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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (9/20/24) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Hydraulic Excavator Machine.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites characterized” and the phrase should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites “an automotive lower traveling structure by a hydraulic motor for travel” but should recite “an automotive lower traveling structure driven by a hydraulic motor for travel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 35, “flows” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear what Applicants intend by “shifting to each other”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US PG PUB NO 2022/0372731).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Harada discloses a construction machine comprising: an automotive lower traveling structure (20B) by a hydraulic motor (71) for travel; and an upper revolving structure (20A) mounted via a revolving device on the lower traveling structure (20B) to be capable of revolving thereto, the upper revolving structure including: a prime mover 12; an operating oil tank [Hydraulic tank in paragraph [0037]); and a hydraulic pump [Pumps disclosed in paragraph [0092] that is driven by the prime mover (Paragraph [0092] “The hydraulic oil is discharged from an actuator drive pump and a pilot pump each of which is provided in the upper turning body 20A and mechanically coupled to the engine 12”) to deliver operating oil stored in the operating oil tank, characterized by including: a control valve (Paragraph [0092] discloses a hydraulic control valve) for travel motor provided in the lower traveling structure to control the flow of the operating oil that is delivered from the hydraulic pump to the hydraulic motor for travel (Hydraulic motor 71. The control valve can be arranged in either or both of the upper and lower structure. Regarding rearrangement of parts, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Harada to have the control valve orientation in either or both of the lower and upper structure with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be accessible for service and inspection); and a hydraulic pipe that establishes connection between the operating oil tank and the hydraulic motor for travel (Harada, FIG 2 illustrates the hydraulic hose groups 90A and 90 which provide a fluid communication between all of the hydraulic components on each of the supply and return sides of the system), wherein the hydraulic pipe includes: a supply pipe part that establishes connection between the operating oil tank, the hydraulic pump and the control valve for travel motor for supply of the operating oil (Harada, FIG 2 illustrates the hydraulic hose groups 90A and 90 which provide a fluid communication between all of the hydraulic components on each of the supply and return sides of the system); a high-pressure pipe part that is provided in the lower traveling structure to establish connection between the control valve for travel motor and the hydraulic motor for travel and in which high-pressure operating oil that is delivered from the hydraulic pump and is supplied to the hydraulic motor for travel flows (Harada, FIG 2 illustrates the hydraulic hose groups 90A and 90 which provide a fluid communication between all of the hydraulic components on each of the supply (high-pressure) and return (Low-pressure) sides of the system. See claim objection of the term “flows” which appears unnecessary to the claim); and a low-pressure pipe part that is provided across from the lower traveling structure to the upper revolving structure to establish connection between the control valve for travel motor and the operating oil tank and in which low-pressure operating oil that is discharged from the hydraulic motor for travel and is returned back from the control valve for travel motor to the operating oil tank flows (Harada, FIG 2 illustrates the hydraulic hose groups 90A and 90 which provide a fluid communication between all of the hydraulic components on each of the supply and return sides of the system. Regarding the upper and lower structure, FIG 2 illustrates the hose groups 90A routed from the swivel area to the travel motors and while omitted, the upper structure houses hose groups to other hydraulic components/implements).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
693
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Harada discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the lower traveling structure includes: a truck frame (Harada, FIG 2) including a center frame (Harada, FIG 2, frame portion 5) and side frames (Harada, FIG 2, frames adjacent the crawler tracks) extending in the front-back direction on both of the left and right sides of the center frame (Harada, FIG 2); a driving wheel (Harada, FIG 2 wheels 88) that is provided on the rear part of the side frame and is rotated by the hydraulic motor (71) for travel; an idler wheel (75) that is provided on the front part of the side frame; and a crawler track (72) that is wound around between the driving wheel (88) and the idler wheel (75), wherein the center frame (5) is provided with a valve (Harada, paragraph [0092] discloses a control valve).
-However, it fails to disclose with the valve attaching surface on the rear surface facing the hydraulic motor for travel in the front-back direction, and the control valve for travel motor is attached on the valve attaching surface of the center frame.
-Nevertheless, packaging of machine components is a matter of design choice and serviceability. Regarding placement, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Harada to provide desired mounting surface and location with a reasonable expectation of success in order to readily service and inspect the valve.
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Harada discloses the construction machine according to claim 2, further comprising: a center joint (Harada, FIG 2 illustrates the center lower part structure) provided in a revolving center position of the revolving device to cause the operating oil to flow between the lower traveling structure and the upper revolving structure (Harada, paragraphs [0082 and 0092] discloses flow distribution of the hydraulic oil) wherein the low-pressure pipe part is provided via the center joint across between the upper revolving structure and the lower traveling structure (The center portion of Harada provides the fluid communication between hydraulic portions of the upper and lower structures and distributed to the desired components for travel and/or work via implement), and the low-pressure pipe part is provided with a valve-side low-pressure pipe part between the center joint and the control valve for travel motor (Each of the hydraulic hoses 90 in FIG 3 are routed to desired components on the respective high and low sides of the pump).
-However, Harada fails to disclose the valve-side low-pressure pipe part being arranged through a position more separate from the crawler track than the high-pressure pipe part.
-Nevertheless, arrangement of machine components including hoses/pipes (low and high side separately) is a matter of design choice and a concern for serviceability. Regarding placement, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Harada to provide each hydraulic hose in a position more separate from the tracks than a high-pressure component area with a reasonable expectation of success in order to readily service and inspect the low and high side hydraulic hoses separately.
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Harada discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the control valve for travel motor comprises a plurality of control valves that are provided in positions lining up in the left-right direction and in positions shifting to each other in the upper-lower direction (See U.S.C 112(b) rejection above and a plurality of control valves is a duplication of parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Harada to have a plurality of control valves to adjust fluid flow to desired components positioned on the machine that can be easily serviced and inspected with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the efficiency of the hydraulic circuits).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights