DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application with case number 18/975,095 filed on 12/10/2024, in which claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP24151598.0, filed on 01/12/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 12/10/2024 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
6. Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in claim(s) 2-4. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage (see Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811).
7. Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (see MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
Specification
8. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “The working machine has an independent motor drive for powering the working hydraulics. a load on the working hydraulics is estimated based on a load estimation model using an actual motor power consumption of the independent motor drive.” Should read “The working machine has an independent motor drive for powering the working hydraulics. A load on the working hydraulics is estimated based on a load estimation model using an actual motor power consumption of the independent motor drive.”
9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
10. Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the equation of “F/A= (T⋅ω/ηVo)⋅t” which is supposed to be an equation for calculating pressure in Pa or N/m2. However, the unit for the right-hand side of the equation is Pa.rad or N.rad/m2. As such, the right-hand side and the left-hand side of the equation are not the same and the equation contains an error. For the purpose of examination, because of the alternative language, the second recited equation “F/A= (V⋅I/Vo)⋅t” was used.
The claim recites “Q is working pump flow rate in m3/s,” while Q is not used by either equations recited by the claim.
11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
13. Claim(s) 1-12
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
14. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
15. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are directed to a method (i.e. a process) including at least one step.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-12 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
16. Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
17. Independent claim(s) 1 include(s) limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for operating a working machine with working hydraulics comprising a pump, the working machine further comprising an independent motor drive for powering the working hydraulics comprising the steps
estimating a load on the working hydraulics based on a load estimation model using an actual motor power consumption of the independent motor drive [mental process/step],
comparing the estimated load with a critical threshold [mental process/step],
if the estimated load is above the critical threshold providing a warning signal or a control command stopping an actual movement [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g). Examiner notes, this limitation was interpreted under its BRI as providing a warning signal (See paragraph 30 of the specification: “a visual warning can be provided to the operator”) because of the alternative language].
18. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers steps that could be carried out in the human mind. For example, “estimating a load on the working hydraulics …” and “comparing the estimated load with a critical threshold …” step(s) encompass(es) a user making observation, evaluation or judgement about a load of a working machine, could all be carried out in one’s mind. The same user looking at the data collected, could form a simple judgement and conclude whether the estimated load is above a threshold or not. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
19. Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
20. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.).
21. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
22. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “if the estimated load is above the critical threshold providing a warning signal …” the examiner submits that this/these limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “if the estimated load is above the critical threshold providing a warning signal …” step(s) is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
23. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
24. Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, in regard to the additional limitations of “if the estimated load is above the critical threshold providing a warning signal …” the examiner submits that this/these limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities.
25. Dependent claim(s) 2-12 does/do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
26. Therefore, claim(s) 1-12 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
27. 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.
28. Claim(s) 1, 4 and 10-13
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US-20130190960-A1) in view of Stahl (US-20210362557-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Kawashima discloses a method for operating a working machine with working hydraulics comprising a pump, the working machine further comprising an independent motor drive for powering the working hydraulics comprising the steps (Kawashima, in at least claim 13, [0026-0028], discloses a method of controlling a hybrid working machine. The boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 are hydraulically driven [i.e., working hydraulics]. An engine 11 as a mechanical drive part and a motor generator 12 [i.e., an independent motor drive for powering the working hydraulics] as an assist drive part are connected to two input shafts of a transmission 13. A main pump 14 [i.e., a pump] and a pilot pump 15 are connected as hydraulic pumps to the output shaft of the transmission 13)
estimating a load on the working hydraulics based on a load estimation model using an actual motor power consumption of the independent motor drive (Kawashima, in at least Fig. 2, and [0028 & 0040], discloses the motor generator 12 as an assist drive part are connected to two input shafts of a transmission 13. The main pump 14 and a pilot pump 15 are connected as hydraulic pumps to the output shaft of the transmission 13. in a hydraulic pump requested load estimation block 40-1, a pump discharge quantity V is determined from a pump horsepower [i.e., actual motor power consumption] control P-Q diagram [i.e., a load estimation model] using the discharge pressure Pi and the pump control current I of the hydraulic pump 21. The target discharge flow rate Q of the hydraulic pump 14 is calculated by multiplying the determined pump discharge quantity V by a pump rotation speed (rpm). That is, the target discharge flow rate Q to be output by the hydraulic pump 14 is determined from the requested hydraulic load. The discharge pressure Pi, the pump control current I, and the pump rotation speed (rpm) of the hydraulic pump 21 are used as values that represent a hydraulic load [i.e., estimating a load on the working hydraulics]. Examiner notes, as mentioned above and portrayed by Fig. 2, the main pump is powered by motor generator 12 through the transmission 13. That is, the pump is powered by motor generator 12 and the actual motor power consumption of the pump and the motor generator are the same),
Kawashima is silent on comparing the estimated load with a critical threshold,
if the estimated load is above the critical threshold providing a warning signal or a control command stopping an actual movement.
However, Stahl teaches comparing the estimated load with a critical threshold (Stahl, in at least Fig. 6, and [0043], teaches the method 23 starts with monitoring 24 the load on at least one traveling device 6 of the locking axle 13 of the construction machine. The next step includes comparing 25 the determined load value to a specified threshold value [i.e., a critical threshold]),
if the estimated load is above the critical threshold providing a warning signal or a control command stopping an actual movement (Stahl, in at least Fig. 6, and [0043], teaches if a value is determined to be above threshold value such that the machine is in danger of tipping, the next step includes blocking 26 the swing axle 14 [i.e., a control command stopping an actual movement] and in addition, indicating 27 of a warning to the operator is performed via the indicating apparatus 30 [i.e., providing a warning signal]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima in view of Stahl with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – work machines – and compare the estimated load to a threshold and issue a warning when the estimated load is above the threshold and the combination would provide for increasing the stability of a construction machine (Stahl, see at least [0002]).
In regard to claim 4
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the load estimation model uses a pump flow rate (Q) delivered by the pump together with a motor speed (ω) and/or a current (I) and a voltage (V) of the independent motor drive to determine the estimated load (Kawashima, in at least [0040], discloses in a hydraulic pump requested load estimation block 40-1, a pump discharge quantity V [i.e., a pump flow rate (Q) delivered by the pump] is determined from a pump horsepower control P-Q diagram [i.e., the load estimation model] using the discharge pressure Pi and the pump control current I of the hydraulic pump 21. The target discharge flow rate Q of the hydraulic pump 14 is calculated by multiplying the determined pump discharge quantity V by a pump rotation speed (rpm) [i.e., a motor speed (ω)]. That is, the target discharge flow rate Q to be output by the hydraulic pump 14 is determined from the requested hydraulic load. The discharge pressure Pi, the pump control current I, and the pump rotation speed (rpm) of the hydraulic pump 21 are used as values that represent a hydraulic load. The target discharge flow rate Q determined in the hydraulic pump requested load estimation block 40-1 is fed to a rotation speed operation block 40-2).
In regard to claim 10
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches a computer system for operating a working machine the computer system comprising a processing circuitry configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 (Kawashima, in at least Fig. 2, and [0039], discloses the rotation speed variable control algorithm is performed by the controller 30 [i.e., a computer system]. Examiner notes, the controller 30 is a computer system and a controller necessarily includes a processing circuitry).
In regard to claim 11
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches a computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of the method according to claim 1 when said program is executed by a processor device (Kawashima, in at least Fig. 2, and [0039], discloses the rotation speed variable control algorithm [i.e., program code] is performed by the controller 30. Examiner notes, the controller 30 necessarily includes a processor device for executing algorithms or program code).
In regard to claim 12
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, causes the processor device to perform the method claim 1 (Kawashima, in at least Fig. 2, and [0039], discloses the rotation speed variable control algorithm [i.e., instructions] is performed by the controller 30. Examiner notes, the controller 30 necessarily includes a processor device and memory, including non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing and executing algorithms or instructions).
In regard to claim 13
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Kumar, teaches a working machine with working hydraulics and an independent motor drive for powering the working hydraulics comprising a computer system according to claim 10 (Kawashima, in at least Fig.2, and [0025-0028 & 0039], discloses a hybrid working machine which includes a motor generator [i.e., an independent motor]. The boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 are hydraulically driven [i.e., working hydraulics]. The rotation speed variable control algorithm is performed by the controller 30 [i.e., a computer system]. Examiner notes, the controller 30 is a computer system).
29. Claim(s) 2-3
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US-20130190960-A1) in view of Stahl (US-20210362557-A1) and further in view of Preijert et al. (US-20220402546-A1).
In regard to claim 2
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches the method according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, is silent on all limitations of the claim.
However, Preijert teaches wherein the critical threshold is determined using information on orientation of the working machine and/or of the working hydraulics and/or information on a speed of the working machine, wherein information on orientation is preferably provided using inertial measurement units on the working machine (Preijert, in at least [0033], teaches the predetermined load threshold value [i.e., the critical threshold] is determined on the basis of at least an intended direction of travel of the vehicle [i.e., orientation of the working machine], preferably also on the intended speed of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, in view of Preijert with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – working machines – and determine the load threshold value on the basis of the direction of travel and the combination would provide for a system that could be adjusted to individual driving scenarios in a straightforward manner (Preijert, see at least [0005]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use “inertial measurement units”, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that using “inertial measurement units” solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other methods of determining the orientation of the machine.
In regard to claim 3
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Preijert, teaches the method according to claim 2, accordingly the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Further, Preijert teaches wherein the information on orientation comprises boom, bucket and/or vehicle orientation (Preijert, in at least [0033], teaches the predetermined load threshold value is determined on the basis of at least an intended direction of travel of the vehicle [i.e., vehicle orientation], preferably also on the intended speed of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Preijert, in view of Preijert with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – working machines – and use the orientation of the vehicle as the information on the orientation and the combination would provide for a system that could be adjusted to individual driving scenarios in a straightforward manner (Preijert, see at least [0005]).
30. Claim(s) 5
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US-20130190960-A1) in view of Stahl (US-20210362557-A1) and further in view of Non-patent Literature Lunchboxsessions “Calculating Pump Flow Rates and Efficiency”.
In regard to claim 5
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches the method according to claim 4, accordingly the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, is silent on all limitations of the claim.
However, Lunchboxsessions teaches wherein the pump flow rate (Q) is estimated using a known volume of the pump (Vopump) and a rotational speed of the pump (n), wherein preferably the pump flow rate is estimated according to Q = Vopump·n, wherein
n is the rotational speed of the pump in rad/s and
Vopump is the volume of the pump in m3 (Lunchboxsessions, in at least p. 2, teaches the theoretical flow rate of a pump is calculated using the formula Flow Rate = Displacement x Shaft Speed. Examiner notes, in the formula above, Displacement is the known volume of the pump (Vopump) and Shaft Speed is the rotational speed of the pump (n)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, in view of Lunchboxsessions, and use the equation for calculating the theoretical flow rate of the pump and the combination would provide for calculating and predicting the state of the system by using the theoretical flow rate of the pump.
31. Claim(s) 6
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US-20130190960-A1) in view of Stahl (US-20210362557-A1) and further in view of Non-patent Literature Stackexchange “What is Pressure Energy?”
In regard to claim 6
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches the method according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, is silent on all limitations of the claim.
However, Non-patent Literature Stackexchange teaches wherein the load estimation model determines the estimated load using F/A= (T⋅ω/ηVo)⋅t or F/A= (V⋅I/Vo)⋅t , wherein
F is force in N,
T is torque in Nm,
ω is motor speed in rad/s,
η is efficiency of the independent motor drive,
Vo is total volume delivered by the pump in m3 and Vo=∫Q dt,
Q is working pump flow rate in m3/s
V is voltage in V,
I is current in A,
A is area over which force is applied in m2,
t is time in s (Non-patent Literature Stackexchange, in at least p. 1, teaches P= F/A = F.d/A.d = W/Vo. Examiner notes, as the equation above shows, by multiplying F/A by d/d, where d is distance in m, the equation does not change. Doing so, expresses F/A or pressure as a function of work over volume, where Vo is in m3 and W = V.I.t (See Non-patent Literature Wikipedia “Electric Power”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, in view of Non-patent Literature Stackexchange with a reasonable expectation of success, and use the equation of F/A= (V⋅I/Vo)⋅t to calculate the pressure and the combination would provide for an accurate estimation of the pressure for determining or predicting the state of the system.
32. Claim(s) 7-8
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US-20130190960-A1) in view of Stahl (US-20210362557-A1) and further in view of Non-patent Literature Lang et al. “Understanding Uncertainties in Viscous Performance Predictions for Centrifugal Pumps”.
In regard to claim 7
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches the method according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, is silent on all limitations of the claim.
However, Lang teaches wherein the load estimation model additionally uses working hydraulic oil temperature (Lang, in at least p. 4, teaches as the fluid experiences any type of friction, it will tend to heat up. This will change the fluid viscosity which impacts all the above losses. A viscous pumping system behaves very differently in a cold start versus steady operation. This clearly indicates a performance dependence on the fluid temperature in the pump).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, in view of Lang with a reasonable expectation of success, and use the fluid temperature in the pump in the estimations and the combination would provide for ensuring that the data falls within reasonable uncertainty levels (Lang, see at least p. 1).
In regard to claim 8
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Lang, teaches the method according to claim 7, accordingly the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated.
Further, Lang teaches wherein based on the working hydraulic oil temperature a viscosity correction factor Kv is determined and based on the viscosity correction factor a corrected pump flow rate Qc is determined according Qc= Kv⋅Q0, wherein Q0 is a standard pump flow rate at a defined standard temperature and wherein the corrected flow rate is used by the load estimation model as the pump flow rate (Lang, in at least Equation 1-3, and p. 2, teaches the correction factors are simply direct multiplicative factors on an operating point described by the water performance curves, shown in in Equations (1-3) where CQ = Qviscous / QWater. Examiner notes, Qviscous is Qc, QWater is Q0 and CQ or the correction factor is Kv).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Lang, in view of Lang and use the correction factor equation of Lang to calculate the viscosity correction factor and the combination would provide for ensuring that the data falls within reasonable uncertainty levels (Lang, see at least p. 1).
33. Claim(s) 9
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US-20130190960-A1) in view of Stahl (US-20210362557-A1) and further in view of Non-patent Literature Lang et al. “Understanding Uncertainties in Viscous Performance Predictions for Centrifugal Pumps” and further in view of Non-patent Literature Nayak et al. “Viscosity correction in convective heat transfer correlation of non-Newtonian fluid pipe flow: Revisited”.
In regard to claim 9
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Lang, teaches the method according to claim 8, accordingly the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Lang, is silent on all limitations of the claim.
However, Nayak teaches wherein values for the viscosity correction factor Kv for different temperatures are determined using stored values, which are preferably determined in a previous step according to Kv= µ/µ0, wherein
- Kv is the viscosity correction factor,
- µ is the actual viscosity in Pa.s at a certain temperature
- µ0 is the reference viscosity at a standard temperature in Pa.s (Nayak, in at least Equation 1-3, and p. 2, teaches accounting for the changing viscosity due to the thermal gradient across the pipe radius (wall heating), the Sieder-Tate correction factor (Sieder and Tate, 1936) in the form of
(
µ
ω
µ
∞
)
m
is generally used for Newtonian fluid (where
µ
ω
is the viscosity of the fluid at the wall and
µ
∞
is the bulk viscosity). Examiner notes, by setting m=1, the equation above becomes
µ
ω
µ
∞
for calculating the correction factor based on the temperature based viscosity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kawashima, as modified by Stahl and Lang, in view of Nayak with a reasonable expectation of success and use the equation above to calculate the viscosity correction factor for different temperatures and the combination would provide for better performance and economic benefits (Nayak, see at least Abstract).
34. Claim(s) 14
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US-20130190960-A1) in view of Stahl (US-20210362557-A1) and further in view of Kumar et al. (US-20200217048-A1).
In regard to claim 14
, Kawashima, as modified by Stahl, teaches the working machine according to claim 13, accordingly the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated.
While Kawashima discloses (1) a hybrid hydraulic shovel that is an example hybrid working machine to which the present invention is applied, (2) Hybrid working machines to which the present invention is applied are not limited to hybrid hydraulic shovels, and (3) the present invention may be applied to other hybrid working machines as long as they drive a hydraulic pump with an engine (Kawashima, see at least [0025]), it does not explicitly disclose that the said hybrid working machine(s) is/are wheel loader(s).
However, Kumar, in at least Fig. 1 & [0042] that was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of working machine control systems, teaches wherein the working machine is a wheel loader (Kumar, in at least Fig. 1, and [0042], teaches the working machine is in the form of a wheel loader 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kawashima & Stahl, in view of Kumar with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – working machine control systems – and the combination would provide for determining loads in a wheel loader (see at least Kumar’s [0008]).
Conclusion
35. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeda et al. (US-20080169131-A1) teaches a working machine such as a wheel loader for moving a load measures the weight of the load accurately.
Non-patent Literature Wikipedia “Electric Power” teaches several standard electric power equations.
36. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
37. 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.
38. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
39. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661