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
Applicant’s 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler, et al., European Patent Publication EP 3386458 (hereinafter “Fiedler”) in view of Brugger, WIPO Publication WO 9513043 (hereinafter “Buggler”) in further view of Ohishi et al., German Patent Publicatoin DE19916014 A1 (hereinafter “Ohishi”)
In Reference to Claim 1:
Fiedler discloses a hydraulic lifting device (Figure 1) for a chassis of a mobile device, comprising: a valve block (See, Annotated Figure); a pump (2) ; a tank (1) ; a first cylinder device (See, Annotated Figure); and a second cylinder device ( See, Annotated Figure ); wherein: the first cylinder device and the second cylinder device can be selectively pressurized by the pump (2) or connected to the tank (1) via the valve block; the first cylinder device is connected to the pump (2) via at least one primary non- return valve (15) disposed in the valve block; the second cylinder device is connected to the pump via at least one secondary non- return valve (20) disposed in the valve block.
Fiedler fails to explicitly disclose at least one pressure accumulator downstream of the at least one secondary non-return valve in the direction of flow from the pump to the second cylinder device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Brugger discloses a hydraulic system for a lifting platform of a mobile device (ambulance) wherein the pressure accumulator (B) is located downstream of a non-return valve in the direction of the flow from the pump (P) to the cylinder device(Z) for the purpose of aiding in the lifting of the cylinder during periods where the electric system to power the pump is unavailable and also aids in the ability to reduce the sudden lifting jolt that may be created when an individual on the lifting table is removed (sudden drop in opposing force from the lift) thereby improving the safety of the patient and operator and as such is configured to ensure that a gradual pressure loss does not create unwanted movement..
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Fiedler to include the teachings of Brugger, namely to include a pressure accumulator that is located downstream of the non-return valve of the cylinder devices because as discussed in Brugger such a modification provides two distinct advantages 1) the ability to operate (if the accumulator is charged) when the pump is in a non-operational state for short periods and 2) the ability to prevent injury to the patient and operator when there is a sudden change in opposing force to the lifting force (i.e. when a patient is removed off the table) and such modification would also provide protection from pressure loss over time from the valve leading to unwanted lowering of the second cylinder device.
Fiedler as modified fails to disclose the newly amended limitation wherein the pressure accumulator has a volume at most of 1 cm3 and a chamber of the pressure accumulator is at least partially defined within the valve block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic circuits with linear actuators, Ohishi discloses an accumulator 16 which is integrated with the valve block 14 and a chamber of the pressure accumulator is at least partially defined within the valve block 14. See, Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Fielder with the teachings of Ohishi, specifically to place the accumulator in an integrated manner with the manifold/valve block housing as taught by Ohishi because such modification as provided by Ohishi provides for the benefit of improved durability of the hydraulic accumulator, improved flexibility in improved response time by reduced conduits, and reduced cost by allowing for the valve housing to also create the housing for the accumulator.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to size the accumulator to 1 cm3 or less due to engineering expedience. That is, a person having ordinary skill in the art would use their engineering knowledge to optimize to size the accumulator to be capable of performing its desired function in the smallest configuration because oversizing/undersizing the accumulator would be detrimental to the efficiency of the system and lead to more consistent and larger pressure fluctuations.
In Reference to Claim 2 and 3:
Fiedler further discloses first pressure-reducing valve (11) and a second pressure-reducing valve (13); wherein: the first cylinder device can be pressurized via the first pressure-reducing valve; and the second cylinder device can be pressurized via the second pressure-reducing valve; and an output pressure of the first pressure-reducing valve is different from an output pressure of the second pressure-reducing valve and wherein the output pressure of the first pressure reducing valve is greater than the output pressure of the second pressure reducing valve. See, Paragraph [0019] of Fiedler which discloses the second pressure reducing valve being a lower outlet pressure than the first pressure reducing valve.
Fiedler further discloses first pressure-reducing valve (11) and a second pressure-reducing valve (13); wherein: the first cylinder device can be pressurized via the first pressure-reducing valve; and the second cylinder device can be pressurized via the second pressure-reducing valve; and an output pressure of the first pressure-reducing valve is different from an output pressure of the second pressure-reducing valve and wherein the output pressure of the first pressure reducing valve is greater than the output pressure of the second pressure reducing valve. See, Paragraph [0019] of Fiedler which discloses the second pressure reducing valve being a lower outlet pressure than the first pressure reducing valve.
In Reference to Claim 4 and 5:
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Fiedler such that the accumulator volume is at most .5 cm3 because per Applicant’s specification such accumulator is merely a design choice to limited only for the purpose of the environment the accumulator is placed a mobile chassis device. Therefore, given that Fiedler is in the identical environment with the nearly identical fluid circuit a person of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the same exact considerations as Applicant when sizing their accumulator for the same environment.
In Reference to Claim 6:
Fiedler further discloses wherein the second cylinder device comprises two secondary cylinders and the at least one secondary non-return valve of the valve block comprises two secondary non-return valves, each of the two secondary cylinders being connected to the pump via one of the secondary non-return valves. See, Figure 1 and Annotated Figure above.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Fiedler as modified discloses wherein the valve block includes an accumulator disposed upstream of the non return valve of an lifting actuator cylinder.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Fiedler such that the system contain an additional accumulator disposed upstream of the second non-return valve for the respective secondary cylinder associated with said non-return valve because as discussed in Brugger such a modification provides two distinct advantages 1) the ability to operate (if the accumulator is charged) when the pump is in a non-operational state for short periods and 2) the ability to prevent injury to the patient and operator when there is a sudden change in opposing force to the lifting force (i.e. when a patient is removed off the table). The additional presence of the accumulator along the second secondary actuator would be necessary to allow for uniform lifting during periods where the pump is non-operational.
In Reference to Claim 11-13:
Fiedler further discloses wherein a chassis of a mobile device comprises a lifting system as recited in claim 1, and wherein the mobile device is a mobile medical device. See, Paragraph [0006] which discloses a chassis and paragraph [0004] which recites that Fiedler is particularly relevant to medical equipment.
In Reference to Claim 8-9
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Fiedler which remains silent as to the type of accumulator utilized (See, Brugger) to be a spring accumulator wherein the accumulator comprises a spring and a piston and the piston is moved via the fluid pressure in one direction against he spring because such an accumulator is well known in the field of art and modifying one accumulator with another is merely a simple substitution of one type for another providing the identical function ( attempting to maintain a constant pressure and also serve as a reserve pressure source).
In Reference to Claim 10:
Fielder as modified further discloses wherein the spring accumulator comprises a sealing cap fixed to the valve block and closing the receiving bore. See, Ohishi Figure 3 which shows a spring accumulator (16) which has a sealing cap fixed by a ring clip to the valve block in a receiving bore.
In Reference to Claim 14:
Fiedler further discloses wherein holding pressure acting on the first cylinder device is higher than holding pressure acting on the second cylinder device, allowing for hierarchical pressurization of the first cylinder device and the second cylinder device. See, Paragraph [0019] which disclose that the pressure reducing valve 11 is set to a higher outlet pressure than the secondary pressure reducing valve 13. This design choice creates a hierarchical pressurization of the first cylinder device and the second cylinder device.
In Reference to Claim 15:
Fielder as modified further discloses wherein the chamber of the at least one pressure accumulator(16) is at least partially defined by a receiving bore in the valve block (14). See, Ohishi Figure 3.
Conclusion
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