DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 1 discloses “when a high pressure function of the plurality of functions is activated and causes an increase in pressure of the pump, the pump controller is configured to . . . generate a power increase control signal that causes the engine controller to increase the maximum engine speed in response to determining that the measured pressure value of the pump is greater than or equal to the high pressure set point.” Claim 12 discloses wherein “the power control system is configured to transition from the first mode to the second mode, and thereby increase the maximum fluid pressure from the first maximum fluid pressure to the second maximum fluid pressure, when (i) a measured pressure value of the fluid pressure of the pump is greater than a high pressure set point and (ii) a high pressure function of the plurality of functions is activated.” Claim 1 seems to disclose a process wherein if a high-pressure function (among other functions) is activated, the pressure has increased, and the pressure is above a threshold, then the controller requests an engine power increase. Claim 12 seems to disclose a process wherein if a high-pressure function (among other functions) is activated, and the pressure is above a threshold, then the pump maximum pressure is increased. Claim 12 discloses a pressure increase as an output rather than an input as disclosed in Claim 1. The Examiner could not ascertain whether the disclosed processes in Claims 1 and 12 are commensurate or distinct in scope, given that one of them discloses an input that is disclosed as an output in the other. Claims 1, 12 should be amended to resolve whether their scopes are commensurate, consistent with the Specification.
Double Patenting Rejections
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 1-11 are rejected as being unpatentable over Prendergast (U.S. Patent 12,402,577 B2).
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the Instant application states: a power control system for a work machine configured to perform a plurality of functions via a plurality of attachments, the power control system comprising:
An engine controller configured to control an engine speed of an engine of the work machine, wherein the engine speed is limited in accordance with a maximum engine speed; and
A pump controller connected to a pump that provides fluid flow to power the plurality of attachments, wherein, when a high pressure function of the plurality of functions is activated and causes an increase in pressure of the pump, the pump controller is configured to:
Determine that a measured pressure value of the pump is greater than or equal to a high pressure set point; and
Generate a power increase control signal that causes the engine controller to increase the maximum engine speed in response to determining that the measured pressure value of the pump is greater than or equal to the high pressure set point.
Claim 1 of the reference teaches a power control system for a forestry machine configured to perform a plurality of functions, the power control system comprising:
An engine control module configured to control an engine speed of an engine of the forestry machine, wherein the engine speed is limited in accordance with a maximum engine speed; and
A pump control module configured to:
Determine whether a first function of a predetermined subset of the plurality of functions of the forestry machine is activated, wherein the predetermined subset of the plurality of functions are functions of one or more selected attachments of the forestry machine;
Determine whether the activated first function is designated as a high pressure function;
Determine that a magnitude of a pressure of a pump that provides flow to the activated first function has increased, wherein the increase of magnitude of the pressure is caused by the activation of the first function;
Determine that the magnitude of the pressure is greater than or equal to a high pressure setpoint; and
Upon determining that the first function is activated, the activated first function is a high pressure function, the magnitude of the pressure of the pump that provides flow to the activated first function has increased, and the increase in the pressure is greater than or equal to the high pressure setpoint, output a control signal indicating a request for a power increase,
Wherein the engine control module receives the request for the power increase and is configured to increase the maximum engine speed of the engine in response to the request for the power increase received from the pump control module.
Both claims disclose a power control system for a work machine that requests an increase in maximum engine speed from an engine in order to supply increased pressure to a pump when an activated high-pressure function (of multiple functions) for multiple attachments has a pressure that is greater than or equal to a high pressure setpoint.
Claim 2 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 2 of the Instant application states: wherein the pump controller is configured to determine that the high pressure function is activated in response to receiving a signal from an attachment controller configured to control the plurality of attachments.
Claim 2 of the reference teaches wherein determining whether the first function is activated includes receiving a signal indicating that a first attachment configured to perform the first function is activated.
Claim 3 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 3 of the Instant application states: wherein the pump controller is configured to:
Initiate a timer upon generating the power increase control signal, and
Generate a power decrease control signal that causes the engine controller to decrease the maximum engine speed when the timer reaches a predetermined duration.
Claim 3 of the reference teaches wherein the pump control module is configured to initiate a timer upon detecting the power increase and end the power increase when the timer reaches a predetermined duration.
Claim 4 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 4 of the Instant application states: wherein the pump controller is configured to generate a power decrease control signal that causes the engine controller to decrease the maximum engine speed when (i) the high pressure function is no longer activated or (ii) the measured pressure value is less than the high pressure set point.
Claim 4 of the reference teaches wherein the pump control module is configured to end the power increase in response to a determination that at least one of (i) the first function is no longer activated and (ii) the increase in the pressure is less than the high pressure setpoint.
Claim 5 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 5 of the Instant application states: a valve that is selectively controlled to increase a maximum pressure of the pump when the high pressure function is activated and the measured pressure value is greater than or equal to the high pressure set point.
Claim 5 of the reference teaches a valve that is selectively shifted or adjusted to increase pressure output by the pump in response to the first function being activated and the increase in the pressure being greater than or equal to the high pressure setpoint.
Claim 6 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 6, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 6 of the Instant application states: an attachment controller configured to receive attachment control signals from a user interface.
Claim 6 of the reference teaches an attachment control module.
Claim 7 of the reference teaches wherein the attachment control module is configured to receive attachment control signals from a user interface.
Claim 7 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 7 of the Instant application states: wherein the user interface includes at least one control stick.
Claim 8 of the reference teaches wherein the user interface includes at least one control stick.
Claim 8 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 8 of the Instant application states: wherein the pump controller is configured to determine that the high pressure function is activated in response to an attachment control signal indicating that an actuator on the at least one control stick that is used to control the high pressure function is activated.
Claim 9 of the reference teaches wherein determining whether the first function is activated includes determining whether an actuator on the at least one control stick that is used to control the first function is activated.
Claim 9 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 9 of the Instant application states: a work machine comprising the power control system.
Claim 10 of the reference teaches a forestry machine comprising the power control system.
Claim 10 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 10 of the Instant application states: wherein the work machine is a forestry machine.
Claim 10 of the reference teaches a forestry machine comprising the power control system.
Claim 11 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 11 of the Instant application states: wherein the forestry machine is one of a harvester, a forestry excavator, and a feller buncher.
Claim 11 of the reference teaches wherein the forestry machine is one of a harvester, a forestry excavator, and a feller buncher.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (U.S. Patent 6,389,808 B1) in view of Myers (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0360175 A1).
In regard to Claim 12, Sakai teaches a work machine configured to perform a plurality of functions via an attachment, the work machine comprising (see Abstract teaching a hydraulic shovel that has a low-speed and a high-speed operational mode):
A hydraulic system including a pump that provides fluid flow to power the attachment, wherein a fluid pressure of the pump is limited in accordance with a maximum fluid pressure (see Abstract lines 1-7, Figure 2 teaching that the machine has a series of hydraulic pumps that provide pressure in order to operate the shovel, and wherein the pumps operate with a maximum pressure value); and
A power control system configured to control the hydraulic system, wherein (see Column 1 lines 28-30 teaching that the machine’s control actuator is operated by a controller 21):
In a first mode, the power control system is configured to control the hydraulic system according to a first maximum fluid pressure (see Figure 2 teaching that the pumps operate according to a first maximum pressure profile B);
In a second mode, the power control system is configured to control the hydraulic system according to a second maximum fluid pressure that is greater than the first maximum fluid pressure (see Figure 2 teaching that the pumps operate according to a second maximum pressure profile A that is greater than pressure profile B); and
The power control system is configured to transition from the first mode to the second mode, and thereby increase the maximum fluid pressure from the first maximum fluid pressure to the second maximum fluid pressure, when (i) a measured pressure value of the fluid pressure of the pump is greater than a high pressure set point and (ii) a high pressure function of the plurality of functions is activated (see Abstract teaching that the machine is configured to switch from the low-speed operation mode to the high-speed operation mode when a pressure sensor detects a pressure greater than a predetermined value).
Sakai fails to teach wherein the work machine performs functions via a plurality of attachments.
However, Myers teaches wherein the work machine performs functions via a plurality of attachments (see Abstract, Paragraph 39 lines 1-24 teaching a work machine with a boom capable of operating a plurality of different attachments).
Sakai and Myers are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of work machines operated via hydraulic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakai’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system can operate multiple types of attachments as taught by Myers. Doing so could improve a hydraulic work machine by broadening its scope of possible functions via multiple attachments.
In regard to Claim 13, Sakai further teaches an engine connected to the hydraulic system, wherein the maximum fluid pressure of the pump is a product of a maximum engine speed of the engine (see Abstract lines 4-7, Figures 2, 3, Column 1 lines 15-16 teaching that the pumps are driven by an engine, and wherein the fluid pressure profiles A and B are related to the engine RPM profiles A and B).
In regard to Claim 14, Sakai further teaches wherein the power control system is configured to control the engine and the hydraulic system, and wherein:
In the first mode, the power control system is configured to control the engine according to a first maximum engine speed, the first maximum fluid pressure being a product of the first maximum engine speed (see Abstract lines 4-7, Figures 2, 3, Column 1 lines 15-16 teaching that the pumps are driven by an engine, and wherein the fluid pressure profile B is related to the engine RPM profile B); and
In the second mode, the power control system is configured to control the engine according to a second maximum engine speed that is greater than the first maximum engine speed, the second maximum fluid pressure being a product of the second maximum engine speed (see Abstract lines 4-7, Figures 2, 3, Column 1 lines 15-16 teaching that the pumps are driven by an engine, and wherein the fluid pressure profile A is related to the engine RPM profile A, both of which are higher than the fluid and engine B profiles).
In regard to Claim 15, Sakai further teaches wherein the hydraulic system includes a valve that controls the maximum fluid pressure of the pump, wherein the power control system is configured to control the valve to increase the maximum fluid pressure from the first maximum fluid pressure to the second maximum fluid pressure when the power control system transitions from the first mode to the second mode (see Abstract, Figures 2, 3, Claim 1 teaching that the controller switches from the low-speed operation mode to the high-speed operation mode based on a pressure reading at a remote-control valve).
In regard to Claim 16, Sakai further teaches a pressure sensor configured to measure the fluid pressure of the pump, wherein the power control system is configured to receive the measured pressure value from the pressure sensor and compare the measured pressure value to the high pressure set point (see Abstract teaching that the system is switched from a low-speed operation mode to a high-speed operation mode when a pressure sensor detects a pressure that exceeds a predetermined value).
In regard to Claim 17, Sakai further teaches a user interface that allows a user to activate the plurality of functions (see Column 4 lines 44-48 teaching that an operator can switch from between operation modes via an operating lever 11a).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (U.S. Patent 6,389,808 B1) in view of Myers (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0360175 A1), in further view of Lee (U.S. Patent 5,704,429).
In regard to Claim 18, Sakai fails to teach wherein the power control system is configured to receive attachment control signals from the user interface.
However, Lee teaches wherein the power control system is configured to receive attachment control signals from the user interface (see Figure 2, Column 6 lines 17-22, Column 7 lines 13-15 teaching a pump controlling system wherein an operator can manipulate a bucket via a manipulation device 20).
Sakai and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of work machines operated via hydraulic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakai’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein an attachment can be controlled via a user input as taught by Lee. Doing so could improve a hydraulic work machine by enabling an operator to manually control an attachment.
In regard to Claim 19, Sakai fails to teach wherein the user interface includes at least one control stick of the work machine.
However, Lee teaches wherein the user interface includes at least one control stick of the work machine (see Figure 2, Column 6 lines 17-22, Column 7 lines 13-15 teaching a pump controlling system wherein an operator can manipulate a bucket via a manipulation device 20).
Sakai and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of work machines operated via hydraulic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakai’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein an attachment can be controlled via a user input as taught by Lee. Doing so could improve a hydraulic work machine by enabling an operator to manually control an attachment.
In regard to Claim 20, Sakai further teaches wherein the power control system is configured to determine that the high pressure function is activated in response to an attachment control signal indicating that an actuator on the at least one control stick that is used to control the high pressure function is activated (see Abstract lines 14-19, Column 4 lines 44-48, Claim 1 teaching that an operator can switch from between operation modes via an operating lever 11a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights