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 Amendment/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 12/12/25 entered with the RCE filed 1/20/26. Amended Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14, 18-25 are pending.
Regarding the drawing corrections, these are acceptable (MPEP 608.02(h)).
Regarding the previous specification objections for antecedent basis, these have been remedied by the specification amendments.
Regarding the previous claim objections, these are moot in light of the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 112 issues, the amendment of the language regarding “at least one secondary directional control valve provided between...” in Claims 1 and 18 overcomes this issue. Similarly, the Claim 14 amendments regarding the “the lifting door” have overcome the previous issue. Upon further consideration the Claim 9 language is considered definite as the modifier “at least one” encompasses the plural main directional control valves necessary for the disclosed relationships shown in applicant’s Fig. 9 in conjunction with the Claim 1 limitations.
Regarding the previously applied prior art of KR600, applicant’s amended claim language claiming “via a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator” overcomes KR600 as anticipatory, which applicant argues in their remarks and examiner agrees with. However applicant also argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
920
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Previously applied Mercier (US 2741477) teaches accumulators with a sole port, as applied below in the following action. Base reference KR600 teaches an accumulator with two ports:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mercier teaches a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator (Fig. 3 or Fig. 6):
PNG
media_image3.png
300
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
394
190
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes previously cited references Mercier (US 2741478 - ex. 32 or 40 or 256 or 500) or Kacludis (US 11970102 - 140) also each teach accumulators with a sole port.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/25 has been entered with the RCE filed 1/20/26.
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.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
In Claim 1 and throughout the claims “fluid communication” is interpreted in accordance with the breadth of the claim limitation; that is, the claim language as presented is broad and is interpreted as such.
In Claim 1 and its dependent claims there are manners of operation claimed. In an apparatus claim, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II) and as KR600 has the structure to meet the structural limitations, KR600 teaches the claimed invention. Note the interpretation of method claims (Claims 18-23, 25) is different from the apparatus claims.
In Claim 8, “wherein the at least one hydraulic unit is prevented from providing pressurized hydraulic fluid to drive of the at least one hydraulic motor” has been interpreted broadly as “prevented” has not been given a special definition by applicant (MPEP 2173.01 I, 2111.01 IV).
In Claim 11, “wherein the pressure accumulator is connected in parallel with the at least two hydraulic motors” has been interpreted are the pressure accumulator is connected to the at least two hydraulic motors, where the at least two hydraulic motors are in parallel to one another, rather than the three elements (accumulator and the at least two hydraulic motors) being arranged in parallel to some other, unnamed element.
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 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 18-25 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.
Claim 1 recites in part “wherein the at least one main directional control valve enables fluid communication between the at least one hydraulic motor, the hydraulic pump and the pressure accumulator”. This is indefinite. In Figure 2 for example, the main directional control valve 15 “enables” fluid communication between the at least hydraulic motor 6 and the hydraulic pump 11 and potentially between the pump 11 and the accumulator 22 (dependent on valve 21 position) but between the hydraulic motor 6 and the accumulator 22 the main directional valve 15 does not “enable fluid communication” since fluid does not pass through valve 15; the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite as a result. Claim 18 has similar language and therefore the same issue as well.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 14, and 24, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200319600 (on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter KR600, in view of Mercier (US 2741477), hereinafter Mercier.
Regarding Claim 1, KR600 teaches
A hydraulic door drive for a lifting door that opens, wherein the lifting door comprises at least one door curtain, comprising
at least one hydraulic motor (3, Fig. 1) configured to drive the at least one door curtain (100, ex. Figs. 1-2, [23]) or to be at least concomitantly driven by the at least one door curtain (Fig. 1);
at least one hydraulic unit, comprising a hydraulic pump (2) and at least one main directional control valve (6), for supplying the at least one hydraulic motor of the hydraulic door drive with pressurized hydraulic fluid;
a pressure accumulator (9) connected to the at least one hydraulic motor, wherein the pressure accumulator is in fluid communication with the at least one hydraulic motor, the at least one main directional control valve and the hydraulic pump;
wherein the at least one main directional control valve (6) enables fluid communication between the at least one hydraulic motor, the hydraulic pump and the pressure accumulator in order to store potential energy fluid pressure generated by downward movement of the at least one door curtain being allowed to close due to the weight of the at least one door curtain and driving the at least one hydraulic motor to provide the potential energy fluid pressure to the pressure accumulator and thereby storing the potential energy fluid pressure within the pressure accumulator; and
at least one secondary directional control valve (8a or 8b) provided in direct fluid communication with the pressure accumulator, wherein the at least one secondary directional control valve enables the potential energy fluid pressure stored in the pressure accumulator to be discharged to the at least one hydraulic motor and to thereby drive the at least one hydraulic motor to open or close the at least one door curtain.
Examiner note: The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II) and as KR600 has the structure to meet the structural limitations (note valves 6, 8a, 8b), KR600 meets the claimed invention - but see also [22-24] of applicant supplied translation for discussion of particular connections.
KR600 does not teach
via a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator
KR600 teaches an accumulator with two ports:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mercier teaches
For a hydraulic door drive
a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator (Fig. 3 or Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image3.png
300
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
394
190
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Since both references are directed to hydraulic door drives, 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 accumulator and associated connections of KR600 to use a sole port as taught by Mercier in order to provide an alternative arrangement that would perform equally well with predictable results. This also provides the added benefit of using a simpler form of an accumulator that use only one hole instead of two in the housing. Using a line between valves 10 and 8b of KR600 with a connection to a sole port of the accumulator, as taught by Mercier, renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 2,
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1, wherein pressurized hydraulic fluid is fed from the at least one hydraulic unit to the at least one hydraulic motor (ex. [22-25,28]).
Regarding Claim 3,
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1, wherein at least one port (5 or 7) acts as a hydraulic fluid inlet of the at least one hydraulic motor.
Regarding Claim 4,
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1, the pressure accumulator and a pressurized fluid supply line (any of lines connecting 2 to 6 or 6 to 3 or 9 to 3) of the at least one hydraulic unit are connected with at least one port (5 or 7) acting as a hydraulic fluid outlet of the at least one hydraulic motor.
Regarding Claim 8,
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1, wherein the pressure accumulator is connected with a supply line (ex. line from 2 to 6 or line from 6 to 5 or line from 6 to 7) of the at least one hydraulic motor (Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one hydraulic unit is prevented from providing pressurized hydraulic fluid to drive of the at least one hydraulic motor via the at least one main directional control valve (ex. system off).
Regarding Claim 14,
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1, wherein the at least one door curtain comprises a roll-up door having at least one rollable door curtain (100, ex. Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 24,
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1, wherein the pressure accumulator is loaded with fluid pressure generated by the hydraulic pump (ex. [28]).
Claims 18-22, 25, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR600 in view of Mercier, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR600 in view of Mercier and Kacludis (US 11970102).
Examiner note: Claim 18 recites in part “...or to be at least concomitantly driven by the at least one door curtain” and “in order to store potential energy fluid pressure generated by downward movement of the at least one door curtain being allowed to close due to the weight of the at least one door curtain and driving the at least one hydraulic motor to provide the potential energy fluid pressure to the pressure accumulator and thereby storing the potential energy fluid pressure within the pressure accumulator”. In the machine translation of KR600 at [24] (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image5.png
156
948
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
The phrase “under the operation as described above” is unclear if this references the charging of the accumulator in conjunction with both paragraphs [23] (raising operation) and [22] (lowering operation) or only paragraph [23] (raising), the closest paragraph. To expedite examination and promote compact prosecution, the following 103 rejection is also made to show obviousness of the claimed invention.
In one interpretation of KR600 (where [24] refers to both [22] and [23]):
Regarding Claim 18, KR600 teaches
A method for operating a hydraulic door drive, the method comprising the following steps:
utilizing the hydraulic door drive (Fig. 1) for driving a lifting door that opens (Fig. 2), wherein the lifting door comprises at least one door curtain (100, ex. Figs. 1-2, ex. [23]),
providing at least one hydraulic motor (3) configured to drive the at least one door curtain or to be at least concomitantly driven by the at least one door curtain (Figs. 1-2, ex. [22, 24]);
providing at least one hydraulic unit, comprising a hydraulic pump (2) and at least one main directional control valve (6), for supplying the at least one hydraulic motor of the hydraulic door drive with pressurized hydraulic fluid; and
providing a pressure accumulator (9) connected to the at least one hydraulic motor, wherein the pressure accumulator is in fluid communication with the at least one hydraulic motor, the at least one main directional control valve and the hydraulic pump (Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one main directional control valve (6) enables fluid communication between the at least one hydraulic motor, the hydraulic pump and the pressure accumulator in order to store potential energy fluid pressure generated by downward movement