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 Objections
In Claim 10, “wherein the controller performs” should read “wherein when the controller performs.”
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. In the Instant Application, the term being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are “external electric power detecting device” in Claims 8, 10, 11, 14, “lock device” in Claims 8, 10, 11, “gate lock device” in Claim 10, and “notification device” in Claims 12, 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
These claims use the term “lock device” in Claims 8, 10, 11, “gate lock device” in Claim 10, and “notification device” in Claims 12, 13. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The Specification does not demonstrate that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
A. Claims 8, 10-13 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention. These claims use the term “lock device” in Claims 8, 10, 11, “gate lock device” in Claim 10, and “notification device” in Claims 12, 13.
These claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions.
With regard to the terms “lock device” and “gate lock device,” the Specification states the claimed function of “allow[ing] or stop[ping] the supply of the hydraulic oil to the hydraulic actuator” in Paragraph 7. The use of the term “lock device” is not adequate because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “lock device” refers to the one of countless applications (valves, gates, spigots, taps, stopcocks) wherein a fluid’s flow in a plumbing system is stopped or reduced. The Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which obtaining structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The same rationale applies to the recited “notification device.”
The Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If the Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, the Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
B. Claims 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Clam 8 discloses “a two-way mode in which the electric power is supplied from the external power source to the electric motor, and the electric power is supplied from the external power source and the battery to the electric motor based on a state of the ignition switch, a state of the lock device, and a state of the electric power supply from the external power source.” The Examiner could not ascertain whether this limitation refers to two distinct sub-modes of the two-way mode, or if the first recitation of “electric power is supplied from the external power source to the electric motor” and the second recitation of “electric power is supplied from the external power source . . . to the electric motor” are essentially duplicative language. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation via the latter interpretation.
Claim 10 discloses “the gate lock device.” There is no antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 11 discloses “when the external electric power detecting device is turned to a state of not detecting the electric power supply.” The Examiner could not ascertain whether the term “turned” refers to a manual changing operation, or to a process wherein a new state is automatically detected via a device such as a sensor. The Examiner is interpreting this term to include both interpretations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0051405 A1) in view of Masuka (U.S. Patent 7,086,380 B2).
In regard to Claim 8, Morishita teaches an electrically operated work machine powered by an electric power supplied from an external power source, the work machine comprising (see Abstract lines 1-6 teaching a construction machine electrically connected to an external electric power source):
A battery provided inside (see Abstract lines 1-6, Figure 1, Paragraph 33 lines 7-10 teaching that the machine contains an internal battery 72);
An external electric power detecting device that detects the electric power supplied from the external power source (see Paragraph 36 lines 1-2, Paragraph 63 lines 1-6 teaching a power supply device 71 that is capable of detecting an energizing signal from a connected external power source);
An electric motor that drives a hydraulic pump, the hydraulic pump supplying a hydraulic oil to a hydraulic actuator (see Figure 2, Paragraph 31 lines 1-9 teaching that the machine has an electric motor coupled to a hydraulic pump, which supplies oil to hydraulic activators);
An ignition switch that allows or stops an electric power supply to the electric motor (see Paragraph 48 lines 10-11, Paragraph 52 lines 2-4 teaching that the machine has a mode determination unit 81 that determines which mode to operate the machine in, including a third mode in which no power is directed to the electric motor);
A lock device that allows or stops the supply of the hydraulic oil to the hydraulic actuator (see Figure 2, Paragraph 31 lines 5-9 teaching that the machine has a control valve 62 positioned between the hydraulic pump 61 and the actuator group 63); and
A controller that controls an operation of the work machine (see Paragraph 52 lines 2-4 teaching a mode determination unit 81 that determines the mode in which to operate the machine),
Wherein the controller switches an operation mode of the work machine (see Paragraph 52 lines 2-4 teaching a mode determination unit 81 that determines the mode in which to operate the machine) between a charge mode in which the electric power is supplied from the external power source to the battery in a state where the supply of the hydraulic oil to the hydraulic actuator is stopped (see Figure 4C, Paragraph 14, Paragraph 39 lines 10-11, Paragraph 48 lines 10-11 teaching a third, charge-only mode in which the battery and external power source are connected, and there is no need to drive the electric motor), a battery drive mode in which the electric power is supplied from the battery to the electric motor in a state where the electric power supply from the external power source to the electric motor is stopped (see Figure 4A, Paragraph 40 teaching a first mode in which the commercial external power source is disconnected, and only power from the battery 72 is used to drive the electric motor), and a two-way mode in which the electric power is supplied from the external power source to the electric motor, and the electric power is supplied from the external power source and the battery to the electric motor (see Figure 5A, Paragraph 40 teaching a second mode in which power is directed to the electric motor from both the battery 72 and the commercial power source 100) based on a state of the ignition switch (see Paragraph 52 lines 2-4 teaching a mode determination unit 81 that determines the mode in which to operate the machine) and a state of the electric power supply from the external power source (see Paragraph 42 lines 6-7, Paragraph 46 lines 1-3 teaching that the second mode has multiple states, and the particular state of operation depends on the connectivity status of the power supply device 71, which is connected to the external commercial power source 100).
Morishita fails to teach wherein electric power is supplied from the external power source and the battery to the electric motor based on a state of the lock device.
However, Masuka teaches wherein electric power is supplied from the external power source and the battery to the electric motor based on a state of the lock device (see Column 3 lines 22-25, Claims 1, 2 teaching a throttle-controlling apparatus that uses a switching circuit to supply voltage from either a power source 17 or a boosting circuit 18, based on control by a controller 13, wherein the voltage source selection is based on the opening degree of a throttle valve).
Morishita and Masuka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of machines that supply a fluid through a valve based on instructions from an electronic controller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morishita’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the selection of an electronic power source or sources for a fluid supply mechanism is based on the state of a valve or fluid plumbing lock as taught by Masuka. Doing so could improve an electronically-controlled fluid supply system powered by an electric pump, by implementing supplemental power from an additional electric power source when a fluid valve opens to a substantially open position. As a valve opens wider, more power is usually required to maintain a constant flow rate for fluid being passed through the valve from a pump. Adding an auxiliary power source could prevent decreases in flow rates when the pump’s primary source of power is unable to meet the demand of an increased flow rate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0051405 A1) in view of Masuka (U.S. Patent 7,086,380 B2), in further view of Hizaki (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0239118 A1).
In regard to Claim 14, Morishita fails to teach wherein the external electric power detecting device detects the electric power supply from the external power source based on at least one of a detection result of a sensor that detects the electric power supplied from the external power source, a connection state of a power feeding cable that connects the external power source to the work machine, or an operating state of a breaker provided on an electric power supply path between the external power source and the battery.
However, Hizaki teaches wherein the external electric power detecting device detects the electric power supply from the external power source based on at least one of a detection result of a sensor that detects the electric power supplied from the external power source, a connection state of a power feeding cable that connects the external power source to the work machine, or an operating state of a breaker provided on an electric power supply path between the external power source and the battery (see Paragraph 26 lines 7-13 teaching a vehicle system that uses a sensor to recognize when a charging cable has been connected to a charging port on the vehicle).
Morishita and Hizaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles that use external power sources for electric power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morishita’s invention to incorporate a feature capable of recognizing electric power via a sensor or via a method of determining a connection with an electric cable as taught by Hizaki. Doing so could improve an electric charging system by implementing a method of determining whether a charging operation has commenced or is operation normally.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 is 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.
Hizaki (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0239118 A1) teaches a vehicle with an electric charging operation sensory system (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
Masuka (U.S. Patent 7,086,380 B2) teaches a vehicle system that uses valve position to determine voltage sources for an electric operation (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
Morishita (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0051405 A1) teaches a construction machine that uses both internal and external electric power in multiple configurations, based on instructions from an electronic controller, wherein the power is used to operate an electric motor that supplies hydraulic oil through a valve to hydraulic actuators (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
However, these references, and all other references included in the rejections above fail to teach the limitations of Claim, 9 wherein in the switching between the battery drive mode and the two-way mode among the switching of the operation mode between the charge mode, the battery drive mode, and the two-way mode, the controller allows the switching from the two-way mode to the battery drive mode but inhibits the switching from the battery drive mode to the two-way mode.
As a result of the features recited in Claim 9, the invention produces the advantageous effects of enabling an electrically-powered system to incorporate both internal and external power sources, without allowing voltage spikes, unpredictable circuit states, and arcing. This configuration maintains system safety, component protection, and predictable power state transitions, while increasing potential total power supply and providing system flexibility and redundancy.
Claims 9-13 all recite restrictions or required conditions related to mode-switching to or from the recited two-way mode. The Examiner was unable to find prior art teaching these limitations, and thus all of these claims would be deemed allowable if incorporated into independent form, provided the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections were overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
