Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the drawing objection. Examiner has withdrawn his objection to the drawings and agrees that given the additional limitation of the valve system provided by the newly amended claims that the various pump combinations is now supported. Examiner also notes that the modification of the limitation of a valve system instead of a single valve has eliminated Examiners 112 rejection issues and as such Examiner has withdrawn his 112 rejection in light of the newly amended claim language.
Applicant’s substantive arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 4, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0056192 (hereinafter "Weber") in view of Emmert et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0107421 (hereinafter "Emmert"). .
In Reference to Claim 1 and 15:
Weber discloses an industrial truck (Figure 1) comprising and a method of operating said industrial truck: a hydraulic system (Figure 2); and at least one hydraulically operated component (22-25), wherein the hydraulic system comprises: a first hydraulic pump (31-34) ,a second hydraulic pump (31-34), and a hydraulic line system, wherein the hydraulic line system is configured to selectively connect the hydraulically operated component either exclusively to the first hydraulic pump or exclusively to the second hydraulic pump or simultaneously to the first hydraulic pump and the second hydraulic pump (See, Paragraph [0024] which discloses that the output of two or more pumps can be combined to supply the same actuator 22-25), the first hydraulic pump has a first efficiency maximum at a first volume flow and a first operating pressure and the second hydraulic pump has a second efficiency maximum at a second volume flow and a second operating pressure, and one or more of the first operating pressure is greater than the second operating pressure and the first volume flow is smaller than the second volume flow; wherein the hydraulic line system comprises a valve system (52) comprising one or more hydraulic valves ( See, Figure 2 for labeling of solenoid valves), the valve system has a first position, a second position and a third position, in the first position the at least one hydraulically operated component is connected exclusively to the first hydraulic pump, in the second position the at least one hydraulically operated component is connected exclusively to the second hydraulic pump, and in the third position the at least one hydraulically operated component is connected simultaneously to the first hydraulic pump and the second hydraulic pump. See, Paragraph [0023-0025]: See, Paragraph [0022] which discloses the distribution manifold 52 directs the fluid flow from each pump to different ones of the four hydraulic actuators 22, 23, 24, and 25; See, Paragraph [0023] which discloses that each pump is capable of providing fluid independently to each actuator and the controller adjusts which pump provides fluid to which actuator based off pumps overall run time since last maintenance; See, Paragraph [0024] for discussion of combination of pumps for purposes of providing additional flow to a single demand.
Weber fails to disclose the first hydraulic pump has a first efficiency maximum at a first volume flow and a first operating pressure and the second hydraulic pump has a second efficiency maximum at a second volume flow and a second operating pressure, and one or more of the first operating pressure is greater than the second operating pressure and the first volume flow is smaller than the second volume flow.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic circuits, Emmert
features a hydraulic circuit containing a first hydraulic pump (12) having a first efficiency maximum at a first volume flow and a first operation pressure and a second hydraulic pump (20) having a second efficiency maximum at a second volume flow and a second operating pressure, and one or more of the first operating pressures is greater than the second operating pressure and the first volume flow is smaller than the second volume flow.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of effective filing to modify Weber with the teachings of Emmert,
specifically modifying the pumps of Weber to include pumps having different efficiencies
and flow characteristics as taught by Emmert with a HP and LP pressure because doing
so would optimize the operating speed of the actuators, improve the efficiency of the circuit by allowing for better tunning of the working device given its demand and less wasted energy.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Weber as modified by Emmert further discloses wherein the pumps are of the gear variety. Examiner notes that it is well known in the field of endeavor that external gear pumps given their design consisting of two identical gears typically can produce higher pressure and therefore it would be obvious to utilize a external gear pump for the HP pump and an internal gear pump for the LP which produces a higher volume flow rate but lower pressure and typically runs quieter given the design.
In Reference to Claim 4 and 17:
Weber further discloses wherein the at least one hydraulically operated component is configured to carry out at least two different hydraulically driven adjustment functions which differ with regard to one or more of a required volume flow and a required operating pressure. See, Paragraph [0023-0024], [0027] and [0029] which discloses adjusting based off operating pressure and flow rates.
In Reference to claim 11:
Weber further disclose wherein the at least one hydraulically operated component comprises at least one hydraulic lifting cylinder for one or more of raising and lowering and the controller is configured to have the at least one lifting cylinder operated exclusively by the first hydraulic pump or exclusively by the second hydraulic pump or simultaneously by the first hydraulic pump and the second hydraulic pump, depending on a deflection speed of the lifting cylinder. See, Paragraph [0023-0024] which discloses the differing configurations.
Weber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the raising and lower is a load fork. However, examiner notes that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Weber such that the lifting and lowering arm/boom is used for a forklift instead of a bucket as disclosed by Weber because such a modification is a simple substition of one known attachment for an industrial vehicle with another providing the same predictable results of lifting and lowering of the attachment tool.
In Reference to Claim 12:
Weber further discloses wherein the at least one hydraulically operated component comprises an auxiliary component, and the controller is configured to have the auxiliary component operated exclusively by the second hydraulic pump. See, Figure 2 which illustrates additional actuators of clam 25 and curl 24 for a bucket operation which requires less energy. See, Paragraph [0025].
In Reference to Claim 13 and 19:
Weber further discloses wherein the controller (50) is configured to regulate an efficiency portion of one or more of the first hydraulic pump and the second hydraulic pump when the first hydraulic pump and the second hydraulic pump are operated simultaneously. See, Paragraph [0024] for meeting the demand by combining pumps functions [0025-0028] which discloses maintaining pump efficiency by attempting to rotate the various pumps in and out of operation.
In Reference to claim 20:
Weber further discloses wherein the efficiency portion is regulated by reducing one or more of a pump output and flow rate. See, Paragraph [0021] and [0024] which discloses deactivate the pump by closing all the valves and shutting off the motor during periods when a failure is detected.
In Reference to Claim 21 and 22:
Weber further disclose wherein the one or more hydraulic valves comprises two or more hydraulic valves. See, Figure 2
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 and 18 recite the limitation “wherein a controller of the industrial truck accesses a data memory on which a function list is stored, in which the required operating pressure and the required volume flow are stored for the at least two different adjustment functions, wherein, for a first adjustment function to be executed from the atleast two different adjustment functions, the controller retrieves the operating pressure required for the first adjustment function and the volume flow required for the first adjustment function from the function list and controls the at least one hydraulic valve to transfer the at least one hydraulic valve into the first position, the second position, or the third position depending on the operating pressure required for the first adjustment function and the volume flow required for the first adjustment function.” Examiner found that the prior art did not disclose a control sequence for adjusting the position and therefore the output of which pump provides fluid to the operation device based off the volume flow required and the operating pressure required.
Claims 6-10 are allowed based off their dependency of claim 5.
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 DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights