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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: damping unit (accumulator [0041]), controller (processor [0048])
Claim 6: damping unit (accumulator [0041])
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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 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 2-5 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 2 recites “a function” in at least two instances. It is unclear if these instances are the same or distinct. For purposes of examination these instances will be interpreted as being the same.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “predetermined threshold” in at least two instances. It is unclear if these instances are the same or distinct. For purposes of examination these instances will be interpreted as being distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20130073151A1 (“Wada”).
As per claims 1 and 6, Wada teaches the limitations of the machine and method:
A work machine comprising: a work machine body configured to travel; a work implement attached to the work machine body; a damping unit configured to damp vibration of the work implement; a vibration information detection sensor configured to detect information regarding vibration of the work machine body; and a controller configured to control the damping unit based on the information regarding vibration detected by the vibration information detection sensor. (Wada at least the abstract, FIG. 3, [0037], [0041], [0077], [0082-0083])
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of JP2021024383A (“Masanori”, machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 2, Wada teaches the invention as described above. Wada teaches:
the controller is configured to switch the damping unit between a first state in which a function of damping vibration of the work implement is exerted and a second state in which a function of damping vibration of the work implement is not exerted, and the controller is configured to switch the damping unit to the first state based on the information regarding vibration. (Wada at least the abstract, [0009-0011], [0054])
Wada does not disclose:
controller is configured to switch the damping unit to the first state upon determining that the work machine body is vibrating based on the information regarding vibration
Masanori teaches the aforementioned limitation (Masanori at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wada with the aforementioned limitations taught by Masanori with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to reduce pitching vibration (Masanori abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Wada in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wada additionally teaches:
a hydraulic cylinder that drives the work implement, the damping unit including an on-off valve, and an accumulator connected to the hydraulic cylinder via the on-off valve, the damping unit being in the first state when the on-off valve is in an open state, the damping unit being in the second state when the on-off valve is in a closed state, and the controller being configured to control the on-off valve based on the information regarding vibration. (Wada at least the abstract, [0009-0011], [0054])
Regarding claim 4, Wada in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wada does not disclose:
the information regarding vibration is acceleration generated in the work machine body, and the controller is configured to determine that the work machine body is vibrating when at least one of an amplitude of the acceleration being larger than a predetermined threshold and a frequency of the acceleration being larger than a predetermined threshold is satisfied.
Masanori teaches the aforementioned limitation (Masanori at least [0025]: " an inertial measurement unit (Inertial Measurement Unit) that detects the acceleration / deceleration (vibration amount) and attitude of the lift arm 31, or an acceleration sensor that detects the acceleration / deceleration (vibration amount) may be used ").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wada with the aforementioned limitations taught by Masanori with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Wada in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wada provides for an angle sensor (Wada at least [0012]), but Wada does not disclose:
the information regarding vibration is a pitch angle generated in the work machine body, and the controller is configured to determine that the work machine body is vibrating when at least one of an amplitude of the pitch angle being larger than a predetermined threshold and a frequency of the pitch angle being larger than a predetermined threshold is satisfied.
Masanori teaches the aforementioned limitation (Masanori at least [0027], [0031], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wada with the aforementioned limitations taught by Masanori with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach aspects of the invention as claimed: US20070299589A1, US20170073923A1, US20200240114A1, US20160280221A1, US20150230403A1, US20120155999A1, US20080104866A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights