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
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 (line 10) “determination that” should read “determining that”
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 1-6 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 claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "on the basis of a key-off" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of “on a basis of a key-off” in the claim.
Claims 2-5 which are dependent claims of claim 1 inherit its deficiencies and are therefore also rejected.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitation "a work machine" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is a prior mention of “a work machine” in line 1 of claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, therefore it is unclear whether the work machine in claim 2 is the same as that mention in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner interprets that the work machine mentioned in claim 2 is the same as that mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claims 3-5, claims 3-5 are rejected on similar grounds as that detailed above with regards to claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected on similar grounds as that detailed above with regards to claim 1.
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, 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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US2022/0164019A1) in view of Gray et al. (US5151855A) in further view of Johnson et al. (US2017/0009726A1), hereinafter Anderson, Gray, and Johnson respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (original) Anderson teaches a control system for a work machine, comprising: a first controller configured to start shutdown processing on the basis of a key-off signal from a key switch (see at least [0020] “responsive to detecting the vehicle 102 is shutdown (e.g., a vehicle key off event) at operation 202, a master controller i.e., the PCM 150, broadcasts a message via the in-vehicle network 137 to command all slave controllers to enter the low power mode at operation 204.”); a second controller configured to start shutdown processing on the basis of the key-off signal (see at least [0020] “responsive to detecting the vehicle 102 is shutdown (e.g., a vehicle key off event) at operation 202, a master controller i.e., the PCM 150, broadcasts a message via the in-vehicle network 137 to command all slave controllers to enter the low power mode at operation 204.”); and wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing (see at least [0020]-[0021] “the PCM 150 may determine the operating status of each of the slave controllers to coordinate the power shutdown... If the PCM 150 determines all corresponding controllers have entered the low power mode, the process proceeds to operation 214 and the PCM 150 operates the power relay 156 to disconnect the battery 154 from the primary power converter 160. The PCM 150 may command itself to enter the low power mode before deactivating the power relay 156.”).
Examiner interprets that first controller is encompassed at least by master controller, powertrain control module (PCM) 150, and/or PCM 150, key-off signal from a key switch is encompassed at least by vehicle key off event, second controller is encompassed at least by slave controllers, and end the shutdown processing is encompassed at least by enter the low power mode and/or operates the power relay 156 to disconnect the battery 154 from the primary power converter 160.
Anderson does not explicitly teach a notification device configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller.
Gray more explicitly teaches wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing (see at least Col.1 lines 42-46 “After a minimum time determined to be sufficient to allow the slaves to complete their shutdown chores, the master powers down the system including shutting down the common power supply.” also see at least Col.4 lines 6-10).
Examiner interprets that first controller is encompassed at least by master and second controller is encompassed at least by slaves.
Johnson teaches a notification device configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller (see at least [0027] “If the controller determines that delayed shutdown of the prime mover 16 is not required, as illustrated in box 840, the prime mover 16 shuts down to an off state and the controller 24 and the operator station 18 are powered off, as depicted at line 916 in FIG. 9. At this time, the indicator 40 may be unilluminated to indicate that the prime mover 16 and the controller 24 are in the off state.”).
Examiner interprets that notification device is encompassed at least by indicator 40 and second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller is encompassed at least by unilluminated to indicate that the prime mover 16 and the controller 24 are in the off state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Anderson of a control system for a work machine, comprising: a first controller configured to start shutdown processing on the basis of a key-off signal from a key switch; a second controller configured to start shutdown processing on the basis of the key-off signal; and wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing with the more explicit teaching of wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing found in Gray and the teaching of a notification device configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller found in Johnson. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a control system for a work machine, comprising: a first controller configured to start shutdown processing on the basis of a key-off signal from a key switch; a second controller configured to start shutdown processing on the basis of the key-off signal; and a notification device configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller, wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to orderly shutdown multiple processors regardless of failures (see at least Gray, Col.1 lines 26-33 and Col.5 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 2, (currently amended) the combination of Anderson, Gray, and Johnson teaches the control system for a work machine, according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Anderson teaches wherein the second controller is configured to output an operation signal indicating that the second controller is in operation, during execution of the shutdown processing (see at least [0020] “Each of the slave controllers may be configured to broadcast a heartbeat signal indicative of its operating status onto the in-vehicle network 137.”and [0020] “responsive to detecting the vehicle 102 is shutdown (e.g., a vehicle key off event) at operation 202, a master controller i.e., the PCM 150...monitors heartbeat signals transmitted from each of the slave controllers.”), and the first controller is configured to: see at least [0020] “It should be noted that process 200 may be individually or collectively implemented via one or more ECU s, controllers, components of the vehicle 102 described or not described herein. For simplicity purposes, the following description will be made with reference to PCM 150 as a non-limiting example. With continuing reference to FIG. 1, responsive to detecting the vehicle 102 is shutdown (e.g., a vehicle key off event) at operation 202”), see at least [0020] “the PCM 150 monitors heartbeat signals transmitted from each of the slave controllers”), (see at least [0020] “The slave controllers may be configured to only broadcast the heartbeat signal when they are in normal operating mode, and cease to broadcast the heartbeat signal when they enter the low power mode. Therefore, by monitoring the heartbeat signals, the PCM 150 may determine the operating status of each of the slave controllers to coordinate the power shutdown”), and see at least [0021] “At operation 208, if the PCM 150 no longer detects the heartbeat signal from a predefined slave controller on the list, the process proceeds to operation 210 and the PCM 150 marks that corresponding controller as having entered the low power mode and proceeds to operation 212 to determine if all corresponding controllers have entered the low power mode. If the PCM 150 determines all corresponding controllers have entered the low power mode, the process proceeds to operation 214 and the PCM 150 operates the power relay 156 to disconnect the battery 154 from the primary power converter 160.”).
Examiner interprets that operation signal is encompassed at least by heartbeat signal(s), first controller is encompassed at least by PCM 150, key-off signal from the key switch is encompassed at least by detecting the vehicle 102 is shutdown (e.g., a vehicle key off event), determine whether the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended is encompassed at least by enter the low power mode, and end the shutdown processing by the first controller is encompassed at least by PCM 150 operates the power relay 156 to disconnect the battery 154 from the primary power converter 160.
Gray more explicitly teaches end the shutdown processing by the first controller upon determination that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended (see at least Col.4 lines 6-10 “The foregoing routine provides for the master 14 controlling the shutdown of the system in response to a low ignition voltage signal in a manner that assures that all of the slaves complete their shutdown tasks before the system is powered down.”).
Examiner interprets that first controller is encompassed at least by master and second controller is encompassed at least by slaves.
Johnson suggests the first controller is configured to: see at least [0018]-[0019] “The controller 24 may be in communication with the prime mover 16 to control the starting and stopping of the prime mover 16 via signals from the starter device 20...the starter device 20 may include a push button 28 surrounded by a housing 30...ring switch 32 may surround the housing 30 and operatively rotate between various positions such as, but not limited to, a first ring position 34 (also referred to as an OFF position) and a second ring position 36 (also referred to as an ON position).” and [0027] “the controller 24 determines whether the ring switch 32 has been rotated from the second ring position 36 to the first ring position 34”).
Examiner interprets that first controller is encompassed at least by controller 24, key-off signal is suggested at least by signals from the starter device 20, and key switch is encompassed at least by starter device 20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Anderson of wherein the second controller is configured to output an operation signal indicating that the second controller is in operation, during execution of the shutdown processing, and the first controller is configured to: receive the key-off signal from the key switch, receive the operation signal from the second controller determine whether the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended, on the basis of a reception state of the operation signal, and end the shutdown processing by the first controller upon determination that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended with the more explicit teaching of end the shutdown processing by the first controller upon determination that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended found in Gray and the suggested teaching of the first controller is configured to: receive the key-off signal from the key switch found in Johnson. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a control system for a work machine, according to claim 1,wherein the second controller is configured to output an operation signal indicating that the second controller is in operation, during execution of the shutdown processing, and the first controller is configured to: receive the key-off signal from the key switch, receive the operation signal from the second controller, determine whether the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended, on the basis of a reception state of the operation signal, and end the shutdown processing by the first controller upon determination that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to orderly shutdown multiple processors regardless of failures (see at least Gray, Col.1 lines 26-33 and Col.5 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 4, (currently amended) the combination of Anderson, Gray, and Johnson teaches the control system for a work machine, according to claim 2 as detailed above.
Anderson teaches wherein the first controller is configured to determine that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended, when the first controller no longer receives the operation signal (see at least [0021] “At operation 208, if the PCM 150 no longer detects the heartbeat signal from a predefined slave controller on the list, the process proceeds to operation 210 and the PCM 150 marks that corresponding controller as having entered the low power mode and proceeds to operation 212 to determine if all corresponding controllers have entered the low power mode.”), and the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing by the first controller when a time from a time point of receipt of the key-off signal exceeds a predetermined time, even while the first controller is receiving the operation signal (see at least [0021] “if the PCM 150 determines not all slave controllers have entered the low power mode, the process proceeds to operation 216 to verify if the timer has expired. The timer may be used to guarantee disconnection from the primary power converter 160 in case one or more slave controllers do not enter the low power mode and hold back the shutdown process. The timer may be set to a predefined period (e.g., 5 seconds) after which the power relay 156 will be disconnected anyway. If the PCM 150 verifies that the timer has expired at operation 216, the process proceeds to operation 214 to disconnect the power relay.”).
Examiner interprets that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended is encompassed at least by corresponding controller as having entered the low power mode, operation signal is encompassed at least by heartbeat signal, first controller is configured to end the shutdown is encompassed at least by disconnection from the primary power converter 160 or disconnect the power relay, and a time from a time point of receipt of the key-off signal exceeds a predetermined time is encompassed at least by verify if the timer has expired or the PCM 150 verifies that the timer has expired.
Anderson does not explicitly teach the key-off signal is simultaneously input to the first controller and the second controller.
Gray suggests the key-off signal is simultaneously input to the first controller and the second controller (see at least Col.1 lines 35-37 “the master senses a shutdown condition such as represented by a drop in the automotive vehicle engine ignition voltage,” and Col.1 lines 47-49 “each of the slaves also senses the shutdown condition via an analog-to-digital converter and initiates shutdown chores” and Col.2 lines 49-54 “ignition voltage signal represents a power shutdown condition when its value is low (below a predetermined value) which will occur, for example, when the vehicle operator opens the ignition switch 26 to shut off the vehicle engine.").
Examiner interprets that key-off signal is encompassed at least by shutdown condition, ignition voltage signal represents a power shutdown condition when its value is low (below a predetermined value), or opens the ignition switch 26, input to the first controller is encompassed at least by master senses a shutdown condition, and input to the second controller is encompassed at least by each of the slaves also senses the shutdown.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Anderson of the first controller is configured to determine that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended, when the first controller no longer receives the operation signal, and the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing by the first controller when a time from a time point of receipt of the key-off signal exceeds a predetermined time, even while the first controller is receiving the operation signal with the suggested teaching of the key-off signal is simultaneously input to the first controller and the second controller found in Gray. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a control system for a work machine wherein the first controller is configured to determine that the shutdown processing by the second controller has ended, when the first controller no longer receives the operation signal, the key-off signal is simultaneously input to the first controller and the second controller, and the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing by the first controller when a time from a time point of receipt of the key-off signal exceeds a predetermined time, even while the first controller is receiving the operation signal with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to orderly shutdown multiple processors regardless of failures (see at least Gray, Col.1 lines 26-33 and Col.5 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 5, (currently amended) the combination of Anderson, Gray, and Johnson teaches the control system for a work machine, according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Anderson suggests a work machine (see at least [0011] “A vehicle 102 may include various types of automobile, crossover utility vehicle (CUV), sport utility vehicle (SUV), truck, recreational vehicle (RV), boat, plane, or other mobile machine for transporting people or goods.”) comprising: the control system for a work machine (see at least [0010] “the present disclosure proposes a vehicle power management system for coordinating vehicle controller/ECU shutdown.”).
However, Johnson more explicitly teaches work machine comprising: the control system for a work machine (see at least [0001] “The present disclosure relates generally to a work machine and, more particularly, to a starter device for a prime mover of such a work machine.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Anderson of work machine comprising: the control system for a work machine with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for power saving of a work machine (see at least Johnson, [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, (currently amended) Anderson teaches a control method for a work machine, the method comprising: starting, by a first controller, shutdown processing on the basis of a key-off signal from a key switch (see at least [0020] “responsive to detecting the vehicle 102 is shutdown (e.g., a vehicle key off event) at operation 202, a master controller i.e., the PCM 150, broadcasts a message via the in-vehicle network 137 to command all slave controllers to enter the low power mode at operation 204.”); starting, by a second controller, shutdown processing in response to the key-off signal (see at least [0020] “responsive to detecting the vehicle 102 is shutdown (e.g., a vehicle key off event) at operation 202, a master controller i.e., the PCM 150, broadcasts a message via the in-vehicle network 137 to command all slave controllers to enter the low power mode at operation 204.”); and wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing (see at least [0020]-[0021] “the PCM 150 may determine the operating status of each of the slave controllers to coordinate the power shutdown... If the PCM 150 determines all corresponding controllers have entered the low power mode, the process proceeds to operation 214 and the PCM 150 operates the power relay 156 to disconnect the battery 154 from the primary power converter 160. The PCM 150 may command itself to enter the low power mode before deactivating the power relay 156.”).
Examiner interprets that first controller is encompassed at least by master controller, powertrain control module (PCM) 150, and/or PCM 150, key-off signal from a key switch is encompassed at least by vehicle key off event, second controller is encompassed at least by slave controllers, and end the shutdown processing is encompassed at least by enter the low power mode and/or operates the power relay 156 to disconnect the battery 154 from the primary power converter 160.
Anderson does not explicitly teach causing a notification device to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller.
Gray more explicitly teaches wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing (see at least Col.1 lines 42-46 “After a minimum time determined to be sufficient to allow the slaves to complete their shutdown chores, the master powers down the system including shutting down the common power supply.” also see at least Col.4 lines 6-10).
Examiner interprets that first controller is encompassed at least by master and second controller is encompassed at least by slaves.
Johnson teaches causing a notification device to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller (see at least [0027] “If the controller determines that delayed shutdown of the prime mover 16 is not required, as illustrated in box 840, the prime mover 16 shuts down to an off state and the controller 24 and the operator station 18 are powered off, as depicted at line 916 in FIG. 9. At this time, the indicator 40 may be unilluminated to indicate that the prime mover 16 and the controller 24 are in the off state.”).
Examiner interprets that notification device is encompassed at least by indicator 40 and second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller is encompassed at least by unilluminated to indicate that the prime mover 16 and the controller 24 are in the off state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Anderson of a control method for a work machine, the method comprising: starting, by a first controller, shutdown processing on the basis of a key-off signal from a key switch; starting, by a second controller, shutdown processing in response to the key-off signal; and wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing with the more explicit teaching of wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing found in Gray and the teaching of causing a notification device to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller found in Johnson. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a control method for a work machine, the method comprising: starting, by a first controller, shutdown processing on the basis of a key-off signal from a key switch; starting, by a second controller, shutdown processing in response to the key-off signal; and causing a notification device to change from a first state to a second state in response to ending of the shutdown processing by the first controller, wherein the first controller is configured to end the shutdown processing after determination that the second controller has ended the shutdown processing with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to orderly shutdown multiple processors regardless of failures (see at least Gray, Col.1 lines 26-33 and Col.5 lines 60-64).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US2022/0164019A1) in view of Gray et al. (US5151855A) in view of Johnson et al. (US2017/0009726A1) in further view of Kim (US2022/0216780A1), hereinafter Anderson, Gray, Johnson, and Kim respectively.
Regarding claim 3, (currently amended) the combination of Anderson, Gray, and Johnson teaches the control system for a work machine, according to claim 2 as detailed above.
Anderson does not explicitly teach wherein the first controller includes a notification switch connected to the notification device, and a notification controller configured to control the notification switch such that the notification device changes from the first state to the second state, when the shutdown processing by the first controller is ended.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first controller includes a notification switch connected to the notification device (see at least [0021] “the state detecting unit 5 may include devices for turning on or off the first FET included in the power cut-off unit 2. For example, the state detecting unit 5 may include a first photo coupler and a diode electrically connected to the first photo coupler. In various embodiments, the first photo coupler may include a light emitting diode (LED) and a transistor...the first photo coupler and the diode may be included in the power cut-off unit 2 or the control unit 6, not in the state detecting unit 5.”), and a notification controller configured to control the notification switch such that the notification device changes from the first state to the second state, when the shutdown processing by the first controller is ended (see at least [0025] “In various embodiments, in response to the state detecting unit 5 detecting that the state of the user device is switched from the first designated state to the second designated state, the control unit 6 may switch the state of the first signal transmitted from the control unit 6 to the state detecting unit 5 from the first state to the second state in order to turn off the LED of the first photo coupler in the state detecting unit 5... the first diode in the state detecting unit 5 electrically connected to the first photo coupler may be changed to a low state based on the turn-off of the transistor of the first photo coupler”).
Examiner interprets that first controller is encompassed at least by state detecting unit 5 or control unit 6, notification switch is encompassed at least by transistor, notification device is encompassed at least by light emitting diode, LED, and/or diode, notification controller is encompassed at least by control unit 6, and when the shutdown processing by the first controller is ended is encompassed at least by the state detecting unit 5 detecting that the state of the user device is switched from the first designated state to the second designated state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson with the teachings of wherein the first controller includes a notification switch connected to the notification device, and a notification controller configured to control the notification switch such that the notification device changes from the first state to the second state, when the shutdown processing by the first controller is ended found in Kim. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a control system for a work machine wherein the first controller includes a notification switch connected to the notification device, and a notification controller configured to control the notification switch such that the notification device changes from the first state to the second state, when the shutdown processing by the first controller is ended with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce energy waste when a device and/or system is turned off (see at least Kim, [0003] and [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doki (US2020/0149503A1) Discloses a vehicle control apparatus for a vehicle provided with an engine and an electric motor including a vehicle state evaluator, an exit evaluator, a shutdown evaluator, and a request output unit. The vehicle state evaluator conducts a vehicle stop evaluation and a driving state evaluation on the engine. The vehicle state evaluator evaluates whether the vehicle is stopped in a ready-on state in the vehicle stop evaluation. The exit evaluator conducts an exit evaluation as to whether an exit of an occupant from the vehicle is detected. The shutdown evaluator conducts a shutdown evaluation as to whether a vehicle drive system is to be shut down based on the results of the vehicle stop evaluation, the driving state evaluation, and the exit evaluation. The request output unit outputs a request for shutting down the vehicle drive system based on the result of the shutdown evaluation.
Ma et al. (US2014/0344620A1) Discloses a shutdown method, a startup method, and a communication terminal. The shutdown method includes: receiving a shutdown instruction of a user, where the shutdown instruction of the user is used to instruct a terminal to perform a shutdown; determining whether a first shutdown mode is enabled; and if the first shutdown mode is disabled, performing a shutdown according to a second shutdown mode, where, in the second shutdown mode, all components of the terminal are in a power-off state.
Shina (US2021/0270014A1) Discloses a construction machine including: the key switch, an engine start switch, an engine stop switch, a notification device, a controller, and the battery shutoff switch. The controller chronologically stores operation histories of the key switch, engine start switch, and engine stop switch in a history storage section in a non-volatile manner. The controller determines, on the basis of the stored operation history, a risk content in a case of shutting off the battery shutoff switch while the key switch is on. In a case where, the controller is restarted by resuming the battery shutoff switch and turning on the key switch, the controller controls the notification device so that the notification device issues a warning according to the risk content, on the basis of a result of the determination.
Yamanobe et al. (US2022/0145590A1) Discloses a work machine including: a work device; an operation device operating the work device; a first controller controlling operation of the work device on the basis of operation of the operation device; and a second controller determining that an auto idle condition is satisfied and performing auto idle control that decreases an engine revolution speed to an idle revolution speed in case the operation device is not operated for a predetermined time. The first controller diagnoses presence or absence of a failure in the first controller when supply of power to the first controller is started. The second controller performs power interruption control that interrupts the supply of the power to the first controller in case the auto idle condition is satisfied, and performs power supply control that starts the supply of the power to the first controller afterward.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights