DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 14, 2025. Claims 1 – 7 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited JP 2020-117897 A to Kawashima et al. (herein after “Kawashima et al. publication”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 6 and 7,
the Kawashima et al. publication discloses a system for controlling a work machine (excavator; see ¶13) that includes a work implement (4, 5, 6) and is driven by electricity from a power storage device (12)(see FIGS. 1 – 2 for a system for controlling a work machine or excavator; see ¶13 – ¶19 and ¶31 for a work machine or excavator that includes a work implement 4, 5, 6 and is driven by electricity from a power storage device 12, 19), the system comprising:
an operation device (26) configured to operate the work implement (4, 5, 6)(see ¶50, where “[t]he operating device 26 includes, for example, levers 26A and 26B and a pedal 26C. The operating device 26 is located near the cockpit of the cabin 10 and is an operating input means for the operator to operate each of the driven elements (for example, the lower traveling body 1, the upper slewing body 3, the boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6, etc.)”); and
a controller (30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 40), wherein the controller acquires an operation command from the operation device (26)(see ¶51 – ¶56),
detects a remaining amount of power stored in the power storage device (see ¶66 – ¶67, where “the HB controller 30B detects an abnormality related to the motor generator 12 based on its self-diagnostic function . . . [and] . . . the HB controller 30B starts abnormality processing in response to an abnormality occurring in the motor generator 12), and
controls the work implement to slow a rise of an operation speed of the work implement in response to the operation command from the operation device when it is determined that the detected remaining amount of power stored in the power storage device is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold (see ¶60 – ¶70, wherein “when the shovel controller 30A receives an abnormality notification from the HB controller 30B, it sends a notification (hereinafter referred to as "operation restriction notification") to the other controlled units 40 and the HMI 50 indicating that the operation of the other controlled units 40 should be restricted. This is because the transmission of assist power from the motor-generator 12 to the main pump 14 and the supply of generated power from the motor-generator 12 to the swing motor 21 are stopped, resulting in a decrease in the response speed and maximum output of the main pump 14 and the swing motor 21. In this case, the operation restriction notification from the shovel controller 30A may be transmitted directly to the other controlled unit 40 or HMI 50 via a one-to-one communication line or an in-vehicle network such as CAN, or it may be transmitted to the other controlled unit 40 or HMI 50 via another controller that has direct control over the other controlled unit 40 or HMI 50 (for example, the engine controller 30C corresponding to the engine 11 or the HB controller 30B corresponding to the swing motor 21) . . . In step S112, the operation of the other controlled units 40 is restricted in response to receiving an operation restriction notification (i.e., a control signal) from the shovel controller 30A. For example, the control valve 17 and the various valves that adjust the pilot pressure acting on the control valve 17 may be restricted in operation so that the response and operating speed of the hydraulic actuator to the operating input to the operating device 26 are slower than normal. Furthermore, for example, the inverter 18B may be configured to limit the operation of the swing motor 21 so that its response to the operation input to the control device 26 and its operating speed are slower than normal”; see also ¶126, where “[f]or example, if an abnormality occurs in the motor-generator 12 of a work machine (excavator), the slewing motor 21 may continue normal operation when the remaining capacity of the capacitor 19 is above a predetermined threshold, and the operation of the slewing motor 21 may be restricted when the remaining capacity of the capacitor 19 is below a predetermined threshold”). (Emphasis added.)
As to claim 2,
the Kawashima et al. publication discloses the work machine comprising an electrical motor (12) configured to operate the work implement (4, 5, 6)(see at least ¶24 for a hydraulic drive system which includes an electrical motor 12 for hydraulically driving the lower traveling body 1, boom 4, arm 5, and bucket 6, as well as hydraulic actuators such as a boom cylinder 7, an arm cylinder 8, and a bucket cylinder 9), and the controller (30A) limits a rate of increase of a current supplied to the electrical motor (see ¶66 – ¶70, where controller 30A initiates an operation restriction notification so that the operating speed of the hydraulic actuator and the operating input to the operating device 26 are slower than normal).
As to claim 3,
the Kawashima et al. publication discloses the work machine comprising an electrical motor (12) configured to operate the work implement (4, 5, 6)(see at least ¶24 for a hydraulic drive system which includes an electrical motor 12 for hydraulically driving the lower traveling body 1, boom 4, arm 5, and bucket 6, as well as hydraulic actuators such as a boom cylinder 7, an arm cylinder 8, and a bucket cylinder 9), and the controller (30A) decreases an acceleration rate of a rotation speed of the electrical motor (see ¶66 – ¶70, where controller 30A initiates an operation restriction notification so that the operating speed of the hydraulic actuator and the operating input to the operating device 26 are slower than normal).
As to claim 5,
the Kawashima et al. publication discloses an operation device (26) configured to control travel of the work machine, wherein the controller (30) acquires an operation command from the operation device configured to control travel of the work machine and controls travel of the work machine in response to the operation command from the operation device configured to control travel of the work machine regardless of the detected remaining amount of power stored in the power storage device. (See ¶50, where “[t]he operating device 26 includes, for example, levers 26A and 26B and a pedal 26C. The operating device 26 is located near the cockpit of the cabin 10 and is an operating input means for the operator to operate each of the driven elements (for example, the lower traveling body 1, the upper slewing body 3, the boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6, etc.)”; see also ¶66 – ¶70.)
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kawashima et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0404141 A1 to Sano et al. (herein after “Sano et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 4,
the Kawashima et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including the work machine comprising a variable displacement hydraulic pump configured to supply hydraulic oil to the work implement. (See ¶28.)
Kawashima, however, fails to specifically disclose
the controller limiting a rate of increase of a flow rate of the hydraulic oil discharged from the variable displacement hydraulic pump.
Controlling the flow rate of hydraulic oil discharged by a variable displacement hydraulic pump once a condition is met is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Sano et al. publication who discloses a swash plate variable displacement hydraulic pump 14 and a controller 30 configured to limit an increase in the flow rate of hydraulic oil discharged by pump 14 responsive to a decrease in the pressure of hydraulic oil at a predetermined position in a hydraulic circuit that is caused when a hydraulic actuator operates. (See ¶22 and ¶101.)
Such disclosure suggests the flow rate of hydraulic oil and the controller limits a rate of increase of a flow rate of the hydraulic oil discharged from the variable displacement hydraulic pump.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Kawashima et al. publication so that the controller limits a rate of increase of a flow rate of the hydraulic oil discharged from the variable displacement hydraulic pump, as suggested by the Sano et al. publication, in order to optimize implementation of work implements.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights