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 . Claims 1-12 were previously pending. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 7, and 9 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the power distributor configured to distribute” should instead recite --wherein the power distributor is configured to distribute--.
Claim 1 recites “wherein regenerative braking power distribution system” but should instead recite --wherein the regenerative braking power distribution system--.
Claim 10 recites “a second electric motor” but should instead recite –[[a]]the second electric motor--.
Claim 10 recites “the second inverter” but should instead recite –the
Claim 11 recites “the third inverter” but should instead recite --the --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “excavation unit” in claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12, “movement unit” in claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 “controller” in claims 4-5, and “brake controller” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “excavation unit” in claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12, “movement unit” in claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 “controller” in claims 4-5, and “brake controller” in claim 12 all use a generic placeholder “unit” or “controller” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Excavation unit: Fig. 1 and [0045] – “Next, the excavation module 600 may control an excavation unit 680 of the construction machinery vehicle to operate. The excavation module 600 may include a first inverter 610, a pump unit P, a valve 650, a hydraulic oil tank 660, and a cylinder 670.”
Movement unit: Fig. 1 and [0054, 0057] – “The movement module 700 may include a second inverter 710 and the movement unit G, and the movement unit G may include a second electric motor 720 and a gear box 730… The gear box 730 connects the second electric motor 720 and the movement unit G, and may drive wheels W according to the operation of the second electric motor 720.”
Controller: [0012-0013, 0058, 0060] - A controller may be further provided to control the hydraulic pump 640. The controller may control the discharge amount of the hydraulic pump 640 so that power can be consumed in the excavation module 600… On the other hand, when the SOC of the battery 200 are lower than the certain level, the controller may control the discharge amount of the hydraulic pump 640 to become zero. Furthermore, the controller may set the discharge amount of the hydraulic pump 640 to zero when regenerative power is not consumed. In this case, the rotation speed of the motor usually becomes zero.
Brake controller: [0020, 0064-0065] - Further, according to an embodiment, the regenerative braking power distribution system may further include: a brake configured to make the vehicle brake; and a brake controller configured to electronically control the brake, wherein the brake controller increases a braking ratio of the brake based on the battery having the SOC conditions higher than a certain level or based on the vehicle having speed higher than a certain level.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utashiro (JP 2015-120437 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 12/12/2025 and is being relied upon) in view of Kang (US 2015/0267381 A1) and Duan (US 2020/0062126 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Utashiro discloses a regenerative braking power distribution system for a construction machinery vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0008] – hybrid work vehicle 2000, circuit block diagram), the regenerative braking power distribution system comprising: a battery configured to store power (see at least Fig. 2, [0014] – capacitor 3); an excavation module configured to control operations of an excavation unit of the construction machinery vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-2 – 5, 6, 9-14, 20, 201, collectively); a movement module configured to control operations of a movement unit of the construction machinery vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-2 – 7-8, 15-18, 35-36, collectively); and a power distributor connected to the battery, the excavation module, and the movement module, and configured to distribute power stored in the battery to the excavation module or the movement module (see at least Figs. 2-3, [0014, 0022, 0025, 0033-0034] - capacitor 3… power supplied to generator motor 5… power supplied to traction motors 7… main controller 100 includes electricity storage management unit 110 and output management unit 140), wherein the power distributor configured to distribute regenerative braking power generated in the movement module to the excavation module based on state of charge (SOC) conditions of the battery so that the distributed regenerative braking power is consumed in the excavation module (see at least Fig. 2, [0015, 0031, 0035-0036] – surplus power that exceeds the allowable charging power that can be charged to the capacitor 3 as regenerative power by the traction motors 7F, 7R during regenerative operation is consumed by driving the generator motor 5), wherein the excavation module comprises: a first electric motor (see at least Fig. 2 - 5) electrically connected to the power distributor (see at least Figs. 2-3); and a hydraulic pump (see at least Fig. 2 - 9) connected to the first electric motor and configured to discharge hydraulic oil (see at least Fig. 2, [0012-0013] – driven to supply hydraulic oil… output torque of the generator motor 5 is applied to the hydraulic pump 9), wherein regenerative braking power distribution system further comprises: a valve (see at least Fig. 2 - 11) placed on a line where the hydraulic oil is discharged from the hydraulic pump and configured to control flow of the hydraulic oil (see at least Fig. 2, [0012] - control valve 11 is a control valve that controls the flow of hydraulic oil); and a hydraulic oil tank (see at least Fig. 2 - 10) connected to the valve and the hydraulic pump (see at least Fig. 2) and configured to store the hydraulic oil (see at least Fig. 2, [0012] – hydraulic oil in oil tank 10), wherein the hydraulic pump, the valve, and the hydraulic oil tank form a circulation loop where the hydraulic oil circulates (see at least Figs. 2, 9, [0012, 0097]), wherein the movement module comprises a second electric motor (see at least Fig. 2 – 7F, 7R) connected to the power distributor (see at least Figs. 2-3), wherein power generated by regenerative braking of the second electric motor is transmitted to the power distributor and the power distributor is configured to distribute the power to the battery or the excavation module based on the construction machinery vehicle being driven (see at least Fig. 2, [0015, 0031, 0035-0036] – surplus power that exceeds the allowable charging power that can be charged to the capacitor 3 as regenerative power by the traction motors 7F, 7R during regenerative operation is consumed by driving the generator motor 5… regenerative braking force is obtained according to vehicle speed), wherein the regenerative braking power distributed to the excavation module is consumed in operating the hydraulic pump (see at least Fig. 2, [0015, 0031, 0035-0036] – surplus power that exceeds the allowable charging power that can be charged to the capacitor 3 as regenerative power by the traction motors 7F, 7R during regenerative operation is consumed by driving the generator motor 5), and the hydraulic oil circulates along the circulation loop formed by the hydraulic pump, the valve, and the hydraulic oil tank based on the operations of the hydraulic pump (see at least Fig. 2, [0013, 0027-0028, 0042, 0057] - hydraulic pressure demand calculation unit 120 calculates the hydraulic pressure demand output of the hydraulic pump 9… when the generator motor 5 is driven by the surplus power of the traveling motors 7F, 7R, the output management unit 140 calculates a tilt angle increase command for increasing the tilt angle of the hydraulic pump 9).
Utashiro does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the circulation loop is a closed circulation loop.
Kang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a closed circulation loop (see at least [0029] – closed circuit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kang into the invention of Utashiro with a reasonable expectation of success so as to selectively connect or disconnect discharge line and inlet line of the hydraulic pump motor to the actuator (Kang – [0029]). Furthermore, closed circuits (as opposed to the alternative open circuit) are well known and commonly used for hydraulic circuits to reduce waste and provide higher power and pressure applications.
Utashiro does not appear to explicitly disclose based on the construction machinery vehicle being driven downhill.
Duan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: based on the construction machinery vehicle being driven downhill (see at least [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Duan into the invention of Utashiro with a reasonable expectation of success because regenerative braking can be used while traveling downhill to maintain a constant speed (Duan – [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Utashiro discloses further comprising a controller configured to control the hydraulic pump, wherein the controller is configured to control a discharge amount of the hydraulic pump so that power is consumed in the excavation module (see at least Figs. 2-3, [0013, 0027-0028, 0042, 0057] - hydraulic pressure demand calculation unit 120 calculates the hydraulic pressure demand output of the hydraulic pump 9… when the generator motor 5 is driven by the surplus power of the traveling motors 7F, 7R, the output management unit 140 calculates a tilt angle increase command for increasing the tilt angle of the hydraulic pump 9).
Regarding claim 5, Utashiro discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the discharge amount of the hydraulic pump to become zero upon the battery having the SOC conditions lower than a certain level (see at least [0036, 0048] - if the output management unit 140 determines that the hybrid work vehicle 200 is in power running, it sets the power consumption to zero and all of the regenerative power generated by the traction motors 7F, 7R can be charged to the capacitor 3).
Regarding claim 6, Utashiro discloses wherein the power distributor is configured to distribute the regenerative braking power generated in the movement module to the excavation module based on speed of the vehicle so that the distributed regenerative braking power is consumed in the excavation module (see at least Fig. 2, [0015, 0031, 0035-0036] – surplus power that exceeds the allowable charging power that can be charged to the capacitor 3 as regenerative power by the traction motors 7F, 7R during regenerative operation is consumed by driving the generator motor 5… regenerative braking force is obtained according to vehicle speed).
Regarding claim 8, Utashiro discloses wherein the power distributor is configured to distribute some or all of the regenerative braking power generated in the second electric motor to the battery and the excavation module based on the SOC conditions of the battery (see at least Fig. 2, [0015, 0031, 0035-0036] – surplus power that exceeds the allowable charging power that can be charged to the capacitor 3 as regenerative power by the traction motors 7F, 7R during regenerative operation is consumed by driving the generator motor 5).
Regarding claim 10, Utashiro discloses wherein the movement module comprises: an inverter (see at least Fig. 2 – 8F, 8R) connected to the power distributor (see at least Figs. 2-3); a second electric motor (see at least Fig. 2 – 7F, 7R) connected to the second inverter (see at least Fig. 2); and a gear box (see at least Fig. 2 – 16F, 16R) connecting the second electric motor and a wheel and configured to drive the wheel based on the operations of the second electric motor (see at least Fig. 2, [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Utashiro discloses further comprising: an inverter (see at least Fig. 2 - 6) connected to the power distributor (see at least Figs. 2-3); a generator (see at least Fig. 2 - 5) connected to the third inverter (see at least Fig. 2); and an engine (see at least Fig. 2 - 1) connected to the generator (see at least Fig. 2), wherein the generator is configured to generate power based on operations of the engine and transmits the generated power to the power distributor (see at least Fig. 2, [0013-0014]).
Regarding claim 12, Utashiro discloses further comprising: a brake configured to make the vehicle brake (see at least [0018-0019] - brake); and a brake controller configured to electronically control the brake, wherein the brake controller is configured to increase a braking ratio of the brake based on the battery having the SOC conditions higher than a certain level or based on the vehicle having speed higher than a certain level (see at least [0019, 0031, 0064-0065, 0075-0076, 0081] - during high-speed driving, control is performed to reduce the regenerative power…the regenerative braking force is limited by the upper limit line L4… the shortage above the line L4 is compensated for by the hydraulic brake).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 filed 3/12/2026, with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-11 filed 3/12/2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10 that Kang’s closed circuit is not directed to a boom driving system for a hybrid excavator that controls upward and downward movement of a boom actuator. Applicant further argues on page 11 that Duan is silent with regards to distributing regenerative braking power to an excavation module through a closed circulation loop based on the vehicle being driven downhill, as recited by amended claim 1. Neither Kang nor Duan disclose or suggest “the hydraulic pump, the valve, and the hydraulic oil tank form a closed circulation loop where the hydraulic oil circulates,… wherein power generated by regenerative braking of the second electric motor is transmitted to the power distributor and the power distributor distributes the power to the battery or the excavation module based on the construction machinery vehicle being driven downhill, wherein the regenerative braking power distributed to the excavation module is consumed in operating the hydraulic pump, and wherein the hydraulic oil circulates along the closed circulation loop formed by the hydraulic pump, the valve, and the hydraulic oil tank based on the operations of the hydraulic pump," as recited in amended claim 1.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kang is not relied upon alone for this limitation. Similarly, Duan is not relied upon alone for this limitation. Instead it is the combination of Utashiro, Kang, and Duan that is relied upon for this limitation as a whole. Kang is merely relied upon to demonstrate that a hydraulic circuit can be closed (as opposed to the alternative, which is an open circuit). As stated above, closed circuits are well known and commonly used for hydraulic circuits to reduce waste and provide higher power and pressure applications. One of ordinary skill would expect the circuit of Utashiro to be closed in order to maintain pressure and prevent waste of oil, and Kang is relied upon to demonstrate that a closed circuit is obvious and can be advantageously applied. Duan is merely relied upon to demonstrate distributing power based on a vehicle being driven downhill, because regenerative braking can be used while traveling downhill to maintain a constant speed (Duan – [0031]).
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669