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 Objections
Claims 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “BMS” and “MCU” should be introduced by the full name of the limitation, not by acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “MCU” should be introduced by the full name of the limitation, not by acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “form” (second to last line) should be replaced with “from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-12 objected to because of the following informalities: “An” should be replaced with “an” in line 1 of each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7, the method claim does not positively describe methods steps. The limitations functionally describe the apparatus of the controller. It is unclear whether the claim is attempting to claim a method or is further describing the controller. Examiner interprets claim to further describe the controller.
Regarding claim 8-9, the method claim does not positively describe methods steps. The limitations functionally describe the apparatus of the hybrid power system. It is unclear whether the claim is attempting to claim a method or is further describing the hybrid power system. Examiner interprets claim to further describe the hybrid power system structure.
Additionally, the term “Substantially” in claims 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Substantially” does not provide a clear indication of the state of charge of the battery.
Regarding 10-12, it is unclear whether the structural limitations introduced in claims 10-12 are a new extended-range hybrid power system or referring to the same structural limitations for an extended-range hybrid power system in claim 1. Examiner interprets claim to be repeating the same structural limitations of claim 1.
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, 3, 7, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 215793204 U) in view of Yoshimatsu (PgPub US 20050001567 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the range-increasing operation power system of Li discloses
An extended-range hybrid power system (Abstract), characterized by, comprising a power battery (8, Fig 1; Abstract, ln 4-5), a first motor (10, Fig 1; Abstract, ln 5), a second motor (3, Fig 1; Abstract ln 2-3) and an engine (1, Fig 1; Abstract ln 2-3);
the first motor is connected to a lower traveling mechanism (Abstract ln 3-4);
the engine is connected to the second motor (Fig 1; Pg 3, body 4), and the second motor is connected to an upper operating mechanism (6, Fig 1; Pg 3, body 4-5).
Li is silent on the details of an all-in-one controller. However, the electric working machine of Yoshimatsu teaches an all-in-one controller (33, Fig 2), and the power battery, the first motor and the second motor are connected to the all-in-one controller (Fig 2). After combination, the all-in-one controller of Yoshimatsu is connected to an external power supply through the second motor (Li, Pg 4, Work Condition, 2.2.a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the range-increasing operation power system of Li with an all-in-one controller to control the individual electric motors ([0009]; [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Li further teaches the engine (1) is arranged on an upper body (Abstract, ln 2-3) and connected to a first clutch (2, Fig 1), the first clutch is connected to the second motor (3, Fig 1; Abstract, ln 2-3; Pg 3, body 4), the second motor is connected to a second clutch (4, Fig 1; Pg 3, body 4), and the second clutch is connected to the upper operating mechanism (6, Fig 1; Pg 3, body 4).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Li further teaches operating modes for an operation of an upper body comprise a plug-in operating mode (Pg 5, Work Condition 2.2 d), a pure electric operating mode (Pg 4, Work Condition 2.1 c), a pure gasoline operating mode (Pg 4, Work Condition 2.1 d) and a hybrid operating mode (Pg 4, Work Condition 2.1 a); and traveling modes for traveling of a lower body comprise a pure electric traveling mode and an extended-range traveling mode (Pg 4, Driving condition).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood by the examiner, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, the structure of the extended-range hybrid power system is rejected above in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li & Yoshimatsu in view of Kaneko (US Patent 10,272,900 B2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Li further teaches the lower traveling mechanism comprises a gearbox (11) connected to the first motor (Fig 1; Pg 3, Specific implementation examples, body 3). The combination is silent on the detail of a transmission shaft and a drive axle. However, the hybrid working vehicle of Kaneko teaches a transmission shaft (104) connected to the gearbox (103, Fig 12; Col. 1, ln 50-57), and a drive axle connected to the transmission shaft (Annotated Fig 12 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li & Yoshimatsu in view of Oku (JP 2006069775 A) & Mork (US Patent 3,399,785 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Li further teaches a hydraulic pump (5) and a generic working device (6). The combination does not teach the hydraulic pump connected to a revolving device, a luffing device, a hoisting device, and a telescopic boom. However, the mobile crane of Oku teaches the upper operating mechanism comprises a hydraulic pump (21; Pg 3, body 3, last 2 lines), and a revolving device (turning motor, Pg 3, body 3, ln 1-4), a luffing device (boom hoisting cylinder 7, Fig 3), a hoisting device (hoisting drum 8, Fig 3), and a telescopic boom (telescopic cylinder 6, Fig 3) which are driven by the hydraulic pump (Pg 3, body 3, ln 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle with a hydraulic pump and associated crane working devices to manipulate a hooked object in multiple directions with a hydraulic system to generate large forces with smooth and precise control.
The combination is silent on the details of chassis outriggers driven by the hydraulic pump. However, the mobile crane of Mork teaches hydraulic chassis outriggers (Col. 3 ln 18-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle with hydraulic chassis outriggers to support and stabilize the rear end of the truck chassis (Col. 3 ln 18-21).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li & Yoshimatsu in view of Diller (US Patent 5,487,002 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Li further teaches a first MCU (13) connected to the first motor (3, Fig 1). The combination hybrid working vehicle teaches the all-in-one controller is connected to the first motor through the MCU. The combination does not teach a BMS. However, the energy management system of Diller teaches the all-in-one controller (EMS) is connected to the power battery by means of a BMS (battery monitoring module 62; Col. 4 ln 19-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle by adding a BMS to communicate battery status to the all-in-one controller to monitor power remaining in battery (Col. 14 ln 15-17).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li & Yoshimatsu in view of Takahashi (JP 2009096560 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Yoshimatsu teaches that the all-in-one controller is connected to the second motor by means of a second MCU (Fig 2). The combination is silent on the details of a central revolving device. However, the current collector of Yoshimatsu teaches a central revolving device capable of transmitting electrical signals (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle with the central revolving device of Yoshimatsu to allow the upper body to rotate to allow for more degrees of freedom when manipulating object with the upper body and to allow the all-in-one controller to communicate with the second MCU.
Claims 8 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li & Yoshimatsu in view of Kaneko, Hayashi (JP 2020068567 A), Diller, & Ju (PGPub US 2013/0249488 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, Li further teaches the operation of the upper body:
in the presence of the external power supply, the upper body automatically enters the plug-in operating mode, the engine is disconnected from the second motor, the second motor is connected to the upper operating mechanism, the external power supply enables the second motor to drive the upper operating mechanism to work by means of the all-in-one controller, and at the same time, the external power supply charges the power battery by means of the all-in-one controller (Work Condition 2.2 d);
during the pure electric operating mode, the engine is disconnected from the second motor, the second motor is connected to the upper operating mechanism, the power battery enables the second motor to drive the upper operating mechanism to work by means of the all-in-one controller (Work Condition 2.1 c);
during pure gasoline operating mode, the engine is connected to the second motor, the second motor is connected to the upper operating mechanism, the engine drives the upper operating mechanism to work by means of a rotor of the second motor, and when the state of charge of the power battery is low, the second motor functions as a generator to charge the power battery (Work Condition 2.1 d);
during the hybrid operating mode, the engine is connected to the second motor, the second motor is connected to the upper operating mechanism, the engine drives the upper operating mechanism to work by means of the rotor of the second motor (Work Condition 2.1 a).
The combination does not teach the second motor adjusting the torque output of the engine. However, the hybrid wheel loader of Kaneko teaches in the hybrid operation mode, that according to a load condition during operation of the upper body, efficiency of the engine and the state of charge of the power battery, the second motor operates timely to adjust a torque output of the engine to ensure that the engine operates within a high-efficiency and economical range (Col. 3 ln 55 to Col. 4 ln 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle control with the control operations of Kaneko to enhance the efficiency of the engine (Col. 4 ln 3-4).
The combination is silent on the details of the user selecting the driving mode. However, the electrically driven vehicle of Hayashi discloses the user selecting a driving priority mode (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle with the addition of an operation mode switch allowing the user to give the user more control over the hybrid system and allow for easier troubleshooting during inspection.
The combination is silent on the details of the battery charging status being displayed to the user. However, the energy management control system for vehicles of Diller teaches display functions such as battery status are provided using standard analog or digital displays in an instrument cluster on the vehicle dashboard (Col. 2 ln 17-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle with a display with battery status to notify the user of battery level to see if the battery is charged fully to release the external charger.
The combination is silent on the details of battery design thresholds determining the operation of the engine connected to the second motor to generate power. However, the battery pack charging system of Ju teaches a discharging limit and charging limit used to switch on and off the power generation module to maintain charge of the battery (Fig 5; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid vehicle with the battery pack charging method to maintain battery charge in hybrid systems to start and stop an engine to limit the amount of time spent idling ([0006]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood by the examiner the combination teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above, the structure of the extended-range hybrid power system is rejected above in claim 1.
Claims 9 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li & Yoshimatsu in view of Hayashi, Diller, & Ju.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, Li further teaches monitoring the power battery SOC state parameter and generating power according to the vehicle power request, satisfying the driving requirement (Pg 4, Driving condition). Li additionally teaches the pure electric traveling mode, wherein the power battery enables the first motor to drive the lower traveling mechanism to work by means of the all-in-one controller to realize traveling of a vehicle (Driving condition); and
the extended-range traveling mode, wherein the power battery enables the first motor to drive the lower traveling mechanism to work by means of the all-in-one controller to realize traveling of the vehicle (Driving condition); and
to recharge the battery during extended-range traveling mode, the engine is connected to the second motor, the second motor is disconnected from the upper operating mechanism, and the engine is started to drive the second motor to generate power to charge the power battery by means of the all-in-one controller and at the same time, to enable the first motor to drive the lower traveling mechanism to work by means of the all-in-one controller to realize traveling of the vehicle (Driving Condition).
The combination is silent on the details of the user selecting the driving mode. However, the electrically driven vehicle of Hayashi discloses the user selecting a driving priority mode (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle with the addition of an operation mode switch giving the user more control over the hybrid system and allow for easier troubleshooting during inspection.
The combination is silent on the details of the battery charging status being displayed to the user. However, the energy management control system for vehicles of Diller teaches display functions, such as battery status, are provided using standard analog or digital displays in an instrument cluster on the vehicle dashboard (Col. 2 ln 17-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid working vehicle with a display with battery status to notify the user of battery level to see if the battery is charged fully to release the external charger.
The combination is silent on the details of battery design thresholds determining the operation of the engine connected to the second motor to generate power to charge the power battery. However, the battery pack charging system of Ju teaches a discharging limit and charging limit used to switch on and off the power generation module to maintain charge of the battery (Fig 5; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination hybrid vehicle with the battery pack charging method to maintain battery charge in hybrid systems to start and stop an engine to limit the amount of time spent idling ([0006]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood by the examiner the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above, the structure of the extended-range hybrid power system is rejected above in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 9,981,543 B2 discloses a hybrid power module including a master controller to control an engine, motor, and hydraulic pump assembly.
US Patent 9,151,019 B2 discloses a hybrid construction machine with an engine, multiple motors, and a hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump is coupled to multiple actuators of the construction machine.
US Patent 9,187,294 B2 discloses a hybrid construction machine using an engine, motor and hydraulic pump assembly to drive various mechanical controls.
US Patent 4,309,620 A discloses a hybrid powertrain with engine, multiple motors and clutches with different operating modes to couple and uncouple the engine during operation.
CN 108532519 A discloses a hybrid sweeper with an onboard generator and an electric drivetrain system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights