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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 08/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/13/2026, hereinafter NFOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by OKA; Daisuke et al. US 20190292753 A1, hereinafter Oka, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Oka fails to disclose the limitation “change the input current value in a ramp manner based on a slope of a ramp function indicating an amount of current change per unit time of the input current value”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of AKITA; Taro et al. US 20250223782 A1, hereinafter Akita.
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.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akita.
Regarding claim 1, Akita discloses (Fig. 1-12), a hydraulic system comprising:
a solenoid control valve (20a-23b) to change an opening thereof in accordance with an input current value (MOcur) input thereto, the solenoid control valve being configured such that changing the opening thereof changes a pilot pressure of pilot fluid [0045, 0053. 0057]:
a control valve (15-18) to be supplied with the pilot fluid from the solenoid control valve and to adjust, in accordance with the pilot pressure of the pilot fluid supplied thereto a flow rate and a pressure of hydraulic fluid [0035-0040] supplied to a hydraulic actuator (3-4) to actuate an attachment (“crusher or a breaker”) attached to a working machine [0026-0029, 0057]; and
a controller (50) configured or programmed to control an opening of the control valve by changing the input current value [0045, 0053-0057] input to the solenoid control valve; wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to, in activating or stopping the attachment by changing the input current value to a target current value corresponding to a target opening of the solenoid control valve, change the input current value in a ramp manner based on a slope of a ramp function indicating an amount of current change per unit time of the input current value in a first current range in which the attachment is actuated
([0062-0088], also Fig. 7, 8, 10, 12 depict whereby the current value is limited based on a slope whereby if the slope of the requested ramp is too great, the controller applies a lesser slope current changer per unit of time).
Regarding claim 21, Oka discloses (Fig. 1-6) a working machine (1) comprising: a linkage (4a, 4b) to link an attachment (4c) [0028] thereto; and the hydraulic system (Fig. 2) according to claim 1
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Akita discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the controller is configured or programmed to, in activating the attachment, quickly increase the input current value in a step manner to a first current value within a second current range in which the attachment is not actuated, and gradually increase the input current value in a ramp manner from the first current value to a second current value which is the target current value.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed controller configuration. Although Akita discloses a controller configuration for activating the attachment, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Akita to incorporate the details of the controller is configured or programmed to, in activating the attachment, quickly increase the input current value in a step manner to a first current value within a second current range in which the attachment is not actuated, and gradually increase the input current value in a ramp manner from the first current value to a second current value which is the target current value, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Akita discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the controller is configured or programmed to, in stopping the attachment, gradually reduce the input current value in a ramp manner to a third current value within a second current range in which the attachment is not actuated, and quickly reduce the input current value in a step manner from the third current value to a fourth current value which is the target current value.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 9 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed controller configuration. Although Akita discloses a controller configuration for activating the attachment, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Akita to incorporate the details of the controller is configured or programmed to, in stopping the attachment, gradually reduce the input current value in a ramp manner to a third current value within a second current range in which the attachment is not actuated, and quickly reduce the input current value in a step manner from the third current value to a fourth current value which is the target current value, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Akita discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1. Akita further discloses the system further comprising: a second input interface (70) to receive input of attachment information relating to the attachment attached to the working machine [0062].
Akita fails to explicitly state that the controller is configured or programmed to change at least one of (i) a change time taken for the input current value to reach the target current value or (ii) an amount of current change per unit time when the input current value gradually changes in a ramp manner, based on the attachment information input via the second input interface.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 14 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed controller configuration. Although Akita discloses a controller configuration for activating the attachment, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Akita to incorporate the details of the controller is configured or programmed to change at least one of (i) a change time taken for the input current value to reach the target current value or (ii) an amount of current change per unit time when the input current value gradually changes in a ramp manner, based on the attachment information input via the second input interface, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Akita discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1. Akita further discloses the system further comprising: a prime mover (fundamentally, the system requires a form of rotation power to drive various pumps); a hydraulic pump (2) to deliver hydraulic fluid using power output from the prime mover [0034].
Akita fails to explicitly state that the system further comprising: a rotation speed detector to detect a rotation speed of the prime mover; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in activating or stopping the attachment, change an amount of current change per unit time when the input current value gradually changes in a ramp manner, in accordance with the rotation speed of the prime mover detected by the rotation speed detector.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed controller configuration. Although Akita discloses a controller configuration for activating the attachment, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Akita to incorporate the details of the system further comprising a rotation speed detector to detect a rotation speed of the prime mover; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in activating or stopping the attachment, change an amount of current change per unit time when the input current value gradually changes in a ramp manner, in accordance with the rotation speed of the prime mover detected by the rotation speed detector, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Akita discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the system further comprising: a temperature detector to detect a temperature of hydraulic fluid; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in activating or stopping the attachment, change an amount of current change per unit time when the input current value gradually changes in a ramp manner, in accordance with the temperature of hydraulic fluid detected by the temperature detector.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 19 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed controller configuration. Although Akita discloses a controller configuration for activating the attachment, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Akita to incorporate the details of the system further comprising: a temperature detector to detect a temperature of hydraulic fluid; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in activating or stopping the attachment, change an amount of current change per unit time when the input current value gradually changes in a ramp manner, in accordance with the temperature of hydraulic fluid detected by the temperature detector, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights