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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 of US application 18/965,196 filed 12/2/24 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 3/9/26.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 6/2/26. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-13, and 16-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections: applicant’s amendments have resolved the minor informalities previously objected to by the examiner. The previously given claim objections are accordingly withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103: applicant’s arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive because they refer to newly amended portions of the claim language. The previously given claim rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in further view of Leone et al. (US 20180022339 A1), hereinafter referred to as Leone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shively et al. (US 20210107446 A1) in view of Leone et al. (US 20180022339 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shively and Leone, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Shively discloses A communication system for a hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses a control system 500 for the fire fighting vehicle 10 [See at least Shively, 0079]), comprising:
a power source including a genset (See at least Fig. 25 in Shively: Shively discloses that the hybrid powertrain 200 may include a genset system, etc., shown as generator system 256 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Shively further discloses that The generator system 256 can include a generator, a mechanical transducer, an energy conversion device, an electrical generator, etc., shown as generator 238 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Shively further discloses that The generator 238 may be driven by the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Also see at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0079]) and one or more batteries (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses the battery pack 260 [See at least Shively, 0079]);
a first control module for controlling a power distribution of the hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]);
a second control module for controlling one of an implement or a transmission of the hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. The pump may be regarded as applicant’s “implement”. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered);
a first communication line connecting the power source to the first control module (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]); and
a second communication line separate from the first communication line connecting the first control module to the second control module (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the engine 210, the power divider 220, and/or the ETD 240 (e.g., engage ETD clutch 234, back-start the engine 210, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0079]. Given that the commands sent to an engine are different from those sent to a power divider, it will be appreciated that these are two separate connections for two separate components and therefore may be regarded as, if not two separate physical lines from the controller, at the very least two separate software-based connection “lines” from the controller).
However, Shively does not explicitly teach the system wherein each of the first and second control modules are electronic control modules.
However, Leone does teach a system wherein each of the first and second control modules are electronic control modules (See at least Fig. 1 in Leone: Leone discloses that The ECU 12 is electrically connected to the engine 10 for controlling the operation of the engine [See at least Leone, 0020]. Leone further teaches that The TCU 66 is electrically connected to and controls the motor 26 and the transmission 44 [See at least Leone, 0020]. Leone further teaches that The ECU 12 is in communication with the TCU 66 and other controllers (not shown) over a vehicle network using a common bus protocol (e.g., CAN) [See at least Leone, 0020]). Both Leone and Shively teach systems where an engine control unit and a transmission are linked together. However, only Leone explicitly teaches where the engine control unit and the transmission may be linked together by linking the engine control unit to a transmission control unit (TCU), which is a CAN-enabled controller.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the topology of Shively so that there a separate TCU to which the engine control unit is linked, as in Leone, rather than just linking the engine control unit directly to the transmission without this intermediate TCU. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the distributed control layout of having dedicated ECUs and TCUs linked together by a communication is an obvious but equivalent substitute for a single ECU which performs both functions.
Regarding claim 2, Shively in view of Leone teaches The communication system of claim 1, wherein the first communication line is isolated from the second communication line (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the engine 210, the power divider 220, and/or the ETD 240 (e.g., engage ETD clutch 234, back-start the engine 210, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0079]. Given that the commands sent to an engine are different from those sent to a power divider, it will be appreciated that these are two separate connections for two separate components and therefore may be regarded as, if not two separate physical lines from the controller, at the very least two separate software-based connection “lines” from the controller), such that the genset does not communicate with the second control module (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the engine 210, the power divider 220, and/or the ETD 240 (e.g., engage ETD clutch 234, back-start the engine 210, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0079]. Also see at least Fig. 10 of Shively: Shively discloses that the power divider interface 212 of the engine 210 and the engine interface 222 of the power divider 220 are in direct engagement such that the power divider 220 is directly driven by the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0061]. Shively further discloses that, In other embodiments, the power divider interface 212 of the engine 210 and engine interface 222 of the power divider 220 are coupled together by an intermediate member (e.g., a connecting shaft, a gearbox, a clutch, a continuous variable transmission, a pulley, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0061]. It will therefore be appreciated that Fig. 10 illustrates a physical connection between engine 220 and power divider 220, but not a communicative connection, which means that engine 210 of the genset and the existing components such as power divider 220 and ETD (transmission) 240, do not have a communicative (wire/CAN-based) connection with each other. Instead, as discussed previously, Shively discloses that the controller 510 communicates individually and separately with each of these components without causing them to communicate with each other [See at least Shively, 0079]).
Regarding claim 3, Shively in view of Leone teaches The communication system of claim 1, wherein the first control module is configured to mimic an engine controller of a non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. Since the controller 510 controls ETD 240, which is a transmission, and engine 210, it will be appreciated that the controller mimics an engine controller of non-electric machine).
Regarding claim 4, Shively in view of Leone teaches The communication system of claim 1, wherein the second control module is configured to communicate with the first control module without additional software (See at least Fig. 1 in Leone: Leone teaches that The ECU 12 is in communication with the TCU 66 and other controllers (not shown) over a vehicle network using a common bus protocol (e.g., CAN) [See at least Leone, 0020]. Technically, now new software is needed for a basic CAN communication protocol to exist between these two components. The issue here is that the claim is written so broadly, that there are no constraints on when the new software is not required, so [Leone, 0020] does read on the claim language. Conversely, claims 13 and 20 do impose additional constraints on when the new software is not required, so these claims overcome Leone).
Regarding claim 6, Shively in view of Leone teaches The communication system of claim 3, wherein the second control module controls a transmission of the hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. The pump may be regarded as applicant’s “implement”. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered), and wherein the transmission of the hybrid electric machine is unchanged from a transmission of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered. It will be appreciated that a transmission, pump, and power divider are not parts of electric machine, and are therefore parts of the “non-electric machine” that are unchanged from that non-electric machine).
Regarding claim 7, Shively in view of Leone teaches The communication system of claim 3, wherein the first control module is configured to send and receive one or more same messages as the engine controller of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Since the controller is functioning as the engine controller, and sends and receives control signals from the engine and its related components, it will be appreciated that it does send and receive the same signals as an engine controller).
Regarding claim 8, Shively in view of Leone teaches The communication system of claim 1, further comprising a battery management system (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively teaches a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]) and a third communication line, wherein the third communication line is configured to communicate between the first control module and the battery management system (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. To be clear, the communication line (whether physical or implemented by software) between the controller and the engine may be regarded as applicant’s “first communication line” and the communication line (whether physical or implemented by software) between the controller and the BMS may be regarded as applicant’s “third communication line”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shively et al. (US 20210107446 A1) in view of Leone et al. (US 20180022339 A1) in further view of Heybroek et al. (US 20240337256 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shively, Leone, and Heybroek, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Shively in view of Leone teaches The communication system of claim 1, wherein the second control module controls the implement of the hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. The pump may be regarded as applicant’s “implement”. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered).
However, Shively does not explicitly teach the system wherein the hybrid electric machine is a wheel loader and the implement is a bucket.
However, Heybroek does teach a system wherein the hybrid electric machine is a wheel loader (See at least Fig. 1 in Heybroek: Heybroek teaches that a wheel loader 10a [See at least Heybroek, 0086]. Heybroek teaches that the wheel loader 10a comprises an electric power source 13 for electrically powering the electro-hydraulic apparatus 12 [See at least Heybroek, 0086]. Heybroek further teaches that The electric power source 13 may for example be an electric generator driven by a combustion engine of the wheel loader 10a, or an electric storage device, such as a battery pack [See at least Heybroek, 0086]) and the implement is a bucket (See at least Fig. 1 in Heybroek: Heybroek teaches that The equipment 24 comprises a load-arm unit 28, also referred to as a linkage, and an implement in the form of a bucket 30 fitted on the load-arm unit 28 [See at least Heybroek, 0088]. Heybroek further teaches that The load-arm unit 28 with the bucket 30 thereon can be raised and lowered relative to the front body section 14 by means of two boom or lifting hydraulic cylinders 32a, 32b [See at least Heybroek, 0088]. Heybroek further teaches that Each hydraulic cylinder 20, 22 and 32a-32c is hydraulically powered by the electro-hydraulic apparatus 12 [See at least Heybroek, 0088]). Both Heybroek and Shively teach work vehicles with implements powered by one or more of a generator and a battery. However, only Heybroek explicitly teaches where the vehicle may be a wheel loader and the implement may be a bucket.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Shively so that the vehicle is a wheel loader rather than a truck, and so that the implement is a bucket rather than a pump, as in Heybroek. This is because anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the power systems and internal architecture of the truck of Shively is so generic and generalizable that they could just as easily be used inside of wheel loader. Any work vehicle with an implement can be made into a hybrid vehicle. This is obvious in the art.
Claims 9-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shively et al. (US 20210107446 A1) in view of Leone et al. (US 20180022339 A1) in further view of Sweere et al. (US 11958352 B1), hereinafter referred to as Shively, Leone, and Sweere, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Shively discloses A method (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 includes a processing circuit 512 and a memory 514 [See at least Shively, 0080]. Shively further discloses that the processing circuit 512 is configured to execute computer code stored in the memory 514 to facilitate the activities described herein [See at least Shively, 0080]) comprising:
providing a first control module for controlling a power distribution (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]) of the genset (See at least Fig. 25 in Shively: Shively discloses that the hybrid powertrain 200 may include a genset system, etc., shown as generator system 256 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Shively further discloses that The generator system 256 can include a generator, a mechanical transducer, an energy conversion device, an electrical generator, etc., shown as generator 238 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Shively further discloses that The generator 238 may be driven by the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Also see at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0079]) and the one or more batteries (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses the battery pack 260 [See at least Shively, 0079]);
providing a first communication line between the first control module and the genset and the one or more batteries (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]); and
providing a second communication line between the first control module and a second control module of the non-electric machine that is configured to control existing components of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the power divider 220 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”, which is a non-electric part of the machine. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. The line between the controller and the power divider may therefore be regarded as a “line between the first control module and… existing components of the non-electric machine”), wherein the first communication line is isolated from the second communication line (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the engine 210, the power divider 220, and/or the ETD 240 (e.g., engage ETD clutch 234, back-start the engine 210, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0079]. Given that the commands sent to an engine are different from those sent to a power divider, it will be appreciated that these are two separate connections for two separate components and therefore may be regarded as, if not two separate physical lines from the controller, at the very least two separate software-based connection “lines” from the controller), such that the genset does not communicate with the existing components of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the engine 210, the power divider 220, and/or the ETD 240 (e.g., engage ETD clutch 234, back-start the engine 210, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0079]. Also see at least Fig. 10 of Shively: Shively discloses that the power divider interface 212 of the engine 210 and the engine interface 222 of the power divider 220 are in direct engagement such that the power divider 220 is directly driven by the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0061]. Shively further discloses that, In other embodiments, the power divider interface 212 of the engine 210 and engine interface 222 of the power divider 220 are coupled together by an intermediate member (e.g., a connecting shaft, a gearbox, a clutch, a continuous variable transmission, a pulley, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0061]. It will therefore be appreciated that Fig. 10 illustrates a physical connection between engine 220 and power divider 220, but not a communicative connection, which means that engine 210 of the genset and the existing components such as power divider 220 and ETD (transmission) 240, do not have a communicative (wire/CAN-based) connection with each other. Instead, as discussed previously, Shively discloses that the controller 510 communicates individually and separately with each of these components without causing them to communicate with each other [See at least Shively, 0079]).
However Shively does not explicitly teach the method wherein the second control module is an electronic control module.
However, Leone does teach a system wherein the second control module is an electronic control module (See at least Fig. 1 in Leone: Leone discloses that The ECU 12 is electrically connected to the engine 10 for controlling the operation of the engine [See at least Leone, 0020]. Leone further teaches that The TCU 66 is electrically connected to and controls the motor 26 and the transmission 44 [See at least Leone, 0020]. Leone further teaches that The ECU 12 is in communication with the TCU 66 and other controllers (not shown) over a vehicle network using a common bus protocol (e.g., CAN) [See at least Leone, 0020]. The TCU may be regarded as applicant’s “second control module [which] is an electronic control module”). Both Leone and Shively teach systems where an engine control unit and a transmission are linked together. However, only Leone explicitly teaches where the engine control unit and the transmission may be linked together by linking the engine control unit to a transmission control unit (TCU), which is a CAN-enabled controller.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the topology of Shively so that there a separate TCU to which the engine control unit is linked, as in Leone, rather than just linking the engine control unit directly to the transmission without this intermediate TCU. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the distributed control layout of having dedicated ECUs and TCUs linked together by a communication is an obvious but equivalent substitute for a single ECU which performs both functions.
However, Shively does not explicitly teach wherein the method is a method of retrofitting a non-electric machine into a hybrid electric machine, the method comprising:
replacing a non-electric power source and one or more batteries.
However, Sweere does teach where the method is a method of retrofitting a non-electric machine into a hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 15 in Sweere: Sweere discloses a method 20 for retrofitting a diesel-powered mining haul truck for use with a hybrid hydrogen fuel cell/battery-based powerplant [See at least Sweere, Col 21, lines 26-28]), the method comprising:
replacing a non-electric power source (See at least Fig. 15 in Sweere: Sweere discloses that the method 20 includes removing a diesel powerplant from an engine bay of the haul truck, at 21 [See at least Sweere, Col 21, lines 29-31]) with a genset (See at least Fig. 15 in Sweere: Sweere discloses that At 25, a first portion of the fuel cell system is installed in the first wheel pocket and a second portion of the fuel cell system is installed in the second wheel pocket [See at least Sweere, Col 21, lines 62-64]. Since a fuel cell is a generator, the fuel cell system may broadly be regarded as a “genset”) and one or more batteries (See at least Fig. 15 in Sweere: Sweere discloses that The method 20 further includes installing a battery system on a deck of the haul truck, at 26 [See at least Sweere, Col 22, lines 8-9]). Both Shively and Sweere teach methods for operating hybrid trucks having both a genset and a battery. However, only Sweere explicitly teaches where the genset and battery may be retrofitted into the truck in order to a replace an internal combustion engine, which is removed from the truck before the genset and battery are retrofitted in.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hybrid vehicle operation method of Shively so that the genset and battery are retrofitted into the truck in order to a replace an internal combustion engine, which is removed from the truck before the genset and battery are retrofitted in, as in Sweere. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this type of power plant replacement is common, improves fuel efficiency, and reduces emissions.
Regarding claim 10, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 9, further comprising:
configuring the first control module to mimic an engine controller of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. Since the controller 510 controls ETD 240, which is a transmission, and engine 210, it will be appreciated that the controller mimics an engine controller of non-electric machine).
Regarding claim 11, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 10, further comprising:
configuring the first control module to send and receive one or more same messages as the engine controller of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Since the controller is functioning as the engine controller, and sends and receives control signals from the engine and its related components, it will be appreciated that it does send and receive the same signals as an engine controller).
Regarding claim 12, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 10, wherein the existing components of the non-electric machine includes the second control module for controlling one of an implement or a transmission of the hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. The pump may be regarded as applicant’s “implement”. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered).
Regarding claim 15, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 12, wherein the second control module controls a transmission of the hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. The pump may be regarded as applicant’s “implement”. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered), and wherein the transmission of the hybrid electric machine is unchanged from the transmission of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered. It will be appreciated that a transmission, pump, and power divider are not parts of electric machine, and are therefore parts of the “non-electric machine” that are unchanged from that non-electric machine).
Regarding claim 16, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the first control module is configured to send and receive one or more same messages as an engine controller of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Since the controller is functioning as the engine controller, and sends and receives control signals from the engine and its related components, it will be appreciated that it does send and receive the same signals as an engine controller).
Regarding claim 17, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 9, further comprising:
providing a third communication line configured to communicate between the first control module and a battery management system (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. To be clear, the communication line (whether physical or implemented by software) between the controller and the engine may be regarded as applicant’s “first communication line” and the communication line (whether physical or implemented by software) between the controller and the BMS may be regarded as applicant’s “third communication line”).
Regarding claim 18, Shively discloses A method (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 includes a processing circuit 512 and a memory 514 [See at least Shively, 0080]. Shively further discloses that the processing circuit 512 is configured to execute computer code stored in the memory 514 to facilitate the activities described herein [See at least Shively, 0080]) comprising:
providing a genset for providing power to existing components of the machine (See at least Fig. 25 in Shively: Shively discloses that the hybrid powertrain 200 may include a genset system, etc., shown as generator system 256 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Shively further discloses that The generator system 256 can include a generator, a mechanical transducer, an energy conversion device, an electrical generator, etc., shown as generator 238 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Shively further discloses that The generator 238 may be driven by the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0159]. Also see at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses the engine 210 [See at least Shively, 0079]);
providing a first control module for controlling a power distribution of the genset (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]);
providing a first communication line between the first control module and the genset (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]); and
providing a second communication line between the first control module and a second control module configured to control the existing components of the non-electric machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the power divider 220 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”, which is a non-electric part of the machine. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. The line between the controller and the power divider may therefore be regarded as a “line between the control module and existing components of the non-electric machine”), wherein the first communication line is isolated from the second communication line (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 may send command signals to the engine 210, the power divider 220, and/or the ETD 240 (e.g., engage ETD clutch 234, back-start the engine 210, etc.) [See at least Shively, 0079]. Given that the commands sent to an engine are different from those sent to a power divider, it will be appreciated that these are two separate connections for two separate components and therefore may be regarded as, if not two separate physical lines from the controller, at the very least two separate software-based connection “lines” from the controller).
However Shively does not explicitly teach the method wherein each of the control modules is an electronic control module.
However, Leone does teach a system wherein each of the control modules is an electronic control module (See at least Fig. 1 in Leone: Leone discloses that The ECU 12 is electrically connected to the engine 10 for controlling the operation of the engine [See at least Leone, 0020]. Leone further teaches that The TCU 66 is electrically connected to and controls the motor 26 and the transmission 44 [See at least Leone, 0020]. Leone further teaches that The ECU 12 is in communication with the TCU 66 and other controllers (not shown) over a vehicle network using a common bus protocol (e.g., CAN) [See at least Leone, 0020]. The TCU may be regarded as applicant’s “second control module [which] is an electronic control module”). Both Leone and Shively teach systems where an engine control unit and a transmission are linked together. However, only Leone explicitly teaches where the engine control unit and the transmission may be linked together by linking the engine control unit to a transmission control unit (TCU), which is a CAN-enabled controller.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the topology of Shively so that there a separate TCU to which the engine control unit is linked, as in Leone, rather than just linking the engine control unit directly to the transmission without this intermediate TCU. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the distributed control layout of having dedicated ECUs and TCUs linked together by a communication is an obvious but equivalent substitute for a single ECU which performs both functions.
However, Shively does not explicitly teach wherein the method is a method of retrofitting a machine, the method comprising:
removing a non-electric power source from the machine.
However, Sweere does teach where the method is a method of retrofitting a machine (See at least Fig. 15 in Sweere: Sweere discloses a method 20 for retrofitting a diesel-powered mining haul truck for use with a hybrid hydrogen fuel cell/battery-based powerplant [See at least Sweere, Col 21, lines 26-28]), the method comprising:
removing a non-electric power source from the machine (See at least Fig. 15 in Sweere: Sweere discloses that the method 20 includes removing a diesel powerplant from an engine bay of the haul truck, at 21 [See at least Sweere, Col 21, lines 29-31]). Both Shively and Sweere teach methods for operating hybrid trucks having both a genset and a battery. However, only Sweere explicitly teaches where the genset and battery may be retrofitted into the truck in order to a replace an internal combustion engine, which is removed from the truck before the genset and battery are retrofitted in.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hybrid vehicle operation method of Shively so that the genset and battery are retrofitted into the truck in order to a replace an internal combustion engine, which is removed from the truck before the genset and battery are retrofitted in, as in Sweere. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this type of power plant replacement is common, improves fuel efficiency, and reduces emissions.
Regarding claim 19, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 18, further comprising:
configuring the first control module to send and receive one or more same messages as an engine controller of the machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Since the controller is functioning as the engine controller, and sends and receives control signals from the engine and its related components, it will be appreciated that it does send and receive the same signals as an engine controller).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shively et al. (US 20210107446 A1) in view of Leone et al. (US 20180022339 A1) in further view of Sweere et al. (US 11958352 B1) in further view of Heybroek et al. (US 20240337256 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Shively in view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 12, wherein the second control module controls an implement of the hybrid electric machine (See at least Fig. 10 in Shively: Shively discloses a second driver (e.g., an electromechanical transmission, etc.), shown as ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0057]. It will therefore be appreciated that that ETD 240 is “a transmission”. Shively further discloses pump system 140 [See at least Shively, 0061]. The pump may be regarded as applicant’s “implement”. Shively further discloses that the power divider 220 is configured to facilitate selectively, mechanically coupling (i) the engine 210 to the pump system 140 and (ii) the engine 210 to the ETD 240 [See at least Shively, 0064]. Power divider 220 may therefore be regarded as applicant’s “second control module”, since it controls which of these two components—the transmission or the implement—is powered).
However, Shively does not explicitly teach the method wherein the hybrid electric machine is a wheel loader and the implement is a bucket.
However, Heybroek does teach a method wherein the hybrid electric machine is a wheel loader (See at least Fig. 1 in Heybroek: Heybroek teaches that a wheel loader 10a [See at least Heybroek, 0086]. Heybroek teaches that the wheel loader 10a comprises an electric power source 13 for electrically powering the electro-hydraulic apparatus 12 [See at least Heybroek, 0086]. Heybroek further teaches that The electric power source 13 may for example be an electric generator driven by a combustion engine of the wheel loader 10a, or an electric storage device, such as a battery pack [See at least Heybroek, 0086]) and the implement is a bucket (See at least Fig. 1 in Heybroek: Heybroek teaches that The equipment 24 comprises a load-arm unit 28, also referred to as a linkage, and an implement in the form of a bucket 30 fitted on the load-arm unit 28 [See at least Heybroek, 0088]. Heybroek further teaches that The load-arm unit 28 with the bucket 30 thereon can be raised and lowered relative to the front body section 14 by means of two boom or lifting hydraulic cylinders 32a, 32b [See at least Heybroek, 0088]. Heybroek further teaches that Each hydraulic cylinder 20, 22 and 32a-32c is hydraulically powered by the electro-hydraulic apparatus 12 [See at least Heybroek, 0088]). Both Heybroek and Shively teach work vehicles with implements powered by one or more of a generator and a battery. However, only Heybroek explicitly teaches where the vehicle may be a wheel loader and the implement may be a bucket.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Shively so that the vehicle is a wheel loader rather than a truck, and so that the implement is a bucket rather than a pump, as in Heybroek. This is because anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the power systems and internal architecture of the truck of Shively is so generic and generalizable that they could just as easily be used inside of wheel loader. Any work vehicle with an implement can be made into a hybrid vehicle. This is obvious in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record is Shively et al. (US 20210107446 A1) in view of Leone et al. (US 20180022339 A1) in further view of Sweere et al. (US 11958352 B1). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, Shively in view of Leone in further view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 10, wherein the second control module requires no new software to communicate with the first control module (See at least Fig. 1 in Leone: Leone teaches that The ECU 12 is in communication with the TCU 66 and other controllers (not shown) over a vehicle network using a common bus protocol (e.g., CAN) [See at least Leone, 0020]. Technically, now new software is needed for a basic CAN communication protocol to exist between these two components).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein the second control module requires no new software to communicate with the first control module after replacing the non-electric power source with the genset and the one or more batteries (emphasis added).
It is one thing for two existing parts that are already connected to each other to not require new software to communicate, as in [Leone, 0020]. However, this is completely different a situation where one power source (i.e., a non-electric power source) is replace with a completely different power source (i.e., a genset and batteries). Normally, such a replacement part would not function the exact same way. Yet, applicant has found a way to perform control of the new power source using the same software as the old power source. This is compatibility between the old and new power sources is novel and not taught by the prior art of record.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 13 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, Shively in view of Sweere teaches The method of claim 18, wherein the first control module is configured to send and receive one or more same messages as an engine controller of the machine (See at least Fig. 16 in Shively: Shively discloses that the controller 510 is coupled to (e.g., communicably coupled to) components of the hybrid powertrain 200 (e.g., the engine 210, the power divider 220, the engine clutch 235, electric motor 236, the ETD 240, the PTO 241, etc.), and a battery management system (“BMS”), shown as BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Shively further discloses that the controller 510 may send and receive signals (e.g., control signals) with the components of the hybrid powertrain 200 and/or the BMS 560 [See at least Shively, 0079]. Since the controller is functioning as the engine controller, and sends and receives control signals from the engine and its related components, it will be appreciated that it does send and receive the same signals as an engine controller), and
the second control module requires no new software to communicate with the first control module (See at least Fig. 1 in Leone: Leone teaches that The ECU 12 is in communication with the TCU 66 and other controllers (not shown) over a vehicle network using a common bus protocol (e.g., CAN) [See at least Leone, 0020]. Technically, now new software is needed for a basic CAN communication protocol to exist between these two components).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein the second control module requires no new software to communicate with the first control module after the removing of the non-electric power source and the providing of the first control module and the genset.
It is one thing for two existing parts that are already connected to each other to not require new software to communicate, as in [Leone, 0020]. However, this is completely different a situation where one power source (i.e., a non-electric power source) is replace with a completely different power source (i.e., a genset). Normally, such a replacement part would not function the exact same way. Yet, applicant has found a way to perform control of the new power source using the same software as the old power source. This is compatibility between the old and new power sources is novel and not taught by the prior art of record.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 20 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights