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 January 28, 2026. Claims 1-10 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 3 and 9 have been amended, no have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-13 filed January 28, 2026; 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 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and 9 have not addressed the condition using the means plus function to support the remaining limitations that are defined by “units or controller” so the interpretation is hereby maintained by the examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejection , applicant’s amendment has amended the limitation to claim 3 in the rejection, foregoing the condition. Therefore, the rejection to the claim is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the vehicle controller transmits each control command under conditions where both the discharge pressure from the second hydraulic pump and the engine load factor are used as control conditions while driving is stopped) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive . Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariga et al., US2008/0072588 A1 (Hereinafter, “Ariga”) in view of Sakamoto et al., US 20150354171 A1 (Hereinafter “Sakamoto”), in further view of Goli et al., US2017/0088138A1 (Hereinafter, “Goli”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Ariga discloses a working vehicle comprising: an engine (10); a first hydraulic pump (1) and a second hydraulic pump (2) which are operated by the engine; a travel unit (100) operated by the first hydraulic pump; a working unit (101) operated by the second hydraulic pump; an operation unit (70) configured to operate the travel unit and the working unit; See at least Fig.1, [0081-0087], and [0101-0104].
an ECU (70) configured to control an engine output; and a vehicle-controller (72) configured to transmit a control command of an economy mode or a control command of a standard mode to the ECU, See at least [0105], “revolution speed control of the prime mover 10, a mode selection switch 72 is disposed, as shown in FIG. 6, to select one of a standard mode and an economy mode. A signal representing a mode selection command EM is taken from the mode selection switch 72 into the controller 70. The standard mode is a mode in which the target revolution speed is changeable by the engine control dial 71 and a maximum rated engine revolution speed is set; namely, it is used as a power mode. The economy mode is a mode in which the engine revolution speed is reduced by a certain amount regardless of the operating situation of an excavator body.”
Ariga discloses a work machine with an available economy mode, but does not disclose the operating characteristics. However, Sakamoto teaches: wherein the vehicle-controller transmits the control command of the standard mode to the ECU when the travel unit stopped and a first period is elapsed, with a discharge pressure from the second hydraulic pump being equal to or higher than a reference value, and an engine load factor being equal to or higher than a predetermined upper limit, the vehicle-controller transmits the control command of the economy mode to the ECU when a second period is elapsed, with the engine load factor being equal to or lower than a predetermined lower limit, See at least [0061-0068], “At this time, unlike FIG. 7 illustrating the transition from the ECO mode (the fuel-efficiency priority mode in FIG. 7) to the PWR mode (the standard mode in FIG. 7) of the conventional technique, the output of the engine 22 is not reduced at the time t1. This reduces the state where the output of the hydraulic pump 41 is larger than the output of the engine 22, so as to reduce the change in charge amount of the battery 24 due to the powering electric power of the generator-motor 23 … As just described, the average value, which is calculated in the ECO mode, of the output of the hydraulic pump 41 is not reflected in the magnitude of the output of the engine 22 in the PWR mode. Accordingly, the operator considers the difference of work corresponding to the selected work mode so as to reduce the excess or deficiency between the output of the hydraulic pump 41 and the output of the engine 22. As a result, the output of the generator-motor 23 can be reduced so as to reduce the change in charge amount of the battery 24. This reduces the situation where the charge amount of the battery 24 exceeds the predetermined range of use so as to restrict the output of the generator-motor 23. Thus, the desired work output can be generated.” Also in [0078], ”As illustrated in FIG. 6, the work mode is subdivided taking into consideration not only the operation of the mode switch by the operator but also the lever manipulated variable, the load of the hydraulic pump 41, and similar parameter, so as to have the output reference value of the engine 22 for each work mode. This further reduces the excess or deficiency between the outputs of the engine 22 and the hydraulic pump 41 due to the difference of work.”
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 Ariga’s device with the operating limitations disclosed in Sakamoto with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a construction machine that appropriately sets the magnitude of the engine output for each work mode, see Sakamoto [0013].
Ariga discloses a work machine with an available economy mode, but does not explicitly disclose the control of economy mode based on vehicle movement. However, Goli teaches the vehicle-controller transmits the control command of the standard mode to the ECU when the travel unit is operated. See at least [0044], “After mapping of pedal displacement has been adjusted, control module 27 may use the new mapping to adjust fueling of power source 22 at the current engine speed and the current foot pedal position. In particular, control module 27 may selectively adjust fueling of power source 22 to correspond with values stored in the map for the current engine speed and for the current displacement position of foot pedal 18a. In other words, by adjusting the maximum displacement position of foot pedal 18a, all positions between the neutral position and the maximum displacement position may be automatically adjusted in the same direction by related amounts. In addition, control module 27 may adjust operation of transmission 24 based on the signal generated by foot pedal 18a and on the map.”
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 Ariga’s device with the vehicle movement limitations disclosed in Goli with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency, see Goli [0003].
Regarding Claim 2, Ariga discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
further comprising: a selection switch that enables the control command of the economy mode and the control command of the standard mode by the vehicle-controller, wherein the vehicle-controller selects the control command of the economy mode and the control command of the standard mode, and transmits the selected control commands to the ECU when the selection switch is enabled. See at least [0105], “in relation to the revolution speed control of the prime mover 10, a mode selection switch 72 is disposed, as shown in FIG. 6, to select one of a standard mode and an economy mode. A signal representing a mode selection command EM is taken from the mode selection switch 72 into the controller 70. The standard mode is a mode in which the target revolution speed is changeable by the engine control dial 71 and a maximum rated engine revolution speed is set; namely, it is used as a power mode. The economy mode is a mode in which the engine revolution speed is reduced by a certain amount regardless of the operating situation of an excavator body. “
Regarding Claim 3, Ariga does not explicitly disclose engine duty ratios. However, Goli teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein when the ECU receives the control command of the economy mode to perform control in the economy mode, the ECU suppress an upper limit of an engine rotation speed to a range of 0.75 times to 0.95 times of an upper limit of the engine rotation speed when performing control in the standard mode. See at least [0034], “Control module 27 may determine whether the desired mode of operation is the performance mode or one of any available economy modes (Block 505), and respond accordingly. For example, if the desired mode of operation is the performance mode, control module 27 may set the High Max Limit of power source 22 to a first engine speed (e.g., to Speed.sub.1), and set the Low Max Limit of power source 22 to a second engine speed that is less than the first engine speed (e.g., to Speed.sub.2<Speed.sub.1) (Block 510). However, if the desired mode of operation is an economy mode, control module 27 may instead set the High Max Limit of power source 22 to a third engine speed that, in the disclosed example, is the same as or less than the second engine speed (e.g., Speed.sub.3≦Speed.sub.2), and set the Low Max Limit to a fourth engine speed that is less than the third engine speed (e.g., Speed.sub.4<Speed.sub.3) (Block 515). In one example, Speed.sub.1 may be a maximum rated speed of power source 22 and about equal to 1600 rpm; Speed.sub.2 may be about 85-90% of Speed.sub.1 (i.e., about 10-15% less than Speed.sub.1 or about 1400 rpm); Speed.sub.3 may be about equal to Speed.sub.2 (i.e., about 1400 rpm); and Speed.sub.4 may be about 75% of Speed.sub.1 (i.e., about 1200 rpm). Other values and relationships for Speeds.sub.1-4 may also be possible.”
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 Ariga’s device with the engine speed limitations disclosed in Goli with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine a margin of available maximum torque based on the delay time threshold, see Goli [0009].
Regarding Claim 4, Ariga does not explicitly disclose timing thresholds. However, Goli teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the first period is set to 0.2 to 0.7 seconds, and the second period is set to 0.8 to 1.4 seconds. See at least [0037], “For example, when machine 10 is traveling at an elevated speed (e.g., above about 12 kph), the variable time threshold may be a first value (e.g., about 0.4 sec). In another example, when machine 10 is traveling at a low speed (e.g., below about 7 kph), the variable time threshold may be a second value (e.g., about 2 seconds). And when machine 10 is traveling between the high and low speeds, the variable time threshold may have a value between the first and second values. For the purposes of this disclosure, the term “about” may refer to a value that is within engineering tolerances.”
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 Ariga’s device with the mode selection timing limitations disclosed in Goli with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine a delay time threshold based on the margin of available maximum torque, see Goli [0009].
Claims 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariga in view of Sakamoto, in further view of Goli, in further view of Hoshino et al., US 2016/0076227A1 (Hereinafter, “Hoshino”).
Regarding Claims 5-8 and 10, Ariga does not explicitly disclose fuel injection ratios. However, Hoshino teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1 and 9:
wherein the vehicle-controller transmits the control command of the economy mode and the control command of the standard mode to the ECU by using the engine load factor calculated by the ECU based on a fuel injection factor of the engine. See at least [0043], “The engine 15 includes an electronic governor 15A that adjusts the fuel injection quantities to respective cylinders inside the engine 15. The hydraulic pump 21 can be, for example, a variable displacement hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump 21 includes a swash plate (not shown), and a regulator 21A of the positive control system that adjusts the displacement of the swash plate to control the flow rate of pressure oil to be delivered.” Also in [0052], “a target rotational speed setting dial that according to the details of work, selects a work mode such as an economy mode, which is a mode when light-load or medium-load work such as light digging work or grading work is performed, or a high-load mode which is a mode when work of a load higher than that for the economy mode is performed and that sets the target rotational speed for the engine 15 at a target rotational speed for the selected work mode.”
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 Ariga’s device with the fuel injection ratio limitations disclosed in Hoshino with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve accuracy of engine controls and prevent over-speed, see Hoshino [0019].
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
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669