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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velde (US 2021/0222405).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velde in view of Hoaby (US 2022/0412050).
Priority
The priority date for this application is 02/13/2023.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velde (US 2021/0222405).
As per Claim 1:
Velde discloses the following limitations:
“A work machine comprising: a work device including a plurality of construction elements; a plurality of actuators that respectively drive the plurality of construction elements of the work device”
Velde Figure 1 discloses a work vehicle with a plurality of actuators.
“overload sensors that sense overload states of the plurality of actuators, respectively”
Velde Paragraph [0029] discloses overload sensors that detect an overload condition for the actuators.
Velde suggests the following limitations:
“angle and angular velocity sensors that sense operation angles and angular velocities of the plurality of construction elements of the work device, respectively”
Velde Paragraph [0050] teaches angle and angular velocity determinations based on sensor measurements and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that angular velocity and angle sensors represent sensors that can fulfil this role.
“operation devices that operate the actuators; and a controller that controls supply amounts of hydraulic fluid to be supplied to the actuators, depending on operating amounts of the operation devices, wherein the controller judges, based on sensing results of the overload sensors, whether there are overload states on the plurality of actuators, and based on sensing results of the angle and angular velocity sensors, whether there are stop states on the plurality of actuators, and, when among the actuators, any actuator in the overload state and stop state is judged, corrects the supply amount of the hydraulic fluid to be supplied to the actuator selected based on a result of the judgement.”
Velde Paragraph [0029] teaches automatically adjusting the path of the working implement when a combination of overload and a lack of motion of the working implement is sensed. Such an action would represent an action in which the supply to the hydraulic actuators that control the working implement was "corrected".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Velde with the automatic adjustment based on angular movement and overload sensors further suggested by Velde. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing multiple parameters for use when controlling movement of working implements.
With regards to Claim 2, Velde suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the controller is configured to correct the supply amount of the hydraulic fluid to be supplied to each actuator different from the actuator or actuators in the overload state and the stop state, when among the plurality of actuators, one or some of the actuators are judged to be in the overload state and the stop state.”
Velde Paragraph [0029] teaches automatically adjusting the path of the working implement when a combination of overload and a lack of motion of the working implement is sensed. Such an action would represent an action in which the supply to the hydraulic actuators that control the working implement was "corrected".
With regards to Claim 3, Velde suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“ wherein the controller is configured to correct the supply amounts of the hydraulic fluid to be supplied to all the actuators, when among the plurality of actuators, all the actuators are judged to be in the overload state and the stop state.”
Velde Paragraph [0029] teaches automatically adjusting the path of the working implement when a combination of overload and a lack of motion of the working implement is sensed. Such an action would represent an action in which the supply to the hydraulic actuators that control the working implement was "corrected".
With regards to Claim 5, Velde suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein a velocity vector of a tip of the work device after the supply amount of the hydraulic fluid to be supplied to the actuator has been corrected by the controller is in a direction closer to being perpendicular to a direction vector along which the tip of the work machine operates by the actuator in the overload state and the stop state.”
Velde Paragraph [0029] teaches reducing the penetrating depth in response to overload and stop conditions, such a direction would be close to perpendicular to the movement vector of the working implement, i.e. the working implement would move up when it had been moving across whilst digging.
With regards to Claim 6, Velde suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the controller is configured to correct the supply amount of the hydraulic fluid that is to be supplied to the actuator, such that the magnitude of a velocity vector of a tip of the work device after the correction of the supply amount of the hydraulic fluid to be supplied to the actuator will increase depending on an elapsed time from a time when the actuator has been brought into the overload state and the stop state.”
Velde Paragraph [0029] teaches moving a working implement automatically when a stop condition is determined, therefore the magnitude of the velocity vector of the tip of the work element goes from zero to being increased to a non-zero amount as it resets. See also Paragraph [0053].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velde in view of Hoaby (US 2022/0412050). These references are related as they are both directed towards working machines with working implements.
With regards to Claim 4, Velde teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 but does not teach the following limitations that Hoaby does teach:
“wherein the controller is configured to correct the supply amount of the hydraulic fluid to be supplied to the actuator if a time of the overload state and the stop state is shorter than a time set beforehand, when any actuator in the overload state and the stop state is judged to exist.”
Hoaby Paragraphs [0211] teaches determining whether an implement has arrived at an overload and stop position based on comparing a pressure condition in the hydraulics that exists longer than a time threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that another parameter that is also indicative of an overload and stop condition, i.e. a lack of movement of the working implement, could be substituted and arrive at the same desired result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Velde with the time threshold used to determine stopped status taught by Hoaby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by ensuring that the vehicle isn’t unnecessarily stopped when faced with a temporary stoppage of the working implement.
Related References
Wu (JP2011252338)
Related to control of working implements.
Stander (US 2017/0113699)
Related to overload protection for a work implement.
Wimmer (US 2018/0105402)
Related to control of a working vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights