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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024 and 09/25/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the text in Fig. 3 and 5 are blurry and some text appear unintelligible. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference character ‘352’, ‘326’, etc. does not appear to be clearly in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “an expected regenerative flow…and generating, based on the valve passage flow, the expected regenerative flow,”
While applicant’s disclosure states that various pressure signals are used to determine a regenerative flow, there does not appear to be adequate description of a hydraulic system that allows for any regenerative flow. Applicant’s drawings do not show a hydraulic circuit that is capable of regenerating fluid. As best understood, regenerating fluid of an actuator allows fluid from one chamber of the hydraulic cylinder actuator to flow into the other chamber of the hydraulic cylinder actuator without passing through the pump. Applicant’s only disclosed hydraulic circuit as seen in Fig. 4 does not show any fluid lines or structures that allow for this capability.
Further, applicant’s disclosure does not discuss how the signals are used to determine a regenerative flow. Applicant’s disclosure only appears to say that these signals are used somehow to determine a regenerative flow which appears to be specifying a result without sufficiently describing how this result is achieved.
In light of the above, the subject matter of claim 2 does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2-6, 8, 10 appears to lack written description because the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. While applicant’s discloses states that the regenerative flow is determined based on various signals and parameters, applicant’s system does not admit of this feature and does not disclose how these signals and parameters are specifically utilized in generating an expected regenerative flow.
Claims 2-6, 8 and 10 fail the written description requirement at least because they depend from claim 2 which fails the written description requirement.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10 are nonenabling because one having ordinary skill in the art could not make or use the invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. An analysis of the Wands factors reveals that the following factors weigh against enablement:
Wands factors
The state of the prior art.
The prior art uses regeneration valves in between the piston chamber and rod chamber of a hydraulic cylinder to implement fluid regeneration. Applicant’s system lacks any structure that allows for fluid regeneration of its hydraulic cylinder 150, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how its system determines an expected regenerative flow for a hydraulic circuit that does not appear to allow regenerative flow.
The level of one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that regenerative flow can be calculated and controlled, but would not know how to do so in applicant’s Fig. 4 system because there does not appear to be adequate structures to allow for regenerative flow.
The level of predictability in the art.
The level of predictability in the field of hydraulic systems is fairly predictable. Regenerative flow requires certain structures to allow for this feature, and these structures appear to be lacking in applicant’s disclosed Fig. 4 system.
The amount of direction provided by inventor.
The inventor does not provide any direction as to how its disclosed system in Fig. 4 achieves regenerative flow. The disclosure only appears to state determining an expected regenerative flow using various signals, but one of ordinary skill would not know how to make and use a system that determines an expected regenerative flow when the system does not appear capable of regenerative flow.
The existence of working examples.
There do not appear to be any working examples of a system determining an expected regenerative flow when the structural system does not physically allow for regenerative flow.
The quantity of experimentation.
There would be an undue amount of experimentation to make and use applicant’s claimed invention that determines an expected regenerative flow with applicant’s disclosed system because the disclosed system does not appear capable of a regenerative flow feature.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP § 2164.01 (a). It is noted that the determination of undue experimentation is reached by weighing all the factors and that no single factor is dispositive (MPEP 2164.01 (a)).
Upon the weight of all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled by the originally filed disclosure to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation and therefore claims 2-6, 8, 10 are not enabled.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukich (US 5214916) in view of Dietz (US 5666806) and Martin (US 4201116).
Lukich discloses:
1. A computer-implemented method of controlling a rate of movement of a work implement for a work machine, comprising:
(a) generating a velocity request (205) for a first actuator from a machine control system of the work machine, where the first actuator is one or more of a plurality of first actuators
associated with the work implement (20, 22, 24, 26, 28);
(b) receiving a signal representing a velocity measurement of the first actuator (210);
(c) generating a velocity control signal based on the velocity request and the signal representing the velocity measurement of the first actuator (Col. 6 lines 35-68, Col. 7 lines 1-5 discloses generating a control signal for the pump displacement engine speed, and the control valves to achieve the desired velocity of the actuators);
a directional control valve (one of 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, of a respective actuator), the directional control valve being operably disposed between a hydraulic pump (16 or 18) and the first actuator (one of 20, 22, 24, 26, 28);
generating a valve force control signal to control a subsequent position of the second actuator and generating a flow control signal to control an output of a hydraulic pump (Col. 6 lines 35-68, Col. 7 lines 1-5 discloses generating a control signal for the pump displacement which is a flow control signal, and discloses controlling the control valves to achieve the proper flow rate to achieve the desired velocity of the actuators); and discloses receiving signals representative of a position of a second actuator (Lukich Col. 2 lines 50-61).
Lukich does not explicitly disclose receiving signals representative of an initial position of a second actuator, where the second actuator is one or more of a plurality of second actuators associated with a directional control valve, the directional control valve being operably disposed between a hydraulic pump and the first actuator; based at least upon the initial position of the second actuator, repeating steps (a)–(c) based on the valve force control signal and the flow control signal.
Dietz discloses a hydraulic system similar to Lukich and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Dietz discloses a computer-implemented method of controlling a rate of movement of a work implement for a work machine, comprising:
(a) generating a velocity request (44) for a first actuator (18) from a machine control system of the work machine, where the first actuator is one or more of a plurality of first actuators associated with the work implement;
(b) receiving a signal representing a velocity measurement of the first actuator (position sensor 40, Col. 3lines 25-35 discloses differentiating cylinder position to obtain cylinder velocity);
(c) generating a velocity control signal based on the velocity request and the signal representing the velocity measurement of the first actuator (Col. 3 lines 25-35);
receiving signals representative of an initial position of a second actuator (Col. 6 lines 58-61, initial spool displacement value),
a) generating a velocity request (44) for a first actuator (18) from a machine control system of the work machine, where the first actuator is one or more of a plurality of first actuators associated with the work implement;
(b) receiving a signal representing a velocity measurement of the first actuator (position sensor 40, Col. 3lines 25-35 discloses differentiating cylinder position to obtain cylinder velocity);
(c) generating a velocity control signal based on the velocity request and the signal representing the velocity measurement of the first actuator (Col. 3 lines 25-35 discloses a );
receiving signals representative of an initial position of a second actuator (Col. 6 lines 58-61, initial spool displacement value),
where the second actuator is one or more of a plurality of second actuators associated with a directional control valve (21), the directional control valve being operably disposed between a hydraulic pump and the first actuator;
based at least upon the initial position of the second actuator (initial spool displacement), generating a valve force control signal to control a subsequent position of the second actuator (Col. 6 lines 52-67 discloses the computed initial pump displacement output value and the initial spool displacement value are a function of the system condition signals and the input command signal, Col. 3 discloses the system condition signals include cylinder velocity)
and generating a flow control signal to control an output of a hydraulic pump (Col. 7 lines 16-28 discloses a pump displacement output signal and a spool displacement output signal are produced as a function of the initial pump displacement output value and the initial spool displacement output value; Col. 2 lines 1-27 discloses using an initial spool displacement signal to calculate an output spool displacement signal as well as a pump output control signal to achieve a desired hydraulic cylinder operation); and
repeating steps (a)–(c) based on the valve force control signal and the flow control signal (Fig. 2 indicates a repeated control loop for steps (a)-(c)).
Dietz discloses that its disclosed control that accounts for the initial position of the spool and discloses more accurate and robust control of the hydraulic cylinder (Col. 7 lines 41-43).
Further, Martin discloses a hydraulic system including a control valve similar to Lukich and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Martin discloses a valve 10 between a pump 28 and actuator 18 and teaches that directional control valve 10 is embodied as a proportional solenoid valve actuators have solenoid cores that are moved in proportion to the valve spool element (Col. 1 lines 6-34, lines 54-62), therefore any sensor that detects a valve spool position is equivalent of detecting an actuator position. Martin discloses that it’s improved valve is applicable to four-way or three-way valves, and teaches that its proportional solenoid control valve allows for more accurate control of the hydraulic cylinder in terms of velocity (Col. 1 lines 6-34, Col. 1 lines 54-62).
Since more accurate control of a hydraulic cylinder 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 Lukich to have used a solenoid actuator proportional control valve as taught by Martin, which would include the valve actuator including the solenoid core 56 that controls the position of the spool within the valve 10.
Further, since more accurate and robust control of a hydraulic cylinder is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the system of Lukich and Martin to have used a directional control valve controlled by a solenoid actuator such that the control includes receiving signals representative of an initial position of a second actuator (solenoid core within solenoid actuator as taught by Martin), where the second actuator is one or more of a plurality of second actuators associated with a directional control valve (Lukich remains silent as to its valve actuator, therefore 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 Lukich to have implemented known suitable solenoid valve actuators such as those disclosed in Martin and/or Dietz that are associated with a directional control valve), the directional control valve being operably disposed between a hydraulic pump and the first actuator (Lukich, see valves 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 between pump 16,18 and first actuators 20, 22, 24, 26, 28); based at least upon the initial position of the second actuator (initial position of the spool as taught by Dietz is used in the control for more accurate control of the hydraulic cylinder; and in light of Martin, the spool position is directly correlated to the spool actuator position, therefore the initial position of the second/spool actuator is used in the valve control), repeating steps (a)–(c) based on the valve force control signal and the flow control signal (Lukich Col. 6 lines 35-68, Col. 7 lines 1-5 discloses generating a control signal for the pump displacement which is a flow control signal, and discloses controlling the control valves to achieve the proper flow rate to achieve the desired velocity of the actuators; and Dietz also discloses a valve force control with its output spool control signal).
Claim 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukich, Dietz, Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanazawa et al. (US 11230821), hereinafter ‘Kanazawa’.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lukich, Dietz, and Martin renders obvious the method of claim 1 above, but does not disclose wherein determining the flow force comprises: dynamically receiving, from one or more of a plurality of sensors, at least one signal representing a flow force data; dynamically receiving a signal representing a plurality of positions of the second actuator, the plurality of positions of the second actuator comprising the initial position and the subsequent position of the second actuator; time series matching the at least one signal representing flow force data to the signal representing the plurality of positions of the second actuator, where the at least one signal representing flow force data and the signal representing the plurality of positions of the second actuator each comprise a plurality of measurements over a period of time; and generating, based on the time series matching, an output signal representing a compensated flow force
However, Kanazawa discloses a hydraulic system with actuator velocity control similar to Lukich and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Kanazawa renders obvious determining the flow force comprises: dynamically receiving, from one or more of a plurality of sensors, at least one signal representing a flow force data; dynamically receiving a signal representing a plurality of positions of the second actuator, the plurality of positions of the second actuator comprising the initial position and the subsequent position of the second actuator; time series matching the at least one signal representing flow force data to the signal representing the plurality of positions of the second actuator, where the at least one signal representing flow force data and the signal representing the plurality of positions of the second actuator each comprise a plurality of measurements over a period of time; and generating, based on the time series matching, an output signal representing a compensated flow force (Col. 6 lines 64-67 and Col. 7 lines 1-10, discloses a spool position sensor 8a5, and pressure sensors 8a3, 8a4a, 8a4b that are used to determine a pressure differential across the valve 8a1; Col. 7 lines 44-57 discloses an actuator velocity sensor and discloses a relationship between the spool position and the velocity of the actuator; Col. 8 discloses storing the operation characteristic and updated the operation characteristics, Col. 12 lines 1-11 discloses mapping the differential pressure relative to the spool position; Cols. 8-12 renders obvious the d one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the updated spool position command represents a compensated flow force because the flow force is a function of the pressures and the velocity of the actuator through the valve; discloses a calibration mode that associates sensed values of the differential pressure from sensors 8a3, 8a4a, 8a4b with various valve spool positions from position sensor 8a5). Kanazawa discloses that its calibration technique improves the precision of the calibration process and is able to precisely derive the operation characteristics of the hydraulic actuator in the high velocity area with less calibration (Col. 12 lines 12-28).
Since improvements in the calibration process and improved actuator velocity control is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the system of Lukich, Dietz, Martin to have included wherein determining the flow force comprises: dynamically receiving, from one or more of a plurality of sensors, at least one signal representing a flow force data; dynamically receiving a signal representing a plurality of positions of the second actuator, the plurality of positions of the second actuator comprising the initial position and the subsequent position of the second actuator; time series matching the at least one signal representing flow force data to the signal representing the plurality of positions of the second actuator, where the at least one signal representing flow force data and the signal representing the plurality of positions of the second actuator each comprise a plurality of measurements over a period of time; and generating, based on the time series matching, an output signal representing a compensated flow force as taught by Kanazawa.
The combination of Lukich, Dietz, Martin and Kanazawa further renders obvious:
9. The method of claim 7, wherein generating the valve force control signal further comprises: dynamically comparing the valve force control signal to the subsequent position of the second actuator; dynamically generating, based on the dynamically compared valve force control signal to the subsequent position of the second actuator, a compensatory signal; and modifying the valve force control signal with the compensatory signal (Kanazawa, compensated spool position command x_s,ref is used to control the valve actuator to control the spool to the proper position to output the desired actuator velocity which means the valve outputs the determined compensated flow force that results in the desired actuator velocity).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukich, Dietz, Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cobo et al. (US 5737993), hereinafter ‘Cobo’.
Regarding claim 11 and 12, the combination of Lukich, Dietz, and Martin renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does explicitly not disclose wherein generating the valve force control signal further comprises: receiving a plurality of compared data, the plurality of compared data representing a comparison of the valve force control signal to the subsequent position of the second actuator; deriving, through dynamic system modeling and from the plurality of compared data, a hysteresis compensator; and dynamically estimating the hysteresis compensator according to a plurality of positions of the second actuator, the plurality of positions of the second actuator comprising the initial position and the subsequent position of the second actuator; wherein repeating step (c) further comprises: generating a target error by comparing the velocity request with the signal representing the velocity measurement; and modifying the velocity control signal with the target error.
However, Cobo discloses a hydraulic system with velocity control similar to Lukich and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Cobo discloses generating a target error by comparing the velocity request with the signal representing the velocity measurement; and modifying the velocity control signal with the target error (Fig. 3, Col. 4 lines 58-67) and wherein further comprising: generating a proportional target error; generating an integral target error; combining the proportional target error and the integral target error; and modifying the target error with the combined proportional target error and integral target error (Col. 4 lines 58-67, Col. 5 lines 1-5; includes recitation of “A PID block 315 multiplies the corresponding velocity error signal by proportional, integral, and derivative gain values to produce a control velocity signal.”). Cobo discloses that its closed-loop PID control system accurately controls the work implement velocity to operator desired velocities (Col. 6 lines 62-65).
Since accurately controlling the work implement velocity to operator desired velocity 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 Lukich to have used wherein repeating step (c) further comprises: generating a target error by comparing the velocity request with the signal representing the velocity measurement; and modifying the velocity control signal with the target error, further comprising: generating a proportional target error; generating an integral target error; combining the proportional target error and the integral target error; and modifying the target error with the combined proportional target error and integral target error as taught by Cobo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walters et al. (US 4031813) discloses a hydraulic actuator control with a valve force control signal, flow control signal, and directional control signal, and discloses velocity control of the actuator using feedback
Krone et al. (US 5784945), Rausch et al. (US 10662621), Ishihara et al. (US 2024/0288847) discloses actuator velocity control from an operator command that is translated to a valve command signal
Shatters et al. (US 8340875) discloses a hydraulic system with actuator velocity control that includes regeneration of fluid
Singh et al. (US 10017912), Takagawa et al. (US 12320097), discloses a hydraulic system including a PID feedback mechanism that utilizes a velocity error signal along with proportional gain signal, integral gain signal, and a derivative gain signal to control a lift valve in a manner that minimizes the error between the desired velocity and the actual velocity.
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 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights