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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 16-25 and 28-31 remain pending. Claims 16 and 31 have been amended. Claims 26-27 have been cancelled.
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) and Hamamoto (US 5937645 A) (Hereinafter referred to as Munzenmaier, Hirata, and Hamamoto 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, wherein the reduction comprises a reduction by way of weighting of supply requirements of the drives for the total movement, and/or an increase in the supply of hydraulic liquid to the drives by the pump device, wherein the increase comprises an increase in a pump speed of the pump device and a swivel angle of the pump device comprising an axial piston pump comprising a variably settable sliding plate.
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 (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 so that the hydraulic fluid is distributed according to relative ratios of the demanded flow rates), wherein 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 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, wherein the reduction is by way of weighting supply requirements. 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).
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 Hamamoto, 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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munzenmaier in view of Hirata and Hamamoto, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-9 of the remarks, that since Munzenmaier teaches the supply pressure is set to the maximum pressure or a value above the maximum pressure, there is not an event of an insufficient supply. Hence, there is no reduction in the supply of the hydraulic liquid. Instead, Examiner relies on Hirata to teach “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, wherein the reduction comprises a reduction by way of weighting of supply requirements of the drives for the total movement”.
Hirata teaches that a hydraulic pump will provide an insufficient supply when the pump operates at a maximum flow rate in a case of simultaneously driving the plural actuators. This is generally known as saturation of the hydraulic pump. If saturation occurs, there will be actuator(s) supplied with insufficient rates of hydraulic fluid, with the result that the plural actuators cannot be driven simultaneously (See at least Hirata Column 1 lines 47-59). Thus, an event of insufficient supply can occur due to saturation of the pump, and Hirata teaches using valves to control the flow of the hydraulic fluid so that the hydraulic fluid does not flow to one actuator with preference and the fluid from the pump is distributed corresponding to relative ratios of the demanded flow rates (opening degrees) of the flow control valves and to be supplied to the plural actuators, thereby permitting appropriate simultaneous drive of the actuators.
Applicant argues, on Page 9 of the remarks, that Hirata does not disclose “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”. However, as discussed in the paragraph above, Hirata teaches using a valve to reduce the flow to one actuator and increase the flow to another actuator during saturation. Thus, rerouting flow from one actuator to another actuator reads on the limitation “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” as the supply to one actuator is reduced while the supply to another actuator is increased.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to include the limitation of “wherein the reduction comprises a reduction by way of weighting of supply requirements of the drives for the total movement”. Examiner has cited Hirata for this teaching, as Hirata teaches reducing the supply to one actuator so that the fluid is distributed according to relative ratios of the demanded flow rates. The ratio of demanded flow rates is interpreted as weighting of supply requirements of the drives for the total movement. Applicant argues that Hirata does not teach non-proportional reduction, and that Hirata merely discloses reducing the differential pressure between the pump discharge pressure and the maximum load pressure when saturation occurs. However, as explained in the paragraph above, Hirata does teach non-proportional reduction. The non-proportional reduction is based on ratios of demanded flow rates, which is weighting of supply requirements.
Applicant further argues, on page 10 of the remarks, that even if the disclosure of Hamamoto is correct, “one of skill in the art would not make such a combination as it essentially opposite to the statement made about Hirata that “when there is an insufficient supply, the supply for the actuator/drive with the lower pressure is reduced”.
However, Examiner disagrees. Both Hirata and Hamamoto are directed to dealing with saturation of the pump when operating a plurality of actuators by rerouting the fluid from one actuator to another actuator that slows down. Hirata states, in column 1 lines 52-59, “If saturation occurs, the hydraulic fluid discharged from the hydraulic pump will flow into the actuator(s) on the lower pressure side in preference to other actuator(s) on the higher pressure side, the latter actuator(s) being hence supplied with insufficient rates of hydraulic fluid, with the result that the plural actuators cannot be driven simultaneously.”. Hamamoto states, in Column 4 lines 14-28, “Furthermore, when at least two hydraulic actuators with markedly different loads are operated at the same time, such as a swing hydraulic motor and a hydraulic boom cylinder of a hydraulic excavator for a cab, the excessive inertial load of the actuator with a higher load causes an excessive pressure to be generated at an actuator port at the inlet in the early stage of the simultaneous operation. As a result, most of pressure oil flows from an overload relief valve, which is installed at the actuator port at the inlet, into a tank, causing an effective delivery flow itself to be reduced. This has presented a problem in that the driving speed of the boom cylinder which is the hydraulic actuator with a lower load becomes extremely slow”. Both Hirata and Hamamoto address the same problem of driving two hydraulic actuators at the same time by rerouting fluid from the actuator that is being driven with preference to the actuator that is being driven slowly or not at all. Hirata states, in Column 2 lines 15-26, “the pressure compensating valve associated with the actuator on the lower pressure side is further restricted, so that the hydraulic fluid from hydraulic pump is prevented from flowing into the actuator on the lower pressure side with preference. This allows the hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic pump to be distributed corresponding to relative ratios of the demanded flow rates (opening degrees) of the flow control valves and to be supplied to the plural actuators, thereby permitting appropriate simultaneous drive of the actuators.” Hamamoto states, in Column 8 lines 56-60 “With this arrangement, if the loaded pressure of the high-load actuator suddenly rises, the flow to the high-load actuator decreases and the flow which corresponds to the decrease flow is supplied to the low-load actuator, thus preventing the low-load actuator from slowing down.”. Thus, Hirata and Hamamoto have the same general teaching of reducing the flow from one actuator to another actuator so that both actuators can be simultaneously driven. The teachings in Hamamoto would be applied to a system where the fluid flows into the actuator with the higher load during saturation, in which case, the fluid must be rerouted to the actuator with the lower load so that the lower load actuator does not slow down. The teachings in Hirata are applied so that the system controls the flow of fluid to both actuators according to relative ratios of the demanded flow rates. Thus, the teachings in Hirata and Hamamoto can be applied together.
Thus, for these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights