DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/983,575 filed on June 15, 2026 in which claims 1, 3-5, and 12 were amended.
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 Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending, of which claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim contain “and/or” language at line 3. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shobe et al., US Patent 12,553,220 (hereinafter Shobe).1
Regarding claim 1, Shobe discloses a working machine comprising “a machine body.” (Shobe Fig. 1). Additionally, Shobe discloses “a traveling device to support the machine body and cause the machine body to travel” (Shobe col. 7, ll. 32-36) where the drive assembly propels the machine forward. Further, Shobe discloses “an arm supported on the machine body such that the arm is rotatable about a first shaft extending in a lateral direction perpendicular to an up-down direction” (Shobe Fig. 1) which shows arm 16 being supported on several, unnumbered rotational elements that run perpendicular to the up-down direction; specifically left-to-right across the work machine. Moreover, Shobe discloses “an attachment mount attached to the arm to detachably attach a work attachment thereto, the work attachment being operable to perform a function corresponding to work” (Shobe col. 7, ll. 38-41). Likewise, Shobe discloses “a hydraulic cylinder to extend and retract by receiving and discharging hydraulic fluid to cause the arm to rotate about the first shaft” (Shobe col. 8, ll. 40-51) where hydraulic cylinders are used to raise and lower the arm, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to require receiving and discharging hydraulic fluid. Shobe also discloses “a manual operator operating instrument to be operated by a user” (Shobe col. 7, ll. 41-45). In addition, Shobe discloses “a controller configured or programmed to cause the hydraulic cylinder to extend or retract based on an operation state of the manual operating instrument” (Shobe col. 15, ll. 39-54) by describing how the controller controls the hydraulic pressure for controlling the attachment. Finally, Shobe discloses “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, while the manual operating instrument is not being operated and the traveling device is traveling, if one of an increase or a decrease is detected in a pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder during traveling of the traveling device and when the manual operating instrument is not being operated, perform a pressure absorbing process including a first process to cause the other of the increase or the decrease in the pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder” (Shobe col. 16, ll. 14-29, 58-61) by giving an example of the work vehicle entering a heavy area (i.e., traveling) and when the pressure increases too much, the process goes into relief, which stops providing hydraulic power. A person of ordinary skill would understand that this causes a decrease in hydraulic pressure. Shobe discloses that the attachment may operate automatically (i.e., while the manual operating instrument is not being operated). (Shobe col. 7, ll. 20-23).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jelinek, US Publication 2022/0403625 (hereinafter Jelinek) in view of Fukuda et al., US Publication 2023/0049370 (hereinafter Fukuda).
Regarding claim 1, Jelinek discloses a working machine comprising “a machine body; a traveling device to support the machine body and cause the machine body to travel” (Jelinek Fig. 1) where it can be seen that the working machine has both a body and a set of wheels, which is a travelling device to support the machine body and cause the machine body to travel. Additionally, Jelinek discloses “an arm supported on the machine body such that the arm is rotatable about a first pivot point extending in a lateral direction perpendicular to an up-down direction” (Jelinek ¶ 92) where the arms are coupled to a frame at a pivot point that allows the arms to be lifted (i.e., move in the up-down direction). This means that the pivot point runs in a lateral direction. Further, Jelinek discloses “an attachment mount attached to the arm to detachably attach a work attachment thereto, the work attachment being operable to perform a function corresponding to work” (Jelinek ¶ 109) where the attachment may be detachably fixed to the machine. Moreover, Jelinek discloses “a hydraulic cylinder to extend and retract by receiving and discharging hydraulic fluid to cause the arm to rotate about the first pivot point” (Jelinek ¶¶ 92-93) where hydraulic cylinders 60 are mounted to the lift arm, which operates by receiving and discharging hydraulic fluid “as would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Likewise, Jelinek discloses “a manual operator operating instrument to be operated by a user” (Jelinek ¶ 90) where joystick 310 may be used by the operator to control the functions of the attachment. Jelinek also discloses “a controller configured or programmed to cause the hydraulic cylinder to extend or retract based on an operation state of the manual operating instrument” (Jelinek ¶¶ 81, 90) where actions from joystick 310 are communicated to the controller for execution of the attachment (Jelinek ¶ 90), where the hydraulic system is controlled by the controller (Jelinek ¶ 81), meaning that the controller causes the operation of the attachment, and therefore, extension or retraction of the hydraulic cylinder. Finally, Jelinek discloses “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, while the manual operating instrument is not being operated and the traveling device is traveling, if one of an increase or a decrease is detected in a pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder during traveling of the traveling device and when the manual operating instrument is not being operated, perform a pressure absorbing process including a first process to cause the other of the increase or the decrease in the pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder” (Jelinek ¶¶ 144, 146) where when the pressure increases beyond the maximum pressure, a valve opens to release pressure (i.e., a pressure absorbing process to cause the decrease in the pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder, Jelinek ¶ 146) and that this may performed entirely by the controller (Jelinek ¶ 144), meaning that the pressure release valve operates in all situations including “while the manual operating instrument is not being operated and the traveling device is traveling,” as claimed.
Jelinek does not appear to explicitly disclose that the pivot point includes a “shaft,” and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “an arm supported on the machine body such that the arm is rotatable about a first shaft extending in a lateral direction perpendicular to an up-down direction” or “a hydraulic cylinder to extend and retract by receiving and discharging hydraulic fluid to cause the arm to rotate about the first shaft.”
However, Fukuda discloses a working machine including “an arm supported on the machine body such that the arm is rotatable about a first shaft extending in a lateral direction perpendicular to an up-down direction” (Fukuda ¶ 77 and Fig. 24) where the arm rotates around pivot shaft 16. Additionally, Fukuda discloses “a hydraulic cylinder to extend and retract by receiving and discharging hydraulic fluid to cause the arm to rotate about the first shaft” (Fukuda ¶ 89 and Fig. 24) where boom cylinder 14 is a hydraulic actuator and is shown in Fig. 24 to cause the arm to rotate about pivot shaft 16.
Jelinek and Fukuda are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of hydraulicly operating work machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jelinek and Fukuda before him or her to modify the pivot point of Jelinek to include the shaft of Fukuda.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Jelinek differs from the claimed invention by including a generic “pivot point” for rotating the arm of a working machine in place of the claimed shaft for rotating the arm of a working machine. Further, Fukuda teaches that the use of a pivot shaft as a pivot point for rotating the arm of a working machine was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the shaft of Fukuda for the generic pivot point of Jelinek because both are merely apparatuses for pivoting a mechanical arm.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “wherein the pressure absorbing process includes, after the first process, a second process to cause the one of the increase or the decrease in the pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder” (Jelinek ¶ 149) where, once the pressure is below the maximum pressure, the system returns to operating normally, which includes increasing the pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “a fluid passage connected to the hydraulic cylinder to allow hydraulic fluid to be supplied to and discharged from the hydraulic cylinder” (Jelinek ¶ 93) where the hydraulic fluid flows through hydraulic line 90. Further, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “a control valve provided in the fluid passage and including an internal flow passage communicable with the fluid passage” (Jelinek ¶ 91) where the control valve may operate via a spool, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be in an internal flow passage. Moreover, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “the control valve being configured to switch between (i) a state where hydraulic fluid is allowed to flow through the fluid passage via the internal flow passage and (ii) a state where the internal flow passage is closed to stop a flow of hydraulic fluid through the fluid passage” (Jelinek ¶ 117) where the pressure release valve switches between being opened and closed, allowing the flow to flow through the passage or stop a flow of hydraulic fluid through the passage, respectively. Finally, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in the pressure absorbing process, control the control valve to cause a degree of opening of the internal flow passage of the control valve to be larger in the first process than in the second process” (Jelinek ¶ 117) where the pressure release value opens (i.e., causes a degree of opening to be larger) when pressure is released.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “further comprising a switch to be operated to switch between performing and not performing the pressure absorbing process; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the pressure absorbing process based on an operation of the switch” (Fukuda ¶ 96) where a switch may be operated to operate the attachment, and, thus, if the switch is turned off, the pressure absorbing process would not be necessary.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jelinek in view of Fukuda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takahashi, US Patent 5,239,471 (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “a fluid passage connected to the hydraulic cylinder to allow hydraulic fluid to be supplied to and discharged from the hydraulic cylinder” (Jelinek ¶ 117) where the pressure release value allows the hydraulic fluid to be suppled and discharged from the hydraulic cylinder. Further, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “a control valve including a spool movable in a direction perpendicular to the fluid passage” (Jelinek ¶ 91) where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is how a spool operates. Finally, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “wherein the spool is configured to cause a flow rate of hydraulic fluid in the fluid passage to be increased as an amount of movement of the spool increases” (Jelinek ¶ 104) where the fluid’s feed rate is directly proportional to the maneuver of the control input.
The combination of Jelinek and Fukuda does not appear to explicitly disclose “the controller is configured or programmed to, in the first process of the pressure absorbing process, increase the amount of movement of the spool and increase a time taken for the spool to move compared to when the pressure absorbing process is not performed.”
However, Takahashi discloses a hydraulic system including “a control valve including a spool movable in a direction perpendicular to the fluid (Takahashi col. 6, ll. 31-62) where the fluid passage is radial to the housing while the spool is axial to the housing, meaning that the spool is perpendicular to the fluid passage. Additionally, Takahashi discloses “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in the first process of the pressure absorbing process, increase the amount of movement of the spool and increase a time taken for the spool to move compared to when the pressure absorbing process is not performed” (Takahashi col. 6, ll. 31-62) where the process will always increase the amount of movement of the spool and increase a time taken for the spool to move when performed than when not performed because when it is not performed, the spool does not move at all.
Jelinek, Fukuda, and Takahashi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of hydraulic systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Takahashi before him or her to modify the spool and fluid passages of Jelinek and Fukuda to be placed in the manner disclosed by Takahashi.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Jelinek and Fukuda teaches the “base device” for controlling the hydraulic systems of a working machine including a spool based valve. Further, Takahashi teaches the “known technique” of positioning the spool based valve in a perpendicular that is applicable to the base device of Jelinek and Fukuda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because the orientation of the spool would not provide any additional effects on the operation of the system nor any difficulties in its implementation.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “a fluid passage connected to the hydraulic cylinder to allow hydraulic fluid to be supplied to and discharged from the hydraulic cylinder” (Jelinek ¶ 117) where the pressure release value allows the hydraulic fluid to be suppled and discharged from the hydraulic cylinder. Further, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “a control valve including a spool movable in a direction perpendicular to the fluid passage” (Jelinek ¶ 91) where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is how a spool operates. Finally, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses “wherein the spool is configured to cause a flow rate of hydraulic fluid in the fluid passage to be increased as an amount of movement of the spool increases” (Jelinek ¶ 104) where the fluid’s feed rate is directly proportional to the maneuver of the control input.
The combination of Jelinek and Fukuda does not appear to explicitly disclose “an acceleration sensor to detect an acceleration of the machine body along at least the up-down direction” or the controller is configured or programmed to, if determining that the acceleration in an upward direction along the up-down direction detected by the acceleration sensor is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, perform the pressure absorbing process to, in the first process, increase the amount of movement of the spool and increase a time taken for the spool to move compared to when the pressure absorbing process is not performed.
However, Takahashi discloses “a control valve including a spool movable in a direction perpendicular to the fluid passage” (Takahashi col. 6, ll. 31-62) where the fluid passage is radial to the housing while the spool is axial to the housing, meaning that the spool is perpendicular to the fluid passage. Additionally, Takahashi discloses “an acceleration sensor to detect an acceleration of the machine body along at least the up-down direction” (Takahashi col. 17, ll. 13-59) where acceleration sensor 40 may also determine vertical acceleration (i.e., along the up-down direction). Finally, Takahashi discloses “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, if determining that the acceleration in an upward direction along the up-down direction detected by the acceleration sensor is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, perform the pressure absorbing process to, in the first process, increase the amount of movement of the spool and increase a time taken for the spool to move compared to when the pressure absorbing process is not performed” (Takahashi col. 6, l. 4-col. 7, l. 27, see also col. 17, ll. 13-59) by suppressing abnormal pressure as a result of acceleration, which may include vertical acceleration. The process will always increase the amount of movement of the spool and increase a time taken for the spool to move when performed than when not performed because when it is not performed, the spool does not move at all.
Jelinek, Fukuda, and Takahashi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of hydraulic systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Takahashi before him or her to modify the spool and fluid passages of Jelinek and Fukuda to be placed in the manner disclosed by Takahashi.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Jelinek and Fukuda teaches the “base device” for controlling the hydraulic systems of a working machine including a spool based valve. Further, Takahashi teaches the “known technique” of positioning the spool based valve in a perpendicular that is applicable to the base device of Jelinek and Fukuda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because the orientation of the spool would not provide any additional effects on the operation of the system nor any difficulties in its implementation.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jelinek in view of Fukuda, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and in further view of Eis, US Patent 6,151,874 (hereinafter Eis).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses that the attachment may be a fork. (Fukuda ¶ 81).
The combination of Jelinek and Fukuda does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: under a condition in which the controller has recognized that the work attachment including a fork for placement of a cargo is attached to the attachment mount and the switch has been operated to select performing the pressure absorbing process, determine whether or not the cargo is placed on the fork based on a pressure of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder; and if the controller determines that the cargo is placed on the fork, perform the pressure absorbing process.”
However, Eis discloses a working machine “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: under a condition in which the controller has recognized that the work attachment including a load carrying attachment for placement of a cargo is attached to the attachment mount and the switch has been operated to select performing the pressure absorbing process, determine whether or not the cargo is placed on the load carrying attachment based on a pressure of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder” (Eis col. 3, ll. 18-37; col. 3, l. 56-col. 4, l. 6; col. 8, ll. 6-15) by disclosing an automatic process (Eis col. 3, ll. 18-37) that recognizes the specific pressure values for each type of attachment (Eis col. 8, ll. 6-15) and that the system recognizes the degree of the load of the attachment (i.e., whether or not cargo is placed on the attachment, Eis col. 3, l. 56-col. 4, l. 6). Additionally, Eis discloses “if the controller determines that the cargo is placed on the load carrying attachment, perform the pressure absorbing process” (Eis col. 4, ll. 17-23) by adjusting and damping the cylinders to compensate for the load.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Eis was combined with Jelinek and Fukuda, the fork of Jelinek and Fukuda would use the process of Eis. Therefore, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Eis at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: under a condition in which the controller has recognized that the work attachment including a fork for placement of a cargo is attached to the attachment mount and the switch has been operated to select performing the pressure absorbing process, determine whether or not the cargo is placed on the fork based on a pressure of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder; and if the controller determines that the cargo is placed on the fork, perform the pressure absorbing process,” rendering them obvious.
Jelinek, Fukuda, and Eis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of working machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Eis before him or her to modify the attachment management of Jelinek and Fukuda to include the load based pressure relief of Eis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that such a modification provides the advantageous benefit of bridging great differences in pressure that arise during use of the work machine. (Eis col. 4, ll. 54-61).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda does not appear to explicitly disclose “a posture of the arm appropriate for travel by the traveling device is defined for each of a plurality of the work attachments of different types attachable to the attachment mount; and the controller is configured or programmed to recognize the work attachment attached to the attachment mount, and perform the pressure absorbing process when the arm is in the posture appropriate for the recognized work attachment.”
However, Eis discloses a working machine wherein “a posture of the arm appropriate for travel by the traveling device is defined for each of a plurality of the work attachments of different types attachable to the attachment mount” (Eis col. 5, l. 19-col. 6, l. 18) by giving several examples of such positions (i.e., postures) being defined for different attachments. Additionally, Eis discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to recognize the work attachment attached to the attachment mount, and perform the pressure absorbing process when the arm is in the posture appropriate for the recognized work attachment” (Eis col. 3, ll. 18-37; col. 5, l. 19-col. 6, l. 18; col. 8, ll. 6-15) by disclosing an automatic process (Eis col. 3, ll. 18-37) that recognizes the specific pressure values for each type of attachment (Eis col. 8, ll. 6-15) and that the system maintains the posture (Eis col. 5, l. 19-col. 6, l. 18), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, within the context of the entire disclosure of Eis, is adjusting the pressure so that the position stays the same in spite of different loads.
Jelinek, Fukuda, and Eis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of working machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Eis before him or her to modify the attachment management of Jelinek and Fukuda to include the load based pressure relief of Eis.
The motivation for doing so would have been that such a modification provides the advantageous benefit of bridging great differences in pressure that arise during use of the work machine. (Eis col. 4, ll. 54-61).
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jelinek in view of Fukuda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tagalpallewar et al., US Publication 2025/0024772 (hereinafter Tagalpallewar).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek and Fukuda does not appear to explicitly disclose “the controller is configured or programmed to include thresholds which are for use when the other of the increase or the decrease is caused in the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder in the first process and which are defined for a respective plurality of the work attachments of different types attachable to the attachment mount; and the controller is configured or programmed to recognize the work attachment attached to or to be attached to the attachment mount, and, in the first process, increase or reduce the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder to one of the thresholds that corresponds to the recognized work attachment.”
