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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 3: Line 5 recites in part “the number of second micron particles” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in parent claim 1. An appropriate correction could be to instead recite --a number of second micron particles--.
As to claims 4 and 5: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 3 and accordingly each inherits the issue of claim 3 as noted above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. CN 215375412 U (hereafter He), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 28 October 2024.
As to claim 1: He teaches an online monitoring system for hydraulic oil of a power aerial work vehicle (see fig. 1 and ¶ 29 of the included English translation of He), comprising:
a microprocessor (7; see fig. 1 and ¶ 29);
a gear pump (2; see fig. 1 and ¶ 29); and
a detection module (3; see fig. 1 and ¶ 29), wherein
the microprocessor (7) is communicatively connected to the gear pump (2) and the detection module (see fig. 1 and ¶ 29), the detection module is connected to a hydraulic tank through a pipe (see ¶ 31; while not explicitly depicted, the necessary storage source of the disclosed oil is considered to be a hydraulic tank);
the microprocessor (7) is configured to transmit an oil extraction signal to the gear pump (2) in response to a monitoring instruction (see ¶ 31), compare a received oil parameter with a preset parameter threshold (see ¶ 33), generate oil quality state information (see ¶ 32 and 33) and display the oil quality state information (see ¶ 42);
the gear pump (2)is configured to, in response to the oil extraction signal, extract the hydraulic oil from the hydraulic oil tank and convey the hydraulic oil to the hydraulic oil tank through the pipe (see ¶ 31); and
the detection module (3) is configured to detect the hydraulic oil in the pipe in real time (see ¶ 31), generate the oil parameter (see ¶ 33), and transmit the oil parameter to the microprocessor (see ¶ 41).
As to claim 7: He discloses the online monitoring system for hydraulic oil of a power aerial work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
the microprocessor (7) is communicatively connected to a wireless transmission module (11) (see fig. 1 and ¶ 45); and
the wireless transmission module (11) is configured to transmit the oil quality state information to a user terminal (see ¶ 45).
As to claim 8: He discloses the online monitoring system for hydraulic oil of a power aerial work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
an alarm device (9; see ¶ 43), communicatively connected to the microprocessor (7) (see ¶ 43), wherein
the alarm device (9) is configured to receive the oil quality state information and issue a corresponding alarm signal (see ¶ 43).
As to claim 9: He discloses an online monitoring method for hydraulic oil of a power aerial work vehicle, comprising:
transmitting an oil extraction signal to a gear pump (2) in response to a monitoring instruction (see ¶ 31);
extracting hydraulic oil from a hydraulic oil tank and conveying the hydraulic oil to the hydraulic oil tank through a pipe in response to the oil extraction signal (see ¶ 31);
detecting the hydraulic oil in the pipe in real time (see ¶ 31), generating an oil parameter (see ¶ 33), and transmitting the oil parameter to a microprocessor (7) (see ¶ 41); and
comparing the oil parameter with a preset parameter threshold (see ¶ 33), generating oil quality state information (see ¶ 32 and 33) and displaying the oil quality state information (see ¶ 42).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. CN 215375412 U (hereafter He), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 28 October 2024, in view of Lustig et al. US PG-PUB 2022/0163504 A1 (hereafter Lustig) and Takami et al. US PG-PUB 2020/0325657 A1 (hereafter Takami).
As to claim 2: He teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a microprocessor (7) and a detection module (3; see fig. 1 and ¶ 29) connected to an inlet of the gear pump (2) through the pipe (see ¶ 31), but does not explicitly teach:
the detection module comprises a particle counter connected through the pipe; the particle counter is configured to detect the number of micron particles in the hydraulic oil in the pipe in real time and transmit the number of the micron particles to the microprocessor.
However, Lustig teaches a detection module that comprises a particle counter (114; see ¶ 39) connected to a pipe (see ¶ 39 regarding the flow 120; the hardware in which the disclosed flow moves is considered to be a pipe); the particle counter (114) is configured to detect the number of micron particles in oil (see ¶ 39 and 49) in the pipe in real time (see ¶ 27 and 28) and transmit the number of the micron particles to a microprocessor (106; see ¶ 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s detection module to include a particle counter connected through the pipe; the particle counter is configured to detect the number of micron particles in the hydraulic oil in the pipe in real time and transmit the number of the micron particles to the microprocessor because particle count is an important metric in lubricant/oil life which can be used to determine whether maintenance of a device using the lubricant or oil is necessary, such as suggested in ¶ 49 and 50 of Lustig.
He also does not explicitly teach:
the detection module comprising a four-in-one sensor connected through the pipe; and the four-in-one sensor is configured to detect a hydraulic oil viscosity and a hydraulic oil dielectric constant of the hydraulic oil in the pipe in real time, and transmit the hydraulic oil viscosity and the hydraulic oil dielectric constant to the microprocessor.
However, Takami teaches a detection module comprising a four-in-one sensor (101A; see ¶ 36) connected through a pipe (the hardware through which the disclosed oil in ¶ 36 moves is considered to be a pipe); and the four-in-one sensor (101A) is configured to detect a hydraulic oil viscosity (see ¶ 36) and a hydraulic oil dielectric constant of the hydraulic oil in the pipe in real time (see ¶ 36), and transmit the hydraulic oil viscosity and the hydraulic oil dielectric constant to a microprocessor (110) (see ¶ 36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s detection module to include a four-in-one sensor connected through the pipe; and the four-in-one sensor is configured to detect a hydraulic oil viscosity and a hydraulic oil dielectric constant of the hydraulic oil in the pipe in real time, and transmit the hydraulic oil viscosity and the hydraulic oil dielectric constant to the microprocessor because the measurements made by such a four-in-one sensor can be used to determine whether an oil is in abnormal operating condition such as suggested in ¶ 37 of Takami and accordingly would be beneficial in determining whether there could be potential damage to a number of devices including hydraulic devices or other work machines such as suggested in ¶ 2 of Takami so as to avoid a potential breakdown of such devices by monitoring their performance in real time.
As to claim 6: He as modified by Lustig and Takami teaches the online monitoring system for hydraulic oil for a power aerial work vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the detection module (3 of He; see fig. 1 and ¶ 29) is connected to the hydraulic oil tank through a monitoring oil inlet-pipe (see He fig. 1 and ¶ 31), the gear pump (2 of He; see fig. 1 and ¶ 29) is configured to convey the hydraulic oil to the hydraulic oil tank through a monitoring oil return-pipe (see fig. 1 of He regarding the depicted pipe 1), the monitoring oil inlet-pipe extends to a bottom of the hydraulic oil tank and an opening at an end of the monitoring oil inlet-pipe faces upward in a “U” shape (see fig. 1 of He), and the monitoring oil inlet-pipe is horizontally arranged with a curved pipe having a preset length (see fig. 1 of He).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. CN 215375412 U (hereafter He), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 28 October 2024, in view of Fazeli et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0012849 A1 (hereafter Fazeli).
As to claim 10: He teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 9, but does not explicitly teach:
an electronic device comprising:
a memory, storing a computer program; and
a processor, wherein
the computer program, when being executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the online monitoring method for hydraulic oil of a power aerial work vehicle according to claim 9.
However, Fazeli teaches an electronic device (200; see fig. 4A and ¶ 43) comprising:
a memory (208; see ¶ 43), storing a computer program (see ¶ 43); and
a processor (201; see fig. 4A and ¶ 43), wherein
the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform an online monitoring method for hydraulic oil of a power aerial work vehicle (see ¶ 43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to include an electronic device comprising a memory, storing a computer program; and a processor, wherein the computer program, when being executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the online monitoring method for hydraulic oil of a power aerial work vehicle because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of controlling data operations pertaining to sensing and monitoring of oil systems such as suggested in ¶ 43 and 44 of Fazeli and accordingly would allow a user of He’s method to remotely and/or autonomously gather data that can be indicative of the operation of such an oil system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan the microprocessor being configured to generate oil quality state information marked as healthy and display the oil quality state information in a case that the number of the first micron particles is less than or equal to the first particle number threshold an increase in the number of the second micron particles in a first preset time period is less than or equal to the preset particle number percentage and the viscosity change value is less than or equal to the first hydraulic oil viscosity percentage and the hydraulic oil relative dielectric constant is less than or equal to the first hydraulic oil relative dielectric constant threshold, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim and parent claim 1 (if the claim objection for the minor informality of the instant claim as noted previously above is also addressed).
As to claims 4-5: Each of said claims depend directly from claim 3 and accordingly each is also 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 (if the claim objections for the minor informalities of each of said claims as noted previously above are also addressed) at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon an already objected to claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights