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 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 8 of claim 1, the limitation does not conclude with any punctuation. It appears the limitation should end with a semicolon, i.e. “an electric motor as a power source output;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20120205171 by Takashita et al. (hereinafter “Takashita”).
Regarding claim 1, Takashita teaches A power machine comprising: a frame providing an operating position for an operator of the power machine; an actuator; see for example Fig. 1 showing a work machine, hydraulic arm, and operator’s seat.
an operator input configured to be manipulated by the operator and to responsively provide an operator command signal to command usage of the actuator; see for example paragraphs [0032]-[0033] describing operator inputs.
an electric power source supported by the frame and operably coupled to the actuator and configured to selectively provide a rotating shaft of an electric motor as a power source output; see for example paragraph [0037] describing a battery (electric power source) connected to the main drive motor.
a power conversion system that is coupled to the rotating shaft and configured to provide power signals in the form of pressurized hydraulic fluid to the at least one actuator; see again paragraph [0037] where the motor drives the system’s hydraulic pumps, reading on a power conversion system.
and a controller configured to receive the operator command signal and an enablement signal indicative of an enablement action, and to responsively provide control signals to the electric power source to control the rotating shaft such that if the enablement signal is indicative of the enablement action, the controller generates the control signals responsive to the operator command signal to control the rotating shaft to cause the power conversion system to provide power signals to the actuator. See for example Fig. 4, described in paragraph [0048], where the system checks if the operator has engaged a lock lever. If the lock is engaged, both the fan motor and main electric motor stop driving (power to the motors is interrupted). See also paragraph [0013] for example, where the operating device (operator control inputs) become inoperative when the bar is in the locked position. However, if the bar is set to the unlocked position (reading on enablement action) (and the operator inputs have not been idle for a predetermined period of time), the operator is able to control the vehicle via the operating devices (reading on operator command signal). See additionally [0051].
Independent claim 9 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Takashita teaches wherein the controller is further configured to receive the operator command signal and the enablement signal indicative of the enablement action and such that if the enablement signal is not indicative of the enablement action, the controller generates the control signals to control the rotating shaft to cause the power conversion system to not provide power signals to the actuator. In addition to [0048] and [0051], see again paragraph [0013] describing rendering the actuators inoperable when the bar is in the locked position.
Claim 10 has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Takashita teaches wherein the power conversion system includes: a hydraulic pump coupled to the rotating shaft of the electric motor and configured to provide the pressurized hydraulic fluid; and a hydraulic valve coupled to the hydraulic pump and configured to control the application of the power signals to the actuator responsive to the operator command signal. See again paragraphs [0037]-[0038] where the motor drives the system’s hydraulic pumps and various hydraulic valves control the actuatable members.
Claims 11 and 12 have similar limitations to claim 3 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Takashita teaches wherein the controller is further configured such that if the operator command signal is indicative of no manipulation by the operator, the controller generates the control signals to control the electric power source to not provide power regardless of the enablement signal. See for example paragraph [0052], where after a period of idling time the system deactivates the motors even if the lock bar is in the unlocked position.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Takashita teaches wherein the electric power source further comprises battery components coupled to the electric motor, and including control signals to control the electric motor. See again paragraph [0037], where the system comprises a battery powering the motor, and in paragraph [0048] the power is interrupted based on the lock bar status.
Claim 13 has similar limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Takashita teaches wherein the enablement signal is provided by at least one of an operator seat or position sensor, a safety bar position sensor, and a seat belt engagement sensor. See for example paragraph [0033], where the lock lever is described as a safety bar, and the lock status is based on the angled position of the lock lever.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Takashita teaches wherein the enablement signal is provided by a sensor or input device configured to provide the enablement signal as an indication of the operator’s presence at the operating position.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, Takashita teaches further comprising a frame including an operator station configured to provide an operating position for an operator of the power machine, wherein the operator input is positioned in the operator station; wherein the operator engagement sequence input is configured to provide the enablement signal as an indication of the operator’s presence in the operator station. See for example Fig. 1 showing a work machine, hydraulic arm, and operator’s seat. In addition to [0048] and [0051], see again paragraph [0013] describing rendering the actuators inoperable when the bar is in the locked position.
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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashita as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US5425431 by Brandt et al. (hereinafter “Brandt”).
Regarding claim 8, Takashita does not explicitly teach, but Brandt teaches further comprising an operator interface configured to alert the operator of a status of the enablement signal. See for example column 6 line 61 through column 7 line 8, where the operator interface includes indicators for the engagement of safety devices such as seat belts and safety bars.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety system of Takashita with the indicator system of Brandt with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the operator to see the status of the safety mechanisms in order to better understand the status of the machine.
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20170058489 by Nomura et al. teaching authenticating the operator’s presence before allowing operation.
WO-2013183461 by Kowatari et al. teaching disabling an electric motor whenever the lock lever is not engaged.
US20140173946 by Gerrits et al. teaching hydraulic system actuated by an electric motor (the prime mover), which is disengaged based on the operator not being in the seat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached 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 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights