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 .
The current applicant is CON. application 17/395863, relates to foreign priority data (JP-2020-137187, JP2020-137188) filed date Aug. 15, 2020. Claims 1-15 are current pending examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,352011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 are generic to all that recited in claims 1-3 of US Patent No.12,352011.
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 14-15 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 14, cites of “controller configured or programmed to judge an operational direction of the traveling operation member based on either third comparison information … or fourth comparison information …” is unclear because how the controller makes the 3rd and 4th comparisons without making 1st and 2nd comparisons.
Claim 15 depends upon rejected claim 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (20170089366) in view of Hyodo (20200199852).
With regard to claims 1 & 14, Fukuda discloses a work machine 1 includes:
A machine body 2; left/right traveling devices 5 provided on left/right portion of the machine body, wherein the L/R traveling devices 5 include left/right traveling motors for powering to the traveling devices (see Fig. 1 & Fig. 10, [0041]-[0042]+ & [0057]+) ;
Left/right traveling pumps to supply operation fluid to the motors, wherein the traveling pumps including pressure receiving portions (a hydraulic system of a traveling system includes hydraulic pumps, see [0057]-[0058]+);
A traveling operation device configured to apply pressure to the pressure receiving portions (a drive device 32 applies pressures to the hydraulic pumps, see [0058]+);
Traveling fluid lines connected to the pressure receiving portions according to operation of the traveling operation members (oil path 40, 41 connected to pressure receiving units 53a, 53b, see [0059]+);
measurement devices 91 for detecting the temperature of hydraulic oil which relates to the hydraulic oil pressure, see [0115]-[0116]+);
A controller configured to judge an operational direction of the traveling operation member based on either first comparison between the pilot pressure acting on the left/right traveling pumps (a control device 90 adjust the degree of valse engine, see [0108]+ & [0173]+).
Fukuda fails to teach pressure detectors configured to detect pilot pressures that the passed through the fluid lines.
Hyodo discloses a wheel loader includes an engine, pump, motor, sensor, controller, and etc., see Fig.4. The wheel loader comprises pilot pressure sensors for detecting the lowering operation amount for the lift arm, tilt and dump operation amount for the bucket are provided on the respective pipe lines of the hydraulic circuit, see [0080]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuda by including pilot pressure sensors for detecting the pressure of the hydraulic oil flowing through the pipe lines as taught by Hyodo for improving the work machine performance.
With regard to claims 2-13, Hyodo teaches that teaches that method of detecting whether the forward and/or reverse operation, the system compares the pilot pressures (and ratio pilot pressure) equal or higher than predetermined setting (see [0069]-[0100]+) which meets the scope of the claims.
With regard to claim 14, Hyodo teaches that the engine rotational speed changed, the discharge flow rate of the pump is proportional to the square of the rotational speed of the engine, see [0060]-[0062 which meets the scope of the claim.
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gorman (20160115669) discloses a hydraulic control system for an excavation machine, see the abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights