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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “speed-increasing mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses the corresponding structure of the speed increasing mechanism 20 to be a sun gear, planetary gear engaged with the sun gear, and a ring gear, see para. 0099 and fig. 2-9.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 20140366682).
Regarding claim 1, Murata discloses a working vehicle (vehicle 2) comprising:
an engine (engine 4);
a flywheel (rotating body 30) to rotate upon receipt of rotational power of the engine (4) (see para. 0055);
a first path (first path 44) to connect the engine (4) and the flywheel (30);
a first clutch (second clutch 42) provided on the first path (44) to selectively allow or interrupt transmission of rotational power via the first path (44) (clutch 42 gates transmission of power to the flywheel via the first path, being disposed between power transmission device 5 and rotating body 30 and switchable between a state where the power transmission device 5 and the rotating body 30 engage with each other so as to enable power transmission and a state where the engagement is released, see para. 0060-0061);
a second path (second path 45) to connect the engine (4) and the flywheel (30);
a second clutch (clutch 43) provided on the second path (45, see fig. 1) to selectively allow or interrupt transmission of rotational power via the second path (45);
a speed-increasing mechanism (rotation adjusting device 80A, with gear mech 81 and motor 83, see fig. 6-7), when the first clutch is engaged, speed-increase the rotational power of the engine (4) and transmit the speed-increased rotational power to the flywheel (80 is positioned to adjust the rotational speed of the flywheel relative to its input, disclosing that the controller “controls the rotation control device 82 so as to increase the rotation speed of the rotating body 30 when accumulating the inertial energy in the rotating body 30” para. 0119, thereby speed increasing the power delivered to the flywheel). Although Murata does not expressly state that the rotation adjusting device is exclusive to the first path and clutch, Murata discloses that the second path is elsewhere used, as a simple direct unmodified connection for idling stabilization purposes (holding out mode) and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to confine the speed increasing function of the rotation adjusting device to the first path branch specifically leaving the second connection unmodified as is desired in the first embodiment and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Further, Murata discloses a controller (ECU 10) configured or programmed to control engaged/disengaged states of the first clutch (42) and the second clutch (43) to switch an operation mode between a plurality of operation modes (electronic circuit having microcomputer controls the engagement/disengagement of clutches 41,42, and clutch 43); wherein
the plurality of operation modes include:
boost mode in which a rotational speed of the flywheel (30) is higher than the rotational speed of the engine (40), the first clutch (42) is disengaged, and the second clutch (43) is engaged. Murata discloses when in the case where relatively high power performance is required for causing the vehicle 2 to run such as a case where the vehicle 2 is started o an uphill road or a case where the vehicle is suddenly accelerated the engine 4 is overloaded… the ecu 10 controls the rotation adjusting device 80 so as to discharge the energy corresponding to a flywheel discharge torque from the rotating body, in this case the first clutch 41, 42 are controlled to the disengaged state and the clutch 43 is controlled to the engaged state, see fig. 11, para. 0166.
a holding-out mode (idling) in which the rotational speed of the flywheel (30) is equal (equivalent) to or lower than the rotational speed of the engine (4), the first clutch (42) is disengaged, and the second clutch (43) is engaged (the ECU 10 controls the first and second clutch 42 so as to be switched to the disengages state…and controls the third clutch 43 so as to be switched to the engaged state when the running power source is in an idling operation state, at which point the speed of the rotating body 20 increases to the speed equivalent to the engine speed, relatively increasing the inertial mass of the engine and stabilize the idling, the flywheel inertia buffers the engine without flywheels speed exceeding the engine’s under the identical clutch state claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Murata teaches wherein
the plurality of operation modes include a boost preparation mode to be executed before shifting into the boost mode (as described in claim 1); and
in the boost preparation mode, the rotational speed of the flywheel is equal to a target rotational speed thereof and is higher than the rotational speed of the engine, the first clutch is engaged, and the second clutch is switching from a disengaged state thereof to an engaged state thereof. Murata discloses the vehicle including a flywheel charged to a speed above the engines speed and then discharged into boost mode (via the second clutch/second path see claim 1 discussed above). Murata discloses that the clutch engagement in this apparatus is not instantaneous but proceeds through a synchronized transition. The clutch 43 is only engaged when the relationship between the engine speed satisfies the equations provided para. 0092-0093 Murata teaches that clutch handoffs are staggered so that the clutches 42 and 43 can be switched without any shock para. 085. A person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Murata’s disclosed charge to boost transition (from the first path engagement charging state of claim 2 to the second path engaged discharging state of claim 1 boost mode) consistently with Murata’s own shock avoidance teaching would have found it obvious before the effective filing date to hold the first clutch engaged while beginning to engage the second clutch rather than abruptly disengaging the first clutch and engaging the second precisely to allow the second clutch’s engaging members to precisely allow the second clutch’s engaging members to synchronize before the first clutch releases. During this transition, the flywheel remains at the same speed thereby equal to the target and height than the engines until the second clutch’s engagement and discharge begins.
Regarding claim 6, Murata teaches wherein the plurality of operation modes include a free mode (see para. 0068) in which the engine (4) is activated (supplying power to the wheels), the first clutch and the second clutch are disengaged (clutch 42 and 43 are disengaged), and the flywheel is stopped (rotating body 30 is detached from the engine).
Regarding claim 7, Murata teaches wherein the plurality of operation modes includes a free mode (see para. 0068) in which the engine (4) is activated (supplying power to the wheels), the first clutch and the second clutch are disengaged (clutch 42 and 43 are disengaged), and the flywheel is stopped (rotating body 30 is detached from the engine).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cadee (US 5569108).
Regarding claim 2, Murata teaches at the time of inertial running or decelerated running of the vehicle 2, the rotational power is input to the carrier 81C from the driving wheel side via the differential gear 8, the transmission output shaft 13 and the transmission input shaft 12, the intermediate shaft 52, the second clutch 42, the intermediate shaft 53, the rotation shaft 50… and the apparatus can accumulate the rotational power 30 as inertial energy in the rotating body 30 with the increase in the rotation speed of the rotating body… thereby disclosing charging (accumulating inertial energy in the flywheel) with the first clutch (42) engaged and the second clutch (43) disengaged, as claimed, thereby raising the flywheels speed above the input speed during accumulation. Murata doesn’t expressly disclose a target rotational speed of the flywheel. However, Cadee discloses a vehicle with a variable maximum loading state can be given to the flywheel, whereby the maximum amount of kinetic energy stored in the flywheel is adjustable and can be turned to the momentary energy requirements (Cadee claim 14), thereby teaching flywheel charging scheme in which the maximum target state of the charge is itself a controlled tunable design parameter. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a target rotational speed ceiling into Murata’s charging/accumulation mode in view of Cadees teaching, so as to prevent overcharging the flywheel beyond its safe or useful operating range, a predictable application of a known technique to a known device to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 5, Murata as combined with Cadee teaches the plurality of operation modes include a charge preparation mode to be executed before shifting into the charge mode (Murata disclose that engagement of the first clutch 42 for charge mode is not instantaneous but proceeds through an intermediate transitional state before reaching full engagement, thereby disclosing a preparation mode preceding the charge mode of claim 2); and
in the charge preparation mode, the rotational speed of the flywheel is lower than the target rotational speed thereof (during the transitional slip state, before the first clutch 42 reaches complete engagement and full charging current begins, the flywheels speed remains below the a target speed toward the charge charges the flywheel 30), the first clutch is switching from a disengaged state thereof to an engaged state thereof (the clutch 42 is switched to the disengagement state where the engagement is released when a force is 0 and is changed to a completely engagement state through a semi (slip state) as the engaging forces increases), and the second clutch is disengaged (the second path/clutch 43 is not involved in charge mode, and remains disengaged).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, and 8-20 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 related art on record fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations as recited in these claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teaches relevant vehicles with various operation modes like that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights