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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/237,429, filed on 13 June 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 13 June 2025 and 27 October 2025 have been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 for each IDS submitted by Applicant is enclosed herewith.
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: “control unit being adapted to . . . determine . . .” 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 § 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.
Claim limitation “control unit being adapted to . . . determine . . .” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites “said control unit being adapted to, on the basis of at least the following: information indicative of said propulsion assembly being inactive, information indicative of an expected time range until an expected operation start time of said vehicle, and information associated with a temperature of said wheel axle fluid, wherein said information associated with the temperature of said wheel axle fluid comprises information as regards a temperature ambient of said vehicle, determine whether or not a conditioning procedure, during which the temperature of said wheel axle fluid is increased as compared to a present temperature of said wheel axle fluid, should be initiated for said wheel axle fluid.” Independent claims 14 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations. This claim limitation, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation is an abstract idea and claims 1, 14, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1, 14, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite the additional element “said control unit”. Claim 14 also recites the additional element “a wheel axle fluid circuit adopted to feed wheel axle fluid to one or more wheel axles of said vehicle”. Using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The control unit, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a computer. Using the control unit to determine whether or not a conditioning procedure should be initiated is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The claimed wheel axle fluid circuit merely establishes the technological environment. However, the claim does not link the wheel axle fluid circuit to the determination of whether or not a conditioning procedure should be initiated. Therefore, this limitation also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1, 14, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites claim limitations that may be performed mentally. Claim 2 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional element “in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a signal to said vehicle to initiate said conditioning procedure.” Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Data outputting is insignificant extra-solution activity. Issuing a signal is data outputting. Therefore, issuing a signal does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Transmitting data over a network is an example of a generic computing function. “[I]ssuing a signal to said vehicle”, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is transmitting data over a network. Therefore, the limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the additional element “wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement adapted to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit”. Examiner notes, however, that the claim is directed to “A control unit”. The claim recitations that define the wheel axle fluid circuit are non-limiting and merely define the context of the judicial exception. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 4 also recites the additional element “said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement control signal to said wheel axle fluid pump arrangement to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit to thereby increase the temperature of said wheel axle fluid prior to said expected operation start time of said vehicle.” Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Data outputting is insignificant extra-solution activity. Issuing a signal is data outputting. Therefore, issuing a signal does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Transmitting data over a network is an example of a generic computing function. “issue a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement control signal to said wheel axle fluid pump arrangement”, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is transmitting data over a network. Therefore, the limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5-10, 12, and 13 are similar to claim 4 in that they recite non-limiting vehicle components and further recite outputting a signal. Claims 5-10, 12, and 13 are rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Claims 11 further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., determine whether or not a conditioning procedure, during which the temperature of said wheel axle fluid is increased as compared to a present temperature of said wheel axle fluid, should be initiated for said wheel axle fluid. Even as further defined, the abstract idea may be performed mentally. Claim 11 deso not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 15-19 further define the “wheel axle fluid circuit”. However, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The claimed wheel axle fluid circuit merely establishes the technological environment. However, the claim does not link the wheel axle fluid circuit to the determination of whether or not a conditioning procedure should be initiated. Therefore, this limitation also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-5, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 2016/0221417 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a vehicular heat management system and teaches:
said control unit (electronic control unit 45 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0033]) being adapted to, on the basis of at least the following:
information indicative of said propulsion assembly being inactive (at S1, control is executed when power supply PS is connected to vehicle 1 and vehicle 1 has yet to be started – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0044]),
information indicative of an expected time range until an expected operation start time of said vehicle (ECU 45 calculates a start time based on estimated duration of time that warm-up is carried out and the operation start time set by the user – see at least ¶ [0049]; at S53, determination is made whether the current time is after a processing start time – see at least Fig. 6 and ¶ [0050]), and
information associated with a temperature of said wheel axle fluid (ECU 45 determines whether lubricant for transaxle 3 is lower than a threshold – see at least ¶ [0051]; at S54, temperature of the lubricant oil for the transaxle is compared to a threshold – see at least Fig. 6 and ¶ [0051]),
determine whether or not a conditioning procedure, during which the temperature of said wheel axle fluid is increased as compared to a present temperature of said wheel axle fluid, should be initiated for said wheel axle fluid (If S1 = YES, S53 = YES, and S54 = YES, coolant heater is set to on to heat coolant and circulates coolant through circulation path 36 at S57 – see at least Figs. 5, 6 and ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Ito further teaches:
wherein said control unit is adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a signal to said vehicle to initiate said conditioning procedure (at S57, ECU 45 turns on coolant heater to heat coolant – see at least Fig. 6 and ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Ito further teaches:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement adapted to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit (oil pump 31 pumps lubricant oil through oil circulation path 30 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]), said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement control signal to said wheel axle fluid pump arrangement to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit to thereby increase the temperature of said wheel axle fluid prior to said expected operation start time of said vehicle (at S57, ECU switches the circulation state to a first circulation state and turns on coolant pump 35 to circulate coolant through circulation path 36 – see at least Figs. 3A, 6 and ¶ [0051], [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, Ito further teaches:
wherein said vehicle comprises a wheel axle fluid heat exchanger (oil cooler 32 – see at least Fig. 3A and ¶ [0030]), said wheel axle fluid circuit being fluidly connected to said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger such that wheel axle fluid passes through said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger when said wheel axle fluid is circulated through said wheel axle fluid circuit (oil cooler 32 carries out heat exchange between lubricant oil flowing in circulation path 30 and coolant through path 38a – see Fig. 3A and ¶ [0030]), said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a wheel axle fluid heat exchanger control signal such that the wheel axle fluid heat exchanger adds heat to the wheel axle fluid (at S57, ECU switches the circulation state to a first circulation state and turns on coolant pump 35 to circulate coolant through circulation path 36, which passes through oil cooler 32 – see at least Figs. 3A, 6 and ¶ [0051], [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Ito further teaches:
wherein said information associated with the temperature of said wheel axle fluid comprises information as regards a temperature of said wheel axle fluid (ECU 45 determines whether lubricant for transaxle 3 is lower than a threshold – see at least ¶ [0051]; at S54, temperature of the lubricant oil for the transaxle is compared to a threshold – see at least Fig. 6 and ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 13, Ito further teaches:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a wheel axle lubricant fluid circuit adapted to feed lubricant fluid to one or more wheel axles of said vehicle (oil circulation path 30 circulates oil to transaxle 3 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Ito further teaches:
A vehicle, preferably a working machine (vehicle 1 – see at least Fig. 1), comprising a wheel axle fluid circuit adapted to feed wheel axle fluid to one or more wheel axles of said vehicle (oil circulation path 30 introduces lubricant oil to transaxle 3 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]), said vehicle comprising a control unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Ito further teaches:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement adapted to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit (oil pump 31 pumps lubricant oil through oil circulation path 30 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Ito further teaches:
wherein said vehicle comprises a wheel axle fluid heat exchanger (oil cooler 32 – see at least Fig. 3A and ¶ [0030]), said wheel axle fluid circuit being fluidly connected to said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger such that wheel axle fluid passes through said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger when said wheel axle fluid is circulated through said wheel axle fluid circuit (oil circulation path 30 passes through oil cooler 32 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2018/0172137 A1, “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claim 2, Ito fails to teach but Yamazaki discloses systems for improving driveline efficiencies of a vehicle and teaches:
wherein said control unit is adapted to determine an energy loss value indicative of energy losses associated with operating the vehicle without initiating the conditioning procedure, said control unit further being adapted to determine a conditioning value indicative of the energy required for the conditioning procedure, said control unit being adapted to determine that said conditioning procedure should be initiated in response to determining that said conditioning value is smaller than said energy loss value (vehicle system 60 is adapted to schedule and effectuate conditioning of differential fluid 62 prior to a next expected usage time to improve overall driveline efficiencies of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicular heat management system of Ito to determine that the conditioning procedure should be initiated, as taught by Yamazaki, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining if conditioning should be scheduled and effectuated may improve overall driveline efficiencies of the vehicle (Yamazaki at ¶ [0072]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Bell et al. (US 6,360,840 B1, “Bell”).
Regarding claim 12, Ito fails to teach but Bell discloses controlling temperature of fluid in a differential assembly and teaches:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a brake fluid circuit adapted to feed brake fluid to one or more brakes of said vehicle (brake control module 400 – see at least 7:35-58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicular heat management system of Ito to provide a brake fluid circuit, as taught by Bell, with a reasonable expectation of success because it can help dmaintain the proper operation of the axle assembly (Bell at 1:37-46).
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Lech et al. (US 6,354,089 B1, “Lech”).
Regarding claim 17, Ito fails to teach but Lech discloses an apparatus for cooling multiple fluids on a work vehicle and teaches:
a transmission fluid pump as well as a transmission converter, said transmission fluid pump being adapted to feed transmission fluid to said transmission converter (pump 40 – see at least Fig. 2 and 3:62 to 4:12; transmission having a torque converter – see at least 1:11-22), said transmission converter being arranged in relation to said [fluid] heat exchanger such that transmission fluid leaving said transmission converter can be used as a heat source for said [fluid] heat exchanger (fluid from transmission 22 may pass through heat exchanger 68 – see at least Fig. 2 and 3:62 to 4:12; in cold weather, heat otherwise lost at a fluid cooler could be used to maintain temperature of fluid in another circuit – see at least 1:30-38; heat from second fluid 36 may be used to warm first fluid 30 – see at least 4:35-46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicular heat management system of Ito to use transmission fluid as a heat source, as taught by Lech, with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing the temperature of fluid in cold weather can improved component wear life and improve efficiency of the work machine (Lech at ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Lech further teaches:
a transmission fluid heat exchanger being in fluid communication with said transmission converter as well as said heat exchanger so as to enable that transmission fluid leaving said transmission converter can be used as a heat source for said [fluid] heat exchanger (fluid from transmission 22 may pass through heat exchanger 68 – see at least Fig. 2 and 3:62 to 4:12; in cold weather, heat otherwise lost at a fluid cooler could be used to maintain temperature of fluid in another circuit – see at least 1:30-38; heat from second fluid 36 may be used to warm first fluid 30 – see at least 4:35-46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicular heat management system of Ito to use transmission fluid as a heat source, as taught by Lech, with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing the temperature of fluid in cold weather can improved component wear life and improve efficiency of the work machine (Lech at ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 19, Lech further teaches:
wherein said vehicle further comprises a heat exchanger circuit adapted to circulate a heat exchanger fluid between said transmission fluid heat exchanger and said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger (first circuit 26 and second circuit 34 – see at least Fig. 2 and 3:62 to 4:12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicular heat management system of Ito to use provide heat exchanger circuits-, as taught by Lech, with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing the temperature of fluid in cold weather can improved component wear life and improve efficiency of the work machine (Lech at ¶ [0072]).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are disclosed by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 as follows:
Regarding claims 1 and 20, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
A control unit for a vehicle, said vehicle comprising a wheel axle fluid circuit adapted to feed wheel axle fluid to one or more wheel axles of said vehicle, said vehicle further comprising a propulsion assembly adapted to propel said vehicle (A controller for a vehicle, said vehicle comprising a wheel axle fluid circuit adapted to feed wheel axle fluid to one or more wheel axles of said vehicle, said vehicle further comprising a propulsion assembly adapted to propel said vehicle – claim 1),
said control unit being adapted to, on the basis of at least the following (said controller being adapted to: on the basis of at least the following – claim 1):
information indicative of said propulsion assembly being inactive (information indicative of said propulsion assembly being inactive – claim 1),
information indicative of an expected time range until an expected operation start time of said vehicle (information indicative of an expected time range until an expected operation start time of said vehicle – claim 1), and
information associated with a temperature of said wheel axle fluid ( information associated with a temperature of said wheel axle fluid – claim 1), wherein said information associated with the temperature of said wheel axle fluid comprises information as regards a temperature ambient of said vehicle (wherein said information associated with the temperature of said wheel axle fluid comprises information as regards a temperature ambient of said vehicle – claim 2),
determine whether or not a conditioning procedure, during which the temperature of said wheel axle fluid is increased as compared to a present temperature of said wheel axle fluid, should be initiated for said wheel axle fluid (determine whether or not the conditioning procedure should be initiated for said wheel axle fluid – claim 1; during which the temperature of said wheel axle fluid is increased as compared to a present temperature of said wheel axle fluid – claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said control unit is adapted to determine an energy loss value indicative of energy losses associated with operating the vehicle without initiating the conditioning procedure, said control unit further being adapted to determine a conditioning value indicative of the energy required for the conditioning procedure, said control unit being adapted to determine that said conditioning procedure should be initiated in response to determining that said conditioning value is smaller than said energy loss value (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said control unit is adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a signal to said vehicle to initiate said conditioning procedure (claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement adapted to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit (claim 1), said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement control signal to said wheel axle fluid pump arrangement to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit to thereby increase the temperature of said wheel axle fluid prior to said expected operation start time of said vehicle (claim 14).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle comprises a wheel axle fluid heat exchanger, said wheel axle fluid circuit being fluidly connected to said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger such that wheel axle fluid passes through said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger when said wheel axle fluid is circulated through said wheel axle fluid circuit (claims 8, 12), said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a wheel axle fluid heat exchanger control signal such that the wheel axle fluid heat exchanger adds heat to the wheel axle fluid (claim 12).
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle further comprises a transmission fluid pump as well as a transmission converter, said transmission fluid pump being adapted to feed transmission fluid to said transmission converter, said transmission converter being arranged in relation to said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger such that transmission fluid leaving said transmission converter can be used as a heat source for said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger (claims 9, 12), said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a transmission fluid pump control signal to said transmission fluid pump such that said transmission fluid pump feeds transmission fluid to said transmission converter as well as to issue a transmission converter control signal to said transmission converter to assume a transmission converter operating condition in which the temperature of the transmission fluid leaving said transmission converter is higher than the temperature of said transmission fluid entering said transmission converter (claim 12).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle comprises a transmission fluid pump power source adapted to power at least said transmission fluid pump, said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue a transmission fluid pump power source control signal to said vehicle such that said transmission fluid pump power source feeds energy to said transmission fluid pump (claim 13).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle comprises an implement fluid circuit with an implement fluid pump, said wheel axle fluid pump arrangement comprising a wheel axle fluid motor and a wheel axle fluid pump, said wheel axle fluid motor being mechanically connected to said wheel axle fluid pump, said implement fluid circuit being connected to said wheel axle fluid pump arrangement such that implement fluid in said implement fluid circuit can power said wheel axle fluid motor, said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue an implement fluid pump control signal such that said implement fluid in said implement fluid circuit powers said wheel axle fluid motor (claim 14).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said implement fluid circuit comprises a variable implement fluid constriction, said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue an implement fluid constriction control signal to said implement fluid constriction such that a flow restriction is imposed on said implement fluid, thereby increasing the temperature of the implement fluid (claim 15).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle comprises an implement fluid pump power source adapted to power at least said implement fluid pump, said control unit being adapted to, in response to determining that said conditioning procedure should be initiated, issue an implement fluid pump power source control signal to said vehicle such that said implement fluid pump power source feeds energy to said implement fluid pump (claim 16).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said information associated with the temperature of said wheel axle fluid comprises information as regards a temperature of said wheel axle fluid (claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a brake fluid circuit adapted to feed brake fluid to one or more brakes of said vehicle (claim 4).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a wheel axle lubricant fluid circuit adapted to feed lubricant fluid to one or more wheel axles of said vehicle (claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
A vehicle, preferably a working machine, comprising a wheel axle fluid circuit adapted to feed wheel axle fluid to one or more wheel axles of said vehicle, said vehicle comprising a control unit according to claim 1 (claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said wheel axle fluid circuit comprises a wheel axle fluid pump arrangement adapted to circulate said wheel axle fluid through said wheel axle fluid circuit (claim 7).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle comprises a wheel axle fluid heat exchanger, said wheel axle fluid circuit being fluidly connected to said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger such that wheel axle fluid passes through said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger when said wheel axle fluid is circulated through said wheel axle fluid circuit (claim 8).
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle further comprises a transmission fluid pump as well as a transmission converter, said transmission fluid pump being adapted to feed transmission fluid to said transmission converter, said transmission converter being arranged in relation to said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger such that transmission fluid leaving said transmission converter can be used as a heat source for said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger (claim 9).
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle further comprises a transmission fluid heat exchanger being in fluid communication with said transmission converter as well as said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger so as to enable that transmission fluid leaving said transmission converter can be used as a heat source for said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger (claim 10).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 23,463,024 discloses:
wherein said vehicle further comprises a heat exchanger circuit adapted to circulate a heat exchanger fluid between said transmission fluid heat exchanger and said wheel axle fluid heat exchanger (claim 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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 on 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights