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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of:
Group I (claims 1, 9, and 12);
Overall Invention Species: Species I(b);
Hydraulic Rotating Equipment Species: Species I;
Unloading Valve Species: Species I;
Sensor Location Species: Species I;
Abnormality Determination Species: Species I;
in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/01/2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because examination requires employing different search strategies and search queries, and the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions/species, such as those in the present application, require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional feature addressed. Concurrent examination of the multiple inventions/species claimed would thus involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive, which they are not. See MPEP 808.02.
Searching for a feature required in one invention/species but not the others require additional search queries and prior art that reads on one invention/species does not necessarily read on the other inventions/species, therefore a serious search and examination burden exists.
For example, a system that determines an abnormality using that condition of “if a sum of pressure amplitudes of respective at least two rotational degree components selected from among rotational second-degree to Mth-degree components in the frequency spectrum” as claimed in claim 2 is distinctly different than a system that determining an abnormality using the condition of “whereas if the pressure amplitude of the rotational Mth-degree component is greater than the predetermined percentage of the pressure amplitude of the rotational first-degree component” as claimed in claim 1.
Unless applicant admits on the record that all features of each of the inventions/species are not patentably distinct from each other or are obvious equivalents (meaning that prior art that reads on one inventions/species would necessarily also anticipate or render obvious the other inventions/species without any additional caveats), then a serious search and examination burden exists.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 09/18/2024 has been 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP 2013170509), cited in the IDS dated 09/18/2024, in view of Tomochika et al. (US 10132307), hereinafter ‘Tomochika’.
Yamamoto discloses:
1. A system for detecting an abnormality in hydraulic rotating equipment of an axial piston type (21, see Fig. 3), the hydraulic rotating equipment including M pistons (paragraph [0009] discloses 1st to Mth pistons), the system comprising:
a sensor that measures a drain pressure of the hydraulic rotating equipment (paragraph [0015] discloses detecting the discharge pressure and the drain pressure, paragraph [0017] discloses the discharge pressure or drain pressure pulsates and can be detected to analyze the pulsation frequency of the pressure, paragraph [0062] discloses using a drain pressure Pd); and
processing circuitry (53, 54) that performs frequency analysis on a pressure waveform that is a result of measurement by the sensor to generate a frequency spectrum (paragraph [0013], [0040]-[0044], Fig. 4, paragraph [0065]-[0073]), and
determines that there is an abnormality in the hydraulic rotating equipment by comparing an amplitude spike to a threshold value ((paragraph [0048], paragraph [0082] discloses "threshold value As need not be set by a function, but may be set to coincide with the normal value An").
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose: wherein if a pressure amplitude of a rotational Mth-degree component in the frequency spectrum, the rotational Mth-degree component being M times as great as a rotational frequency, is less than a predetermined percentage of a pressure amplitude of a rotational first-degree component in the frequency spectrum, the rotational first-degree component being one time as great as the rotational frequency, determines that the hydraulic rotating equipment is in a normal condition, whereas if the pressure amplitude of the rotational Mth-degree component is greater than the predetermined percentage of the pressure amplitude of the rotational first-degree component, determines that there is an abnormality in the hydraulic rotating equipment.
However, Tomochika discloses a system for detecting an abnormality in hydraulic rotating equipment similar to Yamamoto and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Tomochika discloses a system for detecting an abnormality in hydraulic rotating equipment (2), the hydraulic rotating equipment including M pistons (M1-M9 pistons), the system comprising:
a sensor (30) that measures a pump discharge pressure of the hydraulic rotating equipment; and
processing circuitry (X1) that performs frequency analysis on a pressure waveform that is a result of measurement by the sensor to generate a frequency spectrum (see Fig. 5-8), and
if a pressure amplitude of a rotational Mth-degree component in the frequency spectrum, the rotational Mth-degree component being M times as great as a rotational frequency, is less than a predetermined percentage of a pressure amplitude of a rotational first-degree component in the frequency spectrum, the rotational first-degree component being one time as great as the rotational frequency, determines that the hydraulic rotating equipment is in a normal condition (similar to applicant’s invention, Tomochika Col. 13 discloses a system wherein “in the malfunction diagnosing device X1, it is possible to detect a trouble in any of the pistons M1 to M9 without setting a threshold value in accordance with the pressure value of hydraulic fluid discharged by the hydraulic pump 2 by focusing the magnitude of the waveform component inherent to each of the pistons M1 to M9 with respect to the magnitude of the waveform component common among the pistons M1 to M9. In other words, the malfunction diagnosing device X1 can eliminate the work of adjusting the threshold value according to the pressure value of hydraulic fluid discharged by the hydraulic pump 2. Therefore, it is possible to diagnose the presence/absence of a malfunction of the hydraulic pump 2 easily…”; see Figs. 5-8, in Fig. 7 it is determined to be normal operation because the waveform is relatively uniform in terms of amplitude, see Col. 9 lines 1-20, meaning the Mth-degree component has an amplitude approximately the same as other amplitudes), whereas
if the pressure amplitude of the rotational Mth-degree component is greater than the predetermined percentage of the pressure amplitude of the rotational first-degree component, determines that there is an abnormality in the hydraulic rotating equipment (Tomochika, Col. 9 and Col. 13 lines 7-19 discloses determining an abnormality by comparing the amplitude waveforms of the rotational components and comparing each piston M1 to M9 amplitude with the common inherent amplitude to determine a malfunction which eliminates the need for comparing to a threshold and continuously adjusting the threshold pressure which facilitates diagnosing the presence/absence of a malfunction of the pump 2 easily; Col. 9 lines 58-67 discloses eliminating the need to adjust the threshold value, etc.; an abnormality is detected when an amplitude is greater relative to the other amplitudes as seen in Fig. 8; since Tomochika discloses this technique can be used for any of the pistons M1 to M9 to determine an abnormality exists).
Since facilitating the diagnosing of a malfunction of a hydraulic pump by eliminating the need for comparing to a pressure threshold, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Yamamoto to have the processing circuitry configured such that if a pressure amplitude of a rotational Mth-degree component in the frequency spectrum, the rotational Mth-degree component being M times as great as a rotational frequency, is less than a predetermined percentage of a pressure amplitude of a rotational first-degree component in the frequency spectrum, the rotational first-degree component being one time as great as the rotational frequency, determines that the hydraulic rotating equipment is in a normal condition, whereas if the pressure amplitude of the rotational Mth-degree component is greater than the predetermined percentage of the pressure amplitude of the rotational first-degree component, determines that there is an abnormality in the hydraulic rotating equipment as taught by Tomochika.
The combination of Yamamoto and Tomochika further renders obvious:
9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the hydraulic rotating equipment includes an axial piston pump (Yamamoto 21) that is driven by an engine (Yamamoto 41) and that forms a hydraulic circuit of a construction machine together with hydraulic actuators (Yamamoto 11-15), and the processing circuitry stores, as the pressure waveform the drain pressure that is measured by the sensor while the axial piston pump is supplying a hydraulic liquid to at least one of the hydraulic actuators, and performs the frequency analysis on the stored pressure waveform (Yamamoto Fig. 5, pressure waveform is shown and stored at least temporarily in the controller for frequency analysis to be performed).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Tomochika as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kayane et al. (US 9657654), hereinafter ‘Kayane’.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yamamoto and Tomochika renders obvious the system according to claim 1, and further renders obvious: wherein the hydraulic rotating equipment includes an axial piston pump (Yamamoto 21) that is driven by an engine (Yamamoto 41) and that forms a hydraulic circuit of a construction machine together with hydraulic actuators (Yamamoto 11-15); the processing circuitry stores, as the pressure waveform, the drain pressure that is measured by the sensor, and performs the frequency analysis on the stored pressure waveform (Yamamoto Fig. 5, pressure waveform is shown and stored at least temporarily in the controller for frequency analysis to be performed).
The combination of Yamamoto and Tomochika does not explicitly disclose wherein the engine transitions to idling operation when none of the hydraulic actuators is in action, and during the idling operation, in a state where a delivery pressure of the axial piston pump is kept to a predetermined value.
However, Kayane discloses a hydraulic system similar to Yamamoto and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Kayane discloses the technique wherein the engine transitions to idling operation when none of the hydraulic actuators is in action, and during the idling operation (Col. 2 lines 31-38 discloses the controller adjusting the speed of the engine to an idling speed when the operating device has been returned from an operating position to a neutral position, meaning no hydraulic actuators are in action), and discloses when the operating device is kept at the neutral position, the pump discharge pressure is set to be smaller than a first threshold, which is a predetermined value (Kayane Col. 6 lines 15-28). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that decreasing pump output to a low value during idling operations would reduce wasted energy which is beneficial.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, the modified system of Yamamoto in view of Tomochika renders obvious all elements except having the engine transition to idling operation when none of the hydraulic actuators is in action, and during the idling operation, in a state where a delivery pressure of the axial piston pump is kept to a predetermined value. Kayane teaches having the engine transition to idling operation when none of the hydraulic actuators is in action, and during the idling operation, in a state where a delivery pressure of the axial piston pump is kept to a predetermined value, which has the function of reducing energy waste during idling operations. When combined into the modified system of Yamamoto by implementing this control of the engine speed and pump output, it maintains its function of reducing energy waste during idling operations. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to engine speed control and pump output control that function in the same manner in the environment of hydraulic systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system Yamamoto in view of Tomochika in further view of Kayane because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Since reducing wasted energy is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Yamamoto in view of Tomochika to have used the technique of having the engine transition to idling operation when none of the hydraulic actuators is in action, and during the idling operation, in a state where a delivery pressure of the axial piston pump is kept to a predetermined value as taught by Kayane. Since the abnormality detection system operates continuously, it would continue its abnormality detection function during the implemented an engine idling operation in which the pump discharge is decreased to a low amount.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maekawa (JPH0747963B2) discloses a method for diagnosing abnormalities in a hydraulic pump by comparing pressure pulses to a normal operate pressure pulse; compares the ratio between the absolute amplitude value of the hydraulic pressure such as the pressure on the discharge side of the pump and the pulsation amplitude value, that is, the pulsation rate with a reference pulsation rate in a steady state; and discloses diagnosis of the degree of deterioration or failure of the hydraulic circuit components is made based on the absolute amount of the deviation.
Ochiai (JP2000274378A) discloses an operating state diagnostic device for a hydraulic rotary machine such as a pump, and discloses determining an abnormality by comparing a detected pressure of the pump and performing frequency analysis
Artyukhov (SU 1523720A1) discloses diagnosis of axial-piston hydraulic pumps wherein the pressure pulsations at the outlet of the hydraulic pump are measured, the changes in the amplitude of the pressure pulsations are used to determine the diagnostic parameter, which is compared with the reference value; and discloses that a diagnostic parameter of the relative standard deviation of the pressure pulsation is calculated, depending on the selective disconnection of the pressure pulsation amplitude for the period of operation of each piston and the period of rotation of the rotor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 January 30, 2026