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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
As to claims 1-6, 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.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conforms with 35 USC § 101
The presently examined claims were evaluated for a 101 Alice type rejection. The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that the independent claims are integrated into a practical application (or cannot be performed merely with the human mind) and are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP §2106, subsection III and MPEP §2106.04, subsection II(A).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20090090237 A1 hereinafter Nishikawa.
As to claim 1, Nishikawa discloses a boom lowering control system in a working machine [Nishikawa: #A] including a working arm including at least a boom [Nishikawa: #4] pivotally supported to be vertically swingable [Nishikawa: #2sw swing motor] on a machine body [Nishikawa: #2]; a replaceable working attachment attached to a tip portion of the working arm[Nishikawa: #6, 0024]; a boom cylinder that causes the boom to vertically swing by expanding through oil supply to a head side oil chamber and contracting through oil discharge from the head side oil chamber[Nishikawa: #4bm]; a control valve having a meter-out opening for controlling a discharge flow rate from a boom cylinder head side oil chamber[Nishikawa: Fig. 1, 0025]; control means for controlling an operation of the control valve [Nishikawa: Fig. 1, 0025]; and an operating tool operated to vertically move the boom, the boom lowering control system comprising [Nishikawa: Fig. 2]:
information input means for inputting information relating to a weight of the attached working attachment to the control means [Nishikawa: 0028 “As measuring means that measure the weight of the work arm 3 or attachment tool 6, installed are pressure sensors 34bm, 35st, and 36bk that measure holding pressures of the boom cylinder 4bm, the stick cylinder 5st, and the bucket cylinder 6bk of the work arm 3 on head-side lines and rod-side lines of these fluid pressure actuators, respectively. . .Signal output portions of the pressure sensors 34bm, 35st, and 36bk are connected to the signal input portion of the controller 31.”],
wherein the control means includes a map indicating a relationship between the weight of the replaceable working attachment and a holding pressure of the boom cylinder head side oil chamber [Nishikawa: Fig. 42 and 43 and text 0021-0042, The operating table/map including a holding pressure is offset based on the weight to get an new table/map. 00338 holding pressures based on weight “Here, the maximum offset amount means a maximum displacement from a standard position (angle) of the work arm 3, and the maximum offset amount increases in conjunction with the holding pressures as the weight of the work arm 3 increases.”], and obtains a holding pressure estimated value corresponding to the weight of the attached working attachment based on the map [Nishikawa: 0014 “According to the invention as set forth below, since the controller converts an operation table showing the characteristics between the manual operation amount and the pilot control pressure of the proportional solenoid valve to an operation table of characteristics according to the weight of the work arm measured by the measuring means, a calculation that allows automatically obtaining satisfactory operability even when the weight of the work arm or apart thereof is changed can be swiftly carried out by use of this operation table.”], and
based on the holding pressure estimated value, the control means controls a meter-out opening area of the control valve so that the discharge flow rate from the boom cylinder head side oil chamber becomes a target discharge flow rate set in accordance with an operation amount of the operating tool when the boom is lowered [Nishikawa: 0041, 0042, The controller controls based on the modified table/map ].
As to claim 2, Nishikawa discloses wherein when the holding pressure estimated value corresponding to the weight of the attached working attachment is obtained, based on the map, the control means groups a holding pressure map value of the boom cylinder head side oil chamber into a plurality of groups in accordance with a magnitude of the holding pressure map value to set a representative value of the holding pressure in advance for each group and to set the holding pressure representative value of a group to which the holding pressure map value corresponding to the weight of the attached working attachment belongs, as the holding pressure estimated value corresponding to the weight of the attached working attachment [Nishikawa: Fig. 4 and 5 the converting of the operational tables according to weight Fig.3 S2 the trans formation of the table/map groups according to the operational table/map.].
As to claim 4, Nishikawa discloses wherein the map uses a linear relationship to indicate a relationship between the weight of the working attachment and the holding pressure of the boom cylinder head side oil chamber, based on a moment around a support shaft for pivotally supporting the boom to be swingable on the machine body [Nishikawa: Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 see offset pressure line].
As to claim 5, Nishikawa discloses wherein the weight of the working attachment includes a weight of a coupler used to attach the working attachment to the tip portion of the working arm [Nishikawa: Fig. 2 pictured].
As to claim 6, Nishikawa discloses wherein the working arm includes the boom and a stick pivotally supported to be swingable in a tip portion of the boom, a working attachment attached to the tip portion of the boom and a working attachment attached to a tip portion of the stick are provided as the working attachment [Nishikawa: Fig. 2 pictured], and the map when the working attachment is attached to the tip portion of the boom and the map when the working attachment is attached to the tip portion of the stick are individually provided [Nishikawa: Fig. 42 and 43 and text 0021-0042, The weight would be changed and that would change the offset and resulting table/map.].
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.
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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa.
As to claim 3, Nishikawa suggests wherein when the holding pressure estimated value corresponding to the weight of the attached working attachment is obtained, based on the map, the control means sets a representative value of the holding pressure in advance for each group by grouping the working attachments into a plurality of groups in accordance with a magnitude of the weight of the working attachment, and sets the holding pressure representative value of a group to which the attached working attachment belongs, as the holding pressure estimated value corresponding to the weight of the attached working attachment [Nishikawa: 0013 “weight calculation function to estimate the weight of the work arm from the holding pressure measured by the pressure sensor in the fixed holding pressure measurement posture, the weight of the work arm can be simply estimated only from the holding pressure without detecting the posture of the work arm” shows the known relationship between the weight and the holding pressure and how they can be used for estimating. Solving for the other variable in a known function is something a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could do as it merely uses a known device is a known way with predictable results for the benefit of using knowns in a relationship to solve for unknowns.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230212835 A1 A confluence control part of a slewing-type construction machine controls a confluence switch valve such that the confluence switch valve is switched to a suspension state when a slewing and boom raising manipulation action is performed. A pump capacity control part of the slewing-type construction machine executes a capacity control when the slewing and boom raising manipulation action is performed, the capacity control including regulating a first pump capacity and a second pump capacity respectively in such a manner that the first pump capacity increases and the second pump capacity decreases as an operating pressure difference resulting from the subtraction of a slewing operating pressure from a boom operating pressure increases, and the first pump capacity decreases and the second pump capacity increases as the operating pressure difference decreases.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665