However, Tagalpallewar discloses a work machine wherein “the controller is configured or programmed to include thresholds … and which are defined for a respective plurality of the work attachments of different types attachable to the attachment mount” (Tagalpallewar ¶¶ 85, 88) by disclosing that the system includes characteristic data used to determine the compatibility between the attachment and the carrier as well as operating characteristics, such as weight, of the attachment. These act as thresholds because if the carrier does not support those characteristics, it does not meet the requirements of the attachment. Additionally, Tagalpallewar discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to recognize the work attachment attached to or to be attached to the attachment mount.” (Tagalpallewar ¶ 103). Finally, Tagalpallewar discloses “in the first process, adjust the characteristics that corresponds to the recognized work attachment.” (Tagalpallewar ¶ 85).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Tagalpallewar was combined with Jelinek and Fukuda, the attachment specific processes and characteristics of Jelinek and Fukuda would correspond to the attachment specific processes and characteristics of Tagalpallewar. Therefore, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “the controller is configured or programmed to include thresholds which are for use when the other of the increase or the decrease is caused in the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder in the first process and which are defined for a respective plurality of the work attachments of different types attachable to the attachment mount; and the controller is configured or programmed to recognize the work attachment attached to or to be attached to the attachment mount, and, in the first process, increase or reduce the pressure of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinder to one of the thresholds that corresponds to the recognized work attachment,” rendering them obvious.
Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of working machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar before him or her to modify the attachment mounts of Jelinek and Fukuda to include the recognized customizations of Tagalpallewar.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that including replaceable attachments would encourage sales of the work machine by increasing the work machine’s versatility.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar discloses “wherein the thresholds for the respective work attachments of different types are each defined based on a weight of a corresponding one of the work attachments, and are defined such that thresholds for heavier work attachments are greater than thresholds for lighter work attachments” (Tagalpallewar ¶ 82) where the thresholds are based on load characteristics, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include weights.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar discloses “an identification information reader to read identification information; wherein a plurality of the work attachments of different types have attached thereto respective tags with respective pieces of identification information unique thereto; the identification information reader is configured or programmed to read, from a tag of one of the work attachments that is attached to or to be attached to the attachment mount, a corresponding piece of identification information that is unique to the one of the work attachments; and the controller is configured or programmed to recognize the one of the work attachments that is attached to the attachment mount based on the corresponding piece of identification information read by the identification information reader.” (Tagalpallewar ¶ 103).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar discloses “a storage and/or a memory to record a plurality of the work attachments of different types; and an attachment selector to select one of the work attachments recorded in at least one of the storage or the memory that is to be used for work.” (Tagalpallewar ¶ 100). Further, the combination of Jelinek, Fukuda, and Tagalpallewar discloses “wherein: the controller is configured or programmed to recognize the one of the work attachments selected via the attachment selector as the work attachment attached or to be attached to the attachment mount.” (Tagalpallewar ¶ 103).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 15, 2026, with respect to the objections and claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 8-10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 13-17) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues “Shobe does not teach, suggest, or even mention that the pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the arm hydraulic cylinders changes as the travelling device travels.” (Remarks 12). The examiner disagrees.
As discussed in the rejection above, Shobe states that “the hydraulic system of the work machine 10 will stop providing hydraulic power to the attachment 18 as a safety precaution” (i.e., the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic cylinders changes) and that this occurs when the working vehicle “enters a heavily vegetated area,” which is a form of travel. (Shobe col. 16, ll. 14-29). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Yamashita et al., US Publication 2017/0275852, System and method for regulating hydraulic pressure in a working machine.
Amano et al., US Publication 2018/0106278, System and method for regulating hydraulic pressure in a working machine.
Ono et al., US Publication 2020/0056351, System and method for regulating hydraulic pressure in a working machine.
Nishi, US Publication 2023/0078047, System and method for regulating hydraulic pressure in a working machine.
Izumikawa, US Publication 2024/0011253, System and method for regulating hydraulic pressure in a working machine.
Sano et al., US Publication 2024/0352712, System and method for regulating hydraulic pressure in a working machine.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 The examiner confirmed, with Applicant’s representatives, on February 25, 2026, that the inventor of the present application is also an inventor of Shobe.
Prosecution Insights