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.
Status of Claims
Claims 16-31 were originally filed on 11/22/2024 and claimed priority on DE102022205169.6, which was filed on 05/24/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/22/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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 is:
a monitoring device configured to monitor whether at least one drive of the drives for the total movement is insufficiently supplied by a hydraulic pump device in claim 31.
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.
According to Paragraph 0037, the monitoring device comprises a processor configured to monitor the drives.
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.
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.
Claims 16-24 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munzenmaier et al (US 20210017776 A1) in view of Hirata et al (US 5186000 A) (Hereinafter referred to as Munzenmaier and Hirata respectively)
Regarding Claims 16 and 31, Munzenmaier teaches a system for controlling a total movement of a distribution boom (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraph 0004), a method for controlling a total movement of a distribution boom (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraph 0004), wherein the distribution boom comprises a plurality of boom arms, wherein the boom arms are movable via a plurality of hydraulic drives (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraph 0004), the system comprising:
a monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device is configured to monitor whether at least one drive of the drives for the total movement is insufficiently supplied by a hydraulic pump device for supplying the drives with hydraulic liquid (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0004, 0014-0017, and 0032-0033, the drive cylinders are monitored by the comparator/monitoring device to ensure sufficient supply by the hydraulic pump); and
a control device (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0032-0033)…
Munzenmaier fails to disclose the control device is configured, in an event of insufficient supply, to control a non-proportional reduction in the supply of hydraulic liquid to the drives for the non-proportional reduction of movement speeds of the drives and/or an increase in the supply of hydraulic liquid to the drives by the pump device.
However, Hirata teaches in an event of insufficient supply, to control a non-proportional reduction in the supply of hydraulic liquid to the drives for the non-proportional reduction of movement speeds of the drives and/or an increase in the supply of hydraulic liquid to the drives by the pump device (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25, when there is an insufficient supply, the supply for the actuator/drive with the lower pressure is reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Munzenmaier with Hirata to control a non-proportional reduction in the supply of hydraulic liquid to the drives for the non-proportional reduction of movement speeds of the drives in an event of insufficient supply. This modification, as taught by Hirata, would allow the pump to supply the hydraulic fluid to the plurality of drives/actuators according to the ratio of demanded flow rates, thereby permitting simultaneous drive of the actuators/drive when the discharge rate of the pump is insufficient (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Munzenmaier teaches the pump device is a common pump device for supplying the drives with hydraulic liquid (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0013-0015, and 0032).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Munzenmaier teaches at least one of the drives comprises an electrically controllable hydraulic valve (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0039-0041 and Figure 3).
Modified Munzenmaier fails to disclose the control of the reduction comprises a control of the hydraulic valve.
However, Hirata teaches the control of the reduction comprises a control of the hydraulic valve (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25, the valve is controlled to reduce the flow to the actuator with lower pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Munzenmaier with Hirata to control the hydraulic valve to reduce the supply. This modification, as taught by Hirata, would allow the flow rate to the hydraulic actuators/drives to be controlled, thereby permitting simultaneous drive of the actuators/drive when the discharge rate of the pump is insufficient (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Munzenmaier teaches at least one of the drives is a hydraulic cylinder and/or a hydraulic motor (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Munzenmaier teaches the monitoring comprises: determining and evaluating data from at least one sensor device (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0004, and 0032-0033, the drive cylinders are monitored by evaluating data from the pressure sensors), and ascertaining insufficient supply depending on the data (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0015, 0032-0033, 0037, and 0039, sufficient supply is ensured when the pressure sensors sense the pressure to be what is currently required).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Munzenmaier teaches the data comprise at least one control variable of at least one of the drives and/or at least one status variable of: the pump device, at least one of the drives and/or at least one of the boom arms (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0004 and 0033, the data is the pressure/status variable of the drives).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Munzenmaier teaches the data comprises a control signal, an electrical control current, a hydraulic liquid volume flow, a hydraulic liquid pressure, a boom pressure, a cylinder pressure and/or a motor pressure, and/or a trailing distance (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0004 and 0033, the data is a cylinder pressure).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Munzenmaier teaches determining supply requirements of the drives for the total movement, and/or determining a supply availability by the pump device (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0036-0037, the supply requirements for the drive cylinders are determined).
Modified Munzenmaier fails to disclose ascertaining the insufficient supply when the supply requirements are greater than the supply availability.
However, Hirata teaches ascertaining the insufficient supply when the supply requirements are greater than the supply availability (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25, the insufficient supply is determined when the supply requirements of the actuators is greater than the maximum flow rate of the pump).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Munzenmaier with Hirata to ascertain ascertaining the insufficient supply when the supply requirements are greater than the supply availability. This modification, as taught by Hirata, would allow the flow rate to the hydraulic actuators/drives to be controlled when there is insufficient supply, thereby permitting simultaneous drive of the actuators/drive when the discharge rate of the pump is insufficient (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Munzenmaier teaches the determination of the supply requirements comprises a determination as a function of a specification for the total movement (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0005, 0018-0020, and 0036-0037, the supply requirements for the drive cylinders are determined based on the movement of the boom).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Munzenmaier teaches the distribution boom, the drives and/or the pump device are/is mobile (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Munzenmaier teaches a method for distributing construction material and/or thick matter via a construction material and/or thick matter pump device (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0004 and 0031, the concrete is interpreted as construction material),
wherein the construction material and/or thick matter pump device has a distribution boom (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0004, 0031, and Figure 1), wherein the distribution boom has a conveying line for conveying construction material and/or thick matter (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraph 0031, and Figure 1, the boom conveys concrete), the method comprising:
the method for controlling a total movement of the distribution boom as claimed in claim 16 (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraph 0004); and
conveying construction material and/or thick matter during the control (See at least Munzenmaier Paragraphs 0004, 0031, and 0037, the concrete is conveyed and distributed).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munzenmaier in view of Hirata, and in further view of Ishikawa et al (US 5447027 A) (Hereinafter referred to as Ishikawa)
Regarding Claim 25, modified Munzenmaier fails to disclose the determination of the supply availability comprises a determination as a function of a pump speed variable characterizing a pump speed of the pump device and/or a swivel angle variable characterizing a swivel angle of the pump device comprising an axial piston pump comprising a variably settable sliding plate.
However, Ishikawa teaches the determination of the supply availability comprises a determination as a function of a pump speed variable characterizing a pump speed of the pump device (See at least Ishikawa Column 10 lines 1-9, the maximum delivery rate of the pump is calculated using speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Munzenmaier with Ishikawa to determine the supply availability as a function of pump speed. Calculating the maximum delivery rate/supply availability of the pump by using the speed of the pump, as taught by Ishikawa, is routine and well-understood in the art and allows the system to calculate what the maximum delivery rate/supply availability of the pump is (See at least Ishikawa Column 10 lines 1-9), thus, allowing the system to determine if there is an insufficient supply.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munzenmaier in view of Hirata, and in further view of Imada et al (US 4622886 A) (Hereinafter referred to as Imada)
Regarding Claim 26, modified Munzenmaier fails to disclose the increase comprises an increase in a pump speed of the pump device and/or a swivel angle of the pump device comprising an axial piston pump comprising a variably settable sliding plate.
However, Imada teaches the increase comprises an increase in a pump speed of the pump device (See at least Imada Column 16 lines 40-50, the increase in pump speed increases the rate of flow of oil to the cylinder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Munzenmaier with Imada to increase the pump speed of the pump device. This modification, as taught by Imada, would increase the supply of hydraulic oil to the drive/cylinder (See at least Imada Column 16 lines 40-50) when there is an insufficient supply.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munzenmaier in view of Hirata, and in further view of Hamamoto (US 5937645 A) (Hereinafter referred to as Hamamoto)
Regarding Claim 27, modified Munzenmaier fails to disclose the reduction comprises a reduction by way of weighting of supply requirements of the drives for the total movement.
However, Hirata teaches the reduction comprises a reduction by way of weighting of supply requirements of the drives for the total movement (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25, the ratios of demanded flow rates is interpreted as weighting of supply requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Munzenmaier with Hirata to reduce by way of weighting of supply requirements of the drives for the total movement. This modification, as taught by Hirata, would allow the pump to supply the hydraulic fluid to the plurality of drives/actuators according to the ratio of demanded flow rates, thereby permitting simultaneous drive of the actuators/drive when the discharge rate of the pump is insufficient (See at least Hirata Column 1 line 47-Column 2 line 25).
Modified Munzenmaier fails to disclose reducing the supply of the drive with the largest supply requirement and/or reducing to a lesser extent or not reducing the supply of the drive with the smallest supply requirement.
However, Hamamoto teaches reducing the supply of the drive with the largest supply requirement and/or reducing to a lesser extent or not reducing the supply of the drive with the smallest supply requirement (See at least Hamamoto Column 4 lines 14-39 and Column 8 lines 27-67, the supply to the high-load actuator is reduced and the supply to the low-load actuator is increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Munzenmaier with Hamamoto to reduce the supply of the drive with the largest supply requirement and not reduce the supply of the drive with the smallest supply requirement. This modification, as taught by Hamamoto, would prevent the low-load actuator from slowing down (See at least Hamamoto Column 8 lines 27-67).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munzenmaier in view of Hirata, and in further view of Amborski et al (US 6321152 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Amborski)
Regarding Claim 28, modified Munzenmaier fails to disclose outputting user-perceptible information about the insufficient supply, the control and/or about the fact that the control is not sufficient to end the insufficient supply.
However, Amborski teaches outputting user-perceptible information about the insufficient supply, the control and/or about the fact that the control is not sufficient to end the insufficient supply (See at least Amborski Column 1 lines 14-21, and Column 7 lines 25-35, the user is alerted to the impending insufficient supply/saturation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Munzenmaier with Amborski to output user-perceptible information about the insufficient supply. This modification, as taught by Amborski, would alert the user to the insufficient supply/saturation (See at least Amborski Column 1 lines 14-21, and Column 7 lines 25-35), thus, increasing the awareness of the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanazawa et al (US 20210332563 A1) teaches determining a difference between the flow rate of a pump and the target flow rates of hydraulic actuators
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights