DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Arguments
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding claim 1, the amendments to the claim does overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of record; however, the amendments also raises a new issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
The limitation of “a hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device” contradicts the specification of the instant application which discloses that “special underground construction device, in particular a pile-driving or drilling device, comprising a support frame on which a holder for a hydraulic working device is arranged” and “a pile-driving or drilling device having a hydraulic working device” (Page 1). This disclosure suggests that the “pile-driving or drilling device” comprises the “hydraulic working device” which contradicts the above claimed language which recites the “hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device”. As such, the above limitation is not supported by the disclosure. Additionally, it is unclear what is structurally and/or functionally required by “a hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device” because it is unclear what the structural and functional boundaries are of “a hydraulic working device” such that it contains “a pile driving device or a drilling device”.
Regarding claim 3, the amendments to the claim overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of record; however, the claim depends from claim 1 which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). As such, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant states that “The first and second hydraulic pumps both supply a mounted working device with at least one hydraulic oil stream” and “In contrast, Kumeuchi et al. relates to a hydraulic excavator 1 with boom cylinders for raising and lowering the excavator arm, which are operated by a first hydraulic pump P1. Furthermore, a rotary drive for the revolving body 20 of the excavator is arranged, which is operated by a second hydraulic pump P2 for revolution. Only the first pump thus supplies the boom cylinder with a hydraulic oil stream. The second pump exclusively supplies the rotary drive for the revolving body.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Claim 1 recites that “first and second hydraulic main pumps for making available at least one hydraulic oil volume for operation of the hydraulic working device” which is taught by Kumeuchi. Both of the hydraulic pumps (P1, P2) of Kumeuchi supply hydraulic working device 100 (Fig. 2) with at least one hydraulic oil stream. In para[0028], the hydraulic drive unit 100 (hydraulic working unit) includes a first hydraulic pump P1 and hydraulic pump for revolution P2. The first hydraulic pump P1 discharges a hydraulic oil for activating the motors of the hydraulic working device 100 (Fig. 2). The hydraulic pump for revolution P2 provides the hydraulic oil to the revolution motor 26 which generates a pilot pressure for driving each of the control valve unit 110 of the hydraulic drive unit 100 (Fig. 2). As such, both the first hydraulic pump P1 and hydraulic pump for revolution P2 makes available/supplies “at least one hydraulic oil volume stream for operation of the hydraulic working device” as claimed which in turn operates the hydraulic excavator 1.
Furthermore, claim 1 now recites “the support frame has a leader on which a
working device carriage is displaceably arranged, wherein the working device carriage has the holder for the hydraulic working device.” The amendment recites numerous elements that are very broadly recited and lack any specific structural and/or functional features. For example, the claim does not specify what exactly “a leader” requires structurally, functionally and/or positionally and what makes a structure a “leader”. Furthermore, the recitation of “a working device carriage is displaceably arranged” is also very broad because the claim does not specify where the carriage is “displaceably arranged” and how it is being displaced. Due to the broadness of the above limitation, Kumeuchi still teaches this limitation. Kumeuchi teaches a support frame (10) that has a leader (11) on which a working device carriage is displaceably arranged (revolving frame body 20; pp[0027]), wherein the working device carriage (20) has the holder for the hydraulic working device (At the rear of the revolving frame body 20… a mounting chamber on which the below-described hydraulic drive unit 100 is mounted; pp[0027]).
For at least the above reasons, the rejection to claim 1 will be maintained.
