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 § 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 1 – 5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…when the semi-automatic excavation mode is selected by the mode selection device, or when the semi-automatic excavation mode is selected by the mode selection device.” in lines 19-20 which is redundant. Examiner suggests to omit the redundant limitation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as
“…the controller switches between the first excavation mode and the second excavation mode based on the discharge pressure of the hydraulic pump just before the start of the excavation work, when the semi-automatic excavation mode is selected by the mode selection device.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wheel loader" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 - 5 are rejected as a result of their dependency to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record are Kishimoto et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0160470 A1), Hyodo et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0262353 A1) and Kajita et al. (Patent No.: US 6,778,097 B1).
Kishimoto teaches a wheel loader that detects a discharge pressure of hydraulic oil from a working implement pump and sends a detection signal expressing the working implement pump pressure to a controller. A regulating member for selecting an emergency traveling mode may be selected where a clutch may cancel limits on the engine rotation speed before the work vehicle is stopped.
Hyodo teaches a wheel loader with a travel mode selection where the speed limiting unit varies a limit value of a maximum speed of the engine according to the travel mode selected by the mode selection unit. Furthermore, a variable hydraulic pump for working is driven by the engine so as to discharge pressure oil in order to perform constant torque control.
Kajita teaches a wheel loader configured with an automatic excavation loading mode and an engine pump controller for receiving engine speed information and controls the engine and the tilt angles of the pumps for variable discharge of the pumps.
In regards to claim 1, Kishimoto, Hyodo and Kajita taken either individually or in combination with one another or other prior art fails to teach or render obvious a wheel loader comprising; a mode selection device for selecting a normal mode in which the controller controls the loading work device based on an operation signal output from the loading operation device, and a semi-automatic excavation mode in which the controller automatically controls the travel drive device and the loading work device based on an operation signal output from the travel operation device to assist the operator's operation; wherein
the semi-automatic excavation mode includes a first excavation mode in which the controller does not limit the engine speed, and a second excavation mode in which the controller limits the engine speed so that the traction force by the travel drive device is smaller than in the first excavation mode; the controller switches between the first excavation mode and the second excavation mode based on the discharge pressure of the hydraulic pump just before the start of the excavation work, when the semi-automatic excavation mode is selected by the mode selection device.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights