven by motor (M));
a work power output portion configured to output the motive power to be supplied to a working device configured to perform work (fig. 3 and 4, [0031]; [0032]: mowing device 19);
a travel transmission system configured to transmit the motive power from the prime mover to the traveling device (fig. 3, transmission system connecting motor M with wheels 10, 11; Fig. 4);
a work transmission system configured to transmit the motive power from the prime mover to the work power output portion (Fig. 3, connecting the motor M with the work power output portion at 17 and 18; Fig. 4: shafts 17 and 18);
a transmission control unit configured to control transmission states of the travel transmission system and the work transmission system (see fig. 6 and 9 showing a controller to control the two transmission systems by actuating on clutches 26, 27 and 72, or a pump swash plate in a hydraulic pump 15a; see also figure 4 for a detailed view of the transmission systems and showing that the transmission control unit reduces the power motor, thus conserving power, name “decrease control”; [0068]-[0080]; [0078]; [0101]).
However, OKAZAKI does not explicitly state a remaining amount detection unit configured to detect a remaining amount of the energy stored in the energy storage unit; and wherein the transmission control unit performs conservation control for stopping output of the motive power from the work power output portion in response to the remaining amount detection unit detecting that the remaining amount is less than or equal to a predetermined reference remaining amount.
On the other hand, Barik teaches a remaining amount detection unit configured to detect a remaining amount of the energy stored in the energy storage unit; and wherein the transmission control unit performs conservation control for stopping output of the motive power from the work power output portion in response to the remaining amount detection unit detecting that the remaining amount is less than or equal to a predetermined reference remaining amount ([0036]: “the sensor 310 may detect a level of power remaining in a battery, may detect the availability (or lack thereof) of AC mains power, etc., that may serve as a trigger to dynamically change the energy policy. In particular, where a level of available power remaining in a battery falls below a selected threshold, the processor component 350 may alter the policy data 331 to reflect a change in energy policy from a selected balance favoring reducing time to execute instances of the instruction blocks 375 a and/or 375 b , to a selected balance favoring reducing electric power consumed to execute instances”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the OKAZAKI reference and include features from the Barik reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Reducing the power consumed by the motor in a situation where the available energy is not enough provides efficient energy consumption.
Regarding claim 14, OKAZAKI discloses the transmission control unit stops output of the motive power from the work power output portion by stopping transmission of the motive power by the work transmission system ([0072]; [0078]).
Regarding claim 17, OKAZAKI discloses the prime mover is a motor, the energy is electric power, and the energy storage unit is a battery ([0033]).
Regarding claim 19, OKAZAKI discloses:
a work vehicle comprising: an energy storage portion configured to store energy ([0026]; 4);
a prime mover configured to generate motive power by receiving supply of the energy ([0027]);
a traveling device configured to operate by the motive power (Fig. 3 and 4, wheels 10 and 11 driven by motor (M));
a work power output portion configured to output the motive power to be supplied to a working device configured to perform work (fig. 3 and 4, [0031]; [0032]: mowing device 19);
a travel transmission system configured to transmit the motive power from the prime mover to the traveling device; a work transmission system configured to transmit the motive power from the prime mover to the work power output portion (fig. 3, transmission system connecting motor M with wheels 10, 11; Fig. 4);
a transmission control unit configured to control transmission states of the travel transmission system and the work transmission system, and wherein the travel transmission system comprises a continuously variable transmission configured to change a speed of the motive power input to a hydraulic pump and output the resulting motive power from a hydraulic motor ([0074] and [0083]), and
wherein the transmission control unit performs conservation control for reducing the motive power input to the hydraulic pump (see fig. 6 and 9 showing a controller to control the two transmission systems by actuating on clutches 26, 27 and 72, or a pump swash plate in a hydraulic pump 15a; see also figure 4 for a detailed view of the transmission systems and showing that the transmission control unit reduces the power motor, thus conserving power, name “decrease control”; [0068]-[0080]; [0078]; [0101]).
However, OKAZAKI does not explicitly state a remaining amount detection unit configured to detect a remaining amount of the energy stored in the energy storage unit; and wherein the transmission control unit performs conservation control for reducing the motive power input to the hydraulic pump in response to the remaining amount detection unit detecting that the remaining amount is less than or equal to a predetermined reference remaining amount.
On the other hand, Barik teaches a remaining amount detection unit configured to detect a remaining amount of the energy stored in the energy storage unit; and wherein the transmission control unit performs conservation control for reducing the motive power input to the hydraulic pump in response to the remaining amount detection unit detecting that the remaining amount is less than or equal to a predetermined reference remaining amount. ([0036]: “the sensor 310 may detect a level of power remaining in a battery, may detect the availability (or lack thereof) of AC mains power, etc., that may serve as a trigger to dynamically change the energy policy. In particular, where a level of available power remaining in a battery falls below a selected threshold, the processor component 350 may alter the policy data 331 to reflect a change in energy policy from a selected balance favoring reducing time to execute instances of the instruction blocks 375 a and/or 375 b , to a selected balance favoring reducing electric power consumed to execute instances”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the OKAZAKI reference and include features from the Barik reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Reducing the power consumed by the motor in a situation where the available energy is not enough provides efficient energy consumption.
Regarding claim 20, OKAZAKI discloses the motive power is transmitted to the hydraulic pump as rotational motive power of a propeller shaft, the propeller shaft comprises a gear shift device, and the transmission control unit reduces the motive power input to the hydraulic pump by reducing a rotation speed of the propeller shaft using the gear shift device ([0072]; [0075]; [0076]; [0078]).
Regarding claim 23, OKAZAKI discloses the prime mover is a motor, the energy is electric power, and the energy storage unit is a battery ([0033]).
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAZAKI and Barik in further view of YAMADA (JP-2007125934-A; Examiner relied on English translation attached herein).
Regarding claims 15 and 22, OKAZAKI does not explicitly state a notification unit configured to issue a predetermined notification, and wherein in response to performing the conservation control, the transmission control unit causes the notification unit to issue the notification indicating that the conservation control is to be performed.
On the other hand, Yamada teaches a notification unit configured to issue a predetermined notification, and wherein in response to performing the conservation control, the transmission control unit causes the notification unit to issue the notification indicating that the conservation control is to be performed ([0010]; [0014]; [0020]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the OKAZAKI reference and include features from the Yamada reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more efficient power consumption.
Claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAZAKI and Barik in further view of Ito (US-20150006010).
Regarding claims 18 and 24, OKAZAKI does not explicitly state the prime mover is an engine and the energy is fuel.
On the other hand, Ito teaches the prime mover is an engine and the energy is fuel ([0005]; [0071]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to apply the teachings of the OKAZAKI reference with the hybrid vehicle in the Ito reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more efficient power consumption process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 22 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666