Specification
The amendment filed 03/03/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The recitation of “a hydraulic working device 42 comprising a VDQ dual-head drilling device 5” amended on Page 17 of the specification is new matter. There was no prior support for the “hydraulic working device” comprising the “drilling device”. This amendment contradicts the original disclosure which discusses “special underground construction device, in particular a pile-driving or drilling device, comprising a support frame on which a holder for a hydraulic working device is arranged” and “a pile-driving or drilling device having a hydraulic working device” (Page 1). This disclosure suggests that the “pile-driving or drilling device” comprises the “hydraulic working device” which contradicts the above amended language which suggests that the “hydraulic working device” comprises “a pile driving device or a drilling device”. There was no prior disclosure or any language which suggested that “a hydraulic working device 42 comprising a VDQ dual-head drilling device 5”. Therefore, this amendment is new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support for the limitation “a hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device” in the disclosure. The specification discusses that “special underground construction device, in particular a pile-driving or drilling device, comprising a support frame on which a holder for a hydraulic working device is arranged” and “a pile-driving or drilling device having a hydraulic working device” (Page 1). This disclosure suggests that the “pile-driving or drilling device” comprises the “hydraulic working device” which contradicts the above claimed language of the “hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device”. The the above limitation is not supported by the disclosure as there is no written description support for “a hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device”.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7 and 10-17 are also rejected under this statute as the claims depend from claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 10-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device” which contradicts the specification of the instant application which discloses that “special underground construction device, in particular a pile-driving or drilling device, comprising a support frame on which a holder for a hydraulic working device is arranged” and “a pile-driving or drilling device having a hydraulic working device” (Page 1). This disclosure suggests that the “pile-driving or drilling device” comprises the “hydraulic working device” which contradicts the above claimed language which recites the “hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device”. As such, it is unclear what is structurally and/or functionally required by “a hydraulic working device comprising a pile driving device or a drilling device” because the structural and functional boundaries are of “a hydraulic working device” have not been adequately defined such that it comprises “a pile driving device or a drilling device”.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7 and 10-17 are also rejected under this statute as the claims depend from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumeuchi et al. (U .S. Publication No. US 20190345695 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kumeuchi teaches an underground construction device (a underground construction device as shown; Fig. 1) comprising:
a support frame (10);
a hydraulic working device (hydraulic drive unit 100; pp[0028],[0040]) comprising a pile driving device or drilling device (30; 100 comprises the excavator 30 in that the hydraulic drive unit activates/controls the excavator device 30; pp[0037])
a holder (a mounting chamber; pp[0027]) for the hydraulic working device (hydraulic drive unit 100; Fig. 2, pp[0027]), wherein the holder (a mounting chamber; pp[0027]) is arranged on the support frame (mounting chamber is at the rear of 20, thus it is arranged on the frame 10; Fig. 1, pp[0027]); and
first and second hydraulic main pumps (P1, P2; Fig. 2, pp[0028]) for making available at least one hydraulic oil volume stream (hydraulic oil; pp[0028]) for operation of the hydraulic working device held in the holder (The first hydraulic pump P1 discharges a hydraulic oil for activating the motors of the hydraulic working device 100 (Fig. 2). The hydraulic pump for revolution P2 provides the hydraulic oil to the revolution motor 26 which generates a pilot pressure for driving each of the control valve unit 110 of the hydraulic drive unit 100 (Fig. 2); pp[0028]);
wherein the first and second hydraulic main pumps are connected, by way of lines (the “lines” on which the “inverter 106” and “motor control device 150” lie; Fig. 2), to the holder (mounting chamber; pp[0027]);
wherein the first hydraulic main pump (P1) is driven by a first motor (M1) connected to the first hydraulic main pump (pp[0032]), and the second hydraulic main pump (P2) is driven by a second motor (M2) separate from the first motor and connected to the second hydraulic main pump (pp[0032], Fig. 2).
Wherein the support frame (10) has a leader (11) on which a working device carriage is displaceably arranged (revolving frame body 20; pp[0027]), wherein the working device carriage (20) has the holder for the hydraulic working device (At the rear of the revolving frame body 20… a mounting chamber on which the below-described hydraulic drive unit 100 is mounted; pp[0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Kumeuchi teaches wherein the first and second hydraulic main pumps (P1, P2) provide first and second hydraulic oil volume stream (pp[0033]) and the support frame (1) has a chassis (implicit because the device of fig. 1 is a traveling body with crawler mechanisms 15; pp[0037]) that is driven by at least one of the first and second hydraulic motors (M1,M2), which is supplied with the first and second hydraulic oil volume streams of the first and second hydraulic main pumps (P1, P2; pp[0036], [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Kumeuchi teaches comprising a control unit (a motor control device 150; pp[0032]) connected to the first motor (M1) and the second motor (M2) for controlling the first motor and the second motor independently of one another (pp[0038], [0039]), wherein at least one of the first motor and the second motor is formed by an electric motor (the first and second electric motors M1 and M2; pp[0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Kumeuchi teaches a method for operation of the underground construction device according to claim 1, the method comprising: supplying the hydraulic working device (hydraulic drive unit 100; Fig. 2, pp[0027]) with hydraulic oil (hydraulic oil; pp[0028]) by way of the first and second hydraulic main pumps (P1, P2; Fig. 2, pp[0028]); and driving the first and second hydraulic main pumps (P1, P2; Fig. 2, pp[0028]) by way of the first and second motors (M1, M2), respectively, wherein the first and second motors comprise electric motors (pp[0032]); wherein the first and second hydraulic main pumps are operated independently of one another (pp[0038], [0039]), at different rotating speeds, to produce first and second hydraulic oil volume streams, respectively, even where the first and second hydraulic oil volume streams are brought together (pp[0032]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Kumeuchi teaches the method according to claim 16, further comprising determining a required rotating speed for an optimal degree of effectiveness of the first and second motors and of the first and second hydraulic main pumps driven by the first and second motors, for each of the first and second motors as a function of a predetermined pressure or a predetermined power, using characteristic line fields (The motor control device 150 is configured to compare the discharge pressure of the first hydraulic pump P1 detected by the first pressure sensor S1 with the maximum load pressure among the load pressures of the left and right traveling motor 16L and 16R and the like detected by the second pressure sensor S2, and control the rotation speed of the first electric motor M1 through the inverter 106; pp[0034], [0035]).
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) 6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumeuchi et al. (U .S. Publication No. 20190345695) in view of Patel et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20220381006).
Regarding claim 6, Kumeuchi teaches the underground construction device according to claim 1.
Kumeuchi is silent regarding wherein at least one of the first hydraulic main pump and the second hydraulic main pump has a variable displacement.
Patel, drawn to a hydraulic system for machines such as excavators, discloses at least one of the first hydraulic main pump (210; Fig. 2) and the second hydraulic main pump (216) has a variable displacement (swing pump 210 may be an over-center, variable-displacement hydraulic piston pump; pp[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kumeuchi such that at least one of the hydraulic pump has a variable displacement, as taught my Patel, with a reasonable expectation of success, because variable displacement pump will allow the operation of the hydraulic system at an efficient manner (pp[0044], Patel)
Regarding claim 10, Kumeuchi teaches the underground construction device according to claim 7.
Kumeuchi is silent regarding further comprising a computer unit connected to the control unit and configured for determining a first rotating speed of the first motor and a second rotating speed of the second motor achieving an optimal degree of effectiveness at a predetermined pressure and volume stream or at a predetermined power.
Patel, drawn to a hydraulic system for machines such as excavators, discloses a computer unit connected to the control unit and configured for determining a first rotating speed of the first motor and a second rotating speed of the second motor achieving an optimal degree of effectiveness at a predetermined pressure and volume stream or at a predetermined power (a controller 228, causing the stack valves to allow fluid to flow through hydraulic cylinders 116, 122, 124 and/or left and right travel motors 146, 148 in selected amounts and in selected directions, thereby controlling the speed of the extension or retraction of hydraulic cylinders 116, 122, 124 and the speed and direction of rotation of left and right travel motors 146, 148; pp[0032], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kumeuchi with the controller of Patel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the controller will have maintained the hydraulic circuits at an efficient operating point (pp[0034], Patel).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kumeuchi and Patel teaches the underground construction device according to claim 10.
Kumeuchi discloses a controllers that controls rotations speeds of the first and second motor (a motor control device 150 (controller) that controls the rotation speeds (the number of rotations per unit time) of the first and second electric motors M1 and M2 through the inverter 106; pp[0032]).
The combination is silent regarding at least one two-dimensional or three-dimensional characteristic field is stored in the computer unit wherein the optimal degree of effectiveness is obtained from the at least one two-dimensional or three-dimensional characteristic field as a function at least of rotating speed and pressure difference, wherein the at least one two- dimensional or three-dimensional characteristic field is used to determine the first and second rotating speeds of the first motor and of the second motor achieving the optimal degree of effectiveness.
Patel further teaches wherein an at least one two-dimensional or three-dimensional characteristic field is stored in the computer unit (228), wherein the optimal degree of effectiveness is obtained from the at least one two-dimensional or three-dimensional characteristic field as a function at least of rotating speed and pressure difference, wherein the at least one two- dimensional or three-dimensional characteristic field is used to determine the rotating speed of the first motor achieving the optimal degree of effectiveness (Controller 228 may additionally receive a signal from electric motor speed sensor 240 indicative of the sensed rotational speed of electric motor 206 and/or shaft 208. And controller 228 may look up on the efficiency map for implement pump 216 the sensed discharge pressure along a range of speeds including the sensed rotational speed of electric motor 206 and identify a corresponding range of pump displacements. Controller 228 may then select the pump displacement in the identified range which corresponds to the greatest efficiency as the target displacement of implement pump 216; pp[0057], [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination such that the controller monitors the rotational speed and/or pressure of the first and second motors so that the controller can maintain the efficiency of the pumps (pp[0057], [0062], Patel).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kumeuchi and Patel teaches the underground construction device according to claim 11.
Patel further teaches a first characteristic field of the first motor and a second characteristic field of the second motor is stored in the computer unit , wherein the optimal degree of effectiveness results from the first rotating speed and torque of the first motor and the second rotating speed and torque of the second motor, wherein the determination of the first rotating speed of the first motor and of the second rotating speed of the second motor takes place using the stored first and second characteristic fields (Controller 228 may determine a required torque of electric motor 206 by multiplying the target displacement of implement pump 216, determined in step 306, by the sensed discharge pressure of implement pump 216. Controller 228 may then look up on an efficiency map 246 for electric motor 206 the required torque along a range of speeds including the sensed rotational speed of electric motor 206 and/or shaft 208. Controller 228 may select a speed within the range that corresponds to the greatest efficiency as the first target speed of electric motor 206; pp[0059]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kumeuchi and Patel teaches the underground construction device according to claim 10.
Kumeuchi further teaches comprising sensors for detecting the volume stream and the pressure of at least one hydraulic circuit of the first hydraulic main pump; and/or sensors for detecting the first rotating speed and/or a pressure and/or a displacement of the first hydraulic main pump (first pressure sensor S1 that detects the hydraulic oil pressure (pump pressure) discharged from the first hydraulic pump P1, a second pressure sensor S2 that detects the load pressure that is highest among the load pressures; pp[0032]-[0034]) wherein the sensors are connected to the computer unit (in light of the above modifications, the sensors of Kumeuchi will be connected to the computer unit as taught by Patel).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kumeuchi and Patel teaches the underground construction device according to claim 10.
Kumeuchi further teaches, in light of the above modifications, wherein the hydraulic working device (100) comprises at least one hydraulic motor (M1) connected, by way of lines (the “lines” on which the “inverter 106” and “motor control device 150” lie; Fig. 2), to the first hydraulic main pump (P1) and/or the second hydraulic main pump (P2),wherein sensors (S1, S2) connected to the computer unit (Controller 228 of Patel) are provided for detecting rotating speed and displacement of the at least one hydraulic motor or rotating speed and displacement of the first or second hydraulic main pump and for detecting pressures before and/or after the first or second hydraulic main pump and/or before and/or after the at least one hydraulic motor (first pressure sensor S1 that detects the hydraulic oil pressure (pump pressure) discharged from the first hydraulic pump P1, a second pressure sensor S2 that detects the load pressure that is highest among the load pressures; pp[0032]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kumeuchi and Patel teaches the underground construction device according to claim 14.
Patel further teaches the at least one hydraulic motor has a variable displacement (swing pump 210 may be an over-center, variable-displacement hydraulic piston pump; pp[0029]), wherein the at least one hydraulic motor is connected to the control unit for setting the rotating speed and the displacement, and wherein the control unit is connected to the computer unit (controller 228 may provide to electric motor 206 a motor speed command signal commanding electric motor 206 to adjust to a target speed; pp[0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 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.
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 Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights