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 Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0303226 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Yamasaki discloses a method for controlling an electric power machine (electrically driving operating device, See Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, with one or more electronic processors (microprocessor ¶ 38) in communication with a plurality of electric actuators supported by a power machine frame of the electric power machine (Actuator control signal from microprocessor, controls electrically driven actuators 1 and 2 respectively ¶ 38), a command for movement of a lift arm of the electric power machine using a set of electric lift actuators of the plurality of electric actuators or movement of a work element of the electric power machine using a set of electric tilt actuators of the plurality of electric actuators (Inventive concept incorporated in a excavator type device with lift arm and tilt functions being driven by both individual electrical actuators 1 and 2, FIG. 13 and ¶ 98); and
controlling the set of electric lift actuators or the set of electric tilt actuators, with the one or more electronic processors, based on the command, to, respectively, substantially balance forces (Balance in force of the electric actuators ¶¶ 56, 61, 67) between the set of electric lift actuators or substantially balance forces between the set of electric tilt actuators (“Assume, for example, that the load to the first electric motor M1 corresponds to 100 N and the load to the second electric motor M2 corresponds to 100 N. In this case, control is performed such that the first electric motor M1 produces an output torque that corresponds to 100 N. Being supplied with the same electricity as that supplied to the first electric motor M1, the second electric motor M2 produces an output torque that corresponds to 100 N. The first electric motor M1 maintains a balanced state and the rotor position does not change; however, balance of force in the second electric motor M2 is disrupted, so that the rotor position moves out of a point at which a maximum torque occurs. This deviation in position causes the torque produced by the second electric motor M2 to decrease. The second electric motor M2 produces an output torque that corresponds to 95 N and load to the second electric motor M2 shifts into a state of corresponding to 95 N, wherein a balance is achieved.” ¶¶ 58-59)
Regarding claim 22, Yamasaki discloses the method, further comprising:
controlling the set of electric lift actuators or the set of electric tilt actuators, with the one
or more electronic processors, based on a target electric current associated with the command for movement (lifting making vertical movement ¶ 34 and same electricity is supplied to the first electric motor and to the second electric motor to maintain balance ¶ 56); by: determining, with the one or more electronic processors, a target electric current based on the command for movement (control means for performing parallel operation of the first and second electric motor ¶ 8 and lifting movement ¶ 34); and providing, with the one or more electronic processors, based on the target electric current, substantially equal electric current to the set of electric lift actuators or the set of electric tilt actuators to, respectively, substantially balance forces exerted by the set of electric lift actuators or the set of electric tilt actuators (Balance in force of the electric actuators ¶¶ 56, 61, 67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 – 32, 34 – 37, 39 and 40 are allowed.
Claims 23 – 29 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2026 with regards to claim 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s generally argue that the prior art Yamasaki fails to teach “controlling…to…substantially balance forces” or more specifically “substantially balance forces between the set of electric lift actuators or substantially balance forces between the set of electric tilt actuators” but rather teaches to intentionally design the system to produce unequal forces between the actuators. Further, Yamasaki’s entire design philosophy is to avoid the need for active force balancing by creating a passive, self-correcting system. The unequal-length link and sensorless motor architecture eliminates the need for position sensors on every motor or current monitoring. Instead, Yamasaki’s system relies on mechanical structure and motor physics to passively reach a stable-but force-imbalances-operating state.
Examiner respectively disagrees with the assertion that Yamasaki fails to “substantially balance forces between the set of electric lift actuators or substantially balance forces between the set of electric tilt actuators” as the claim limitations does not only require that each of the electric lift actuators to balance themselves but rather the forces overall need to balance which Yamasaki clearly demonstrates. Applicants point to ¶¶ 58-61 which discloses the system to produce an intentional unequal force to reach a stable equilibrium. This is correct and it applies to the limitation as ultimately the whole invention is to balance forces which requires manipulating each actuator to output different forces in order to create a state of equilibrium (i.e., balance force). Again, the claim limitation only requires “substantially balance forces between the set of electric lift actuators…” which Yamasaki clearly meets with the output of varying forces in order to create a state of equilibrium (overall balance). Examiner is not required to read-in limitations from Applicants disclosure as Applicants are suggesting.
Applicants argue that Yamasaki fails to teach “controlling the set of electric lift actuators or the set of electric tilt actuators, with one or more electronic processors based on the command, to…substantially balance forces.” But rather the control unit merely supplies the same electric to both motors based on the sensor signal from the first motor. The control unit has no awareness of the forces exerted by each actuator. Examiner respectfully disagrees as paragraph 38 teaches the sensor signal output from the first electrically driven actuator is input to the microprocessor control unit 5.
Applicants argue “Any "correction" in Yamasaki happens passively through motor physics and mechanical architecture-not through active processor control directed toward balancing forces. The processor's sole function is to generate synchronized drive signals based on the first motor's position sensor; it plays no active role in force balancing. The stable equilibrium state in Yamasaki is a passive byproduct of the mechanical design, not the purpose of the processor's control.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and rationale for claim 21 as similarly stated above, is used to respond to this similar issue.
Applicants arguments with regards to claims 30 – 32, 34 – 37, 39 and 40 are moot as they have been allowed according to incorporated allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
