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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/20/24 and 3/24/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP2015-203453 (hereinafter “Saito”) in view of Du et al, U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0341193 (hereinafter “Du”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Saito discloses a construction machine (See, Abstract and Figure 1) comprising: a work device( 104; bucket 6) an actuator (1, 3, 5, 7 and 8) that drives the work device (104); a plurality of closed-circuit pumps (12, 14,16 and 18) of a variable displacement type having two flow-out/in ports (See, Figure 2) ;a plurality of closed-circuit selector valves (43,45,47, and 49) capable of switching between communication and interruption between the actuator (1,3,5,7, and 8) and the plurality of closed-circuit pumps (12, 14,16 and 18) ; an actuator pressure sensor (506) that senses pressure of the actuator; an operation device (56/56a) that instructs the actuator to act; and a controller (57) that controls the plurality of closed- circuit selector valves (43,45, 47 and 49) and the plurality of closed-circuit pumps (12,14,16, and 18) in response to an input signal from the operation device (56) ,the controller being configured to, when supply of a hydraulic operating fluid from one closed-circuit pump among the plurality of closed-circuit pumps to the actuator is started, open one closed-circuit selector valve corresponding to the one closed-circuit pump among the plurality of closed-circuit selector valves after controlling, in a state in which the one closed-circuit selector valve is closed, the one closed-circuit pump in such a manner that differential pressure across the closed- circuit selector valve that is a difference between a measurement value of one closed-circuit pump pressure sensor corresponding to the one closed-circuit pump and a measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor becomes equal to or lower than a predetermined first threshold (inherent in the operation that this occur that when the valve opens up in response to a demand that the difference), wherein the controller is configured to,in a state in which two or more closed-circuit pumps among the plurality of closed-circuit pumps are connected to the actuator, determine whether a failure of the actuator pressure sensor exists on a basis of measurement values of two or more closed-circuit pump pressure sensors corresponding to the two or more closed-circuit pumps among the plurality of closed-circuit pump pressure sensors and the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor, and when determining that the actuator pressure sensor involves a failure, calculate pseudo-pressure of the actuator on a basis of a measurement value of the posture sensor, and calculate the differential pressure across the closed-circuit selector valve by using the pseudo-pressure instead of the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor.
Saito fails to disclose a posture sensor that senses posture of the work device; a plurality of closed-circuit pump pressure sensors that sense pressure of the plurality of closed-circuit pumps; and in a state in which two or more closed-circuit pumps among the plurality of closed-circuit pumps are connected to the actuator, determine whether a failure of the actuator pressure sensor exists on a basis of measurement values of two or more closed-circuit pump pressure sensors corresponding to the two or more closed-circuit pumps among the plurality of closed-circuit pump pressure sensors and the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor, and when determining that the actuator pressure sensor involves a failure, calculate pseudo-pressure of the actuator on a basis of a measurement value of the posture sensor, and calculate the differential pressure across the closed-circuit selector valve by using the pseudo-pressure instead of the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic circuits for working machines, Du discloses a hydraulic circuit wherein the controller is capable of correcting for a failure of one or more output sensors associated with the variable displacement pumps. See, Paragraph [0045]. Du disclose a posture sensor that senses the posture of the work device. See, Paragraph [0033] and [0029] which states the machine is equipped with a plurality of sensors that provide data directly on the performance or conditions of aspects of the machine and its related components (attachments); and ; a plurality of pump pressure sensors (55 and 57) that sense pressure of the plurality of closed-circuit pumps; and a controller (36) which is capable of determine whether a failure of the pressure sensor exists on a basis of measurement values of two or more closed-circuit pump pressure sensors corresponding to the two or more closed-circuit pumps among the plurality of closed-circuit pump pressure sensors and the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor, and when determining that the actuator pressure sensor involves a failure, calculate pseudo-pressure of the actuator on a basis of a measurement value of the posture sensor, and calculate the differential pressure across the closed-circuit selector valve by using the pseudo-pressure instead of the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor. See, Figure 4 which illustrates that the controller upon determining a failure of the pressure sensor can create an estimated pressure and operate under the assumption of the estimated pressure sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Saito with the teachings of Du, specifically to incorporate pressure sensors associated with each of the pumps, and the controller of Du which allows for the working machine to still operate the work despite even when the sensors fail because previously “ because doing so would increase productivity. Previously, before the controller of DU the systems were often configured to shut down or substantially reduce the performance of the machine upon the failure of a pressure or displacement sensor” thereby losing “productivity.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Saito further discloses a plurality of open-circuit pumps (13,15 and 19) of a variable displacement type having a flow-in port and a flow-out port, a plurality of open-circuit selector valves (44, 46 and 50) capable of connecting the plurality of open-circuit pumps to the actuator, an the controller is configured to, when supply of the hydraulic operating fluid from one open-circuit pump among the plurality of open-circuit pumps to the actuator is started, open one open-circuit selector valve corresponding to the one open-circuit pump among the plurality of open-circuit selector valves after controlling, in a state in which the one open-circuit selector valve is closed, the one open-circuit pump in such a manner that differential pressure across the open-circuit selector valve that is a difference between a measurement value of one open-circuit pump pressure sensor corresponding to the one open-circuit pump and the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor becomes equal to or lower than the first threshold (inherent in the operation of the circuit that this occurs)
Saito fails to disclose a plurality of open-circuit pump pressure sensors that sense pressure of the plurality of open-circuit pumps and in a state in which two or more open-circuit pumps among the plurality of open-circuit pumps are connected to the actuator, determine whether a failure of the actuator pressure sensor exists on a basis of measurement values of two or more open-circuit pump pressure sensors corresponding to the two or more open-circuit pumps among the plurality of open-circuit pump pressure sensors and the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor, and when determining that the actuator pressure sensor involves a failure, calculate the differential pressure across the open-circuit selector valve by using the pseudo- pressure instead of the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic circuits for working machines, Du discloses a hydraulic circuit wherein the controller is capable of correcting for a failure of one or more output sensors associated with the variable displacement pumps. See, Paragraph [0045]. Du disclose a posture sensor that senses the posture of the work device. See, Paragraph [0033] and [0029] which states the machine is equipped with a plurality of sensors that provide data directly on the performance or conditions of aspects of the machine and its related components (attachments); and ; a plurality of pump pressure sensors (55 and 57) that sense pressure of the plurality of closed-circuit pumps; and a controller (36) which is capable of determine whether a failure of the pressure sensor exists on a basis of measurement values of two or more closed-circuit pump pressure sensors corresponding to the two or more closed-circuit pumps among the plurality of closed-circuit pump pressure sensors and the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor, and when determining that the actuator pressure sensor involves a failure, calculate pseudo-pressure of the actuator on a basis of a measurement value of the posture sensor, and calculate the differential pressure across the closed-circuit selector valve by using the pseudo-pressure instead of the measurement value of the actuator pressure sensor. See, Figure 4 which illustrates that the controller upon determining a failure of the pressure sensor can create an estimated pressure and operate under the assumption of the estimated pressure sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Saito with the teachings of Du, specifically to incorporate pressure sensors associated with each of the pumps, and the controller of Du which allows for the working machine to still operate the work despite even when the sensors fail because previously “ because doing so would increase productivity. Previously, before the controller of DU the systems were often configured to shut down or substantially reduce the performance of the machine upon the failure of a pressure or displacement sensor” thereby losing “productivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3- 6 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “to calculate a difference in a measurement value regarding each combination of two pressure sensors included in the actuator pressure sensor, the two or more closed-circuit pump pressure sensors, and the two or more open-circuit pump pressure sensors in a state in which the two or more closed-circuit pumps and the two or more open-circuit pumps are connected to the actuator, and determine that the pressure sensor included in two or more combinations in which the difference is larger than a predetermined second threshold involves a failure.” The prior art fails to disclose wherein the difference in a measurement of the pressure sensor value to determine a failure is done by looking at two different open and closed loop circuits that are connected to the same actuator as recited in claim 3.
Claim 4 would be allowed based of its dependency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to calculate the pseudo- pressure in such a manner that the pseudo-pressure has a value equal to or higher than pressure of the actuator when the work device takes posture sensed by the posture sensor in a no-load”. The prior art fails to calculate pseudo pressure based off the value equal to or higher than the pressure based off the posture sensor sensing a no load condition.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “ adjusting input and output of the controller, and the controller is configured to keep a state in which the plurality of closed-circuit pumps are connected to the actuator in a state in which a delivery flow rate of the plurality of closed-circuit pumps is set to zero after controlling the plurality of closed-circuit pumps and the plurality of closed-circuit selector valves to cause the work device to take predetermined posture”. The prior art fails to disclose the control of using a pseudo-pressure/estimated pressure (as discussed in Du) to operating the closed circuit pumps until a desired position is reached and then setting the pump output to zero. The prior art just maintains constant operation despite the failure utilizing a pseudo pressure/estimated pressure for purposes of being operational.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights