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 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: "rotary drive source", "working device", and "work detector" in claim 1.
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 § 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) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2000303872) in view of Sohn (US 20160040610).
Claim 1.
With respect to Fig. 1 below, Takahashi teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Engine speed over time according to the system of Takahashi (originally Takahashi Fig. 2)
a machine body
(Takahashi – [0001]) “an engine control device for hydraulic construction machinery such as a hydraulic excavator”
a rotary drive source
(Takahashi – [0008]) “an engine mounted on a support frame”
a hydraulic device to be actuated by power generated by the rotary drive source
(Takahashi – [0008]) “a hydraulic pump driven by the engine”
a working device to be actuated by a hydraulic pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied from the hydraulic device
(Takahashi – [0008]) “a plurality of actuators supplied with pressurized oil discharged from the hydraulic pump”
a controller configured or programmed to, when an elapsed time period which starts when the working device enters a non-actuated state reaches a first threshold, reduce a rotational speed of the rotary drive source to a reduced rotational speed obtained by subtracting a predetermined value from a set rotational speed at a time immediately before the elapsed time period reaches the first threshold or from an actual rotational speed
(Takahashi – [0014]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T1 has elapsed since all the operating levers 5 were in the neutral position, the auto idle command output means 7 outputs a first low-speed rotation command to the engine 1.”
as the elapsed time period exceeds the first threshold and further increases, reduce the rotational speed of the rotary drive source from the reduced rotational speed to an idling rotational speed in accordance with the elapsed time period in a stepwise or continuous manner
(Takahashi – [0015]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T2 has elapsed while the primary low-speed rotation state described above is maintained, a second low-speed rotation command is output from the auto idle command input means to the engine 1”
While Takahashi teaches a process based on non-actuation of the working device, Takahashi does not explicitly teach a work detector; however, Sohn teaches:
a work detector to detect whether or not the working device is actuated
(Sohn – [0013]) “a first on/off signal of a lever 12, based on which an operation of construction equipment may be determined”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the auto-idle equipped engine control device of Takahashi with the work detector of Sohn. Both Takahashi and Sohn are directed to the same goal of controlling an engine using an auto-idle function; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the work detector of Sohn could be used in the engine control device of Takahashi with predictable results.
Claim 2.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Takahashi further teaches:
a manual operator to be operated to control the working device
(Takahashi – [0012]) “a plurality of operating levers 5 provided corresponding to each actuator 4”
While Takahashi teaches controlling the engine based on the levers being in idle, Takahashi does not explicitly teach detecting whether the working device is actuated; however, Sohn teaches:
the work detector is operable to detect whether or not the working device is actuated based on the operation of the manual operator
(Sohn – [0013]) “a first on/off signal of a lever 12, based on which an operation of construction equipment may be determined”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 3.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Takahashi further teaches:
a rotational speed operation actuator to be operated to set the set rotational speed
(Takahashi – [0009]) “a controller for controlling the rotational speed of the engine in accordance with the control commands from the operation command means.”
the controller is configured or programmed to control the rotational speed of the rotary drive source at the set rotational speed by operating the rotational speed operation actuator in a case that the elapsed time period is less than the first threshold
(Takahashi – [0014]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T1 has elapsed since all the operating levers 5 were in the neutral position, the auto idle command output means 7 outputs a first low-speed rotation command to the engine 1.”
[Examiner’s Note: As seen in Fig. 1 above, the rotational speed operates at a fixed value before the first predetermined time
Δ
T1 has elapsed.]
reduce the rotational speed of the rotary drive source from the set rotational speed to the reduced rotational speed when the elapsed time period reaches the first threshold
(Takahashi – [0014]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T1 has elapsed since all the operating levers 5 were in the neutral position, the auto idle command output means 7 outputs a first low-speed rotation command to the engine 1.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Takahashi further teaches:
after the elapsed time period reaches the first threshold and the rotational speed of the rotary drive source is reduced to the reduced rotational speed, maintain the rotational speed of the rotary drive source at the reduced rotational speed until the elapsed time period reaches a second threshold greater than the first threshold
(Takahashi – [0015]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T2 has elapsed while the primary low-speed rotation state described above is maintained, a second low-speed rotation command is output from the auto idle command input means to the engine 1”
[Examiner’s Note: As seen in Fig. 1 above, the speed is maintained between the lapsing of first predetermined time
Δ
T1 and second predetermined time
Δ
T2.]
when the elapsed time period reaches the second threshold, further reduce the rotational speed of the rotary drive source from the reduced rotational speed
(Takahashi – [0015]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T2 has elapsed while the primary low-speed rotation state described above is maintained, a second low-speed rotation command is output from the auto idle command input means to the engine 1”
Claim 6.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Takahashi further teaches:
the controller is configured or programmed to reduce the rotational speed of the rotary drive source to the idling rotational speed in a stepwise or continuous manner after the elapsed time period reaches the second threshold
(Takahashi – [0015]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T2 has elapsed while the primary low-speed rotation state described above is maintained, a second low-speed rotation command is output from the auto idle command input means to the engine 1”
Claim 7.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Sohn further teaches:
the idling rotational speed is a rotational speed of the rotary drive source for a case where the working device does not perform work, and the rotary drive source driven at the idling rotational speed does not generate enough power to cause the hydraulic device to actuate the working device
(Sohn – [0096]) “an engine speed in a no-load (idle) state”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 8.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Takahashi further teaches:
when the controller determines that the manual operator is operated when the elapsed time period is equal to or greater than the first threshold, control the rotational speed of the rotary drive source to the set rotational speed at a time immediately before the elapsed time period reaches the first threshold
(Takahashi – [0015]) “when at least one of the control levers 5 is operated, the secondary low-speed rotation state is released in response to the control command from this control lever 5, and the rotational speed of the engine 1 rises again to full speed.”
Claim 9.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Takahashi further teaches:
the rotary drive source is an electric motor to be driven by electric power or an engine to be driven by burning fuel
(Takahashi – [0013]) “a fuel control lever (not shown) for setting the rotational speed of the engine”
Claim 10.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Takahashi and Sohn as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 6277050).
Claim 4.
The combination of Takahashi and Sohn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Takahashi further teaches:
the controller is configured or programmed to, when the elapsed time period reaches the first threshold, reduce the rotational speed of the rotary drive source to the reduced rotational speed from a rotational speed of the rotary drive source detected by the rotational speed detector immediately before the elapsed time period reaches the first threshold
(Takahashi – [0014]) “when a predetermined time
Δ
T1 has elapsed since all the operating levers 5 were in the neutral position, the auto idle command output means 7 outputs a first low-speed rotation command to the engine 1.”
While Takahashi teaches controlling the rotational speed of the engine, Takahashi does not explicitly teach detecting the engine rotational speed. However, Nakagawa et al. teaches:
a rotational speed detector to detect the rotational speed of the rotary drive source
(Nakagawa – Col. 3, lines 12-13) “engine speed detecting means for detecting the speed of an engine”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the engine control system of Takahashi with the engine speed detector of Nakagawa et al. Both Takahashi and Nakagawa et al. are directed towards control of an engine with an auto-idle function; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the engine speed detector of Nakagawa et al. could be used in the engine control system of Takahashi with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song (KR 102040331) teaches an engine control system having an auto-idle function which has a “low idle” mode entered into between an idle mode and an engine cut-off.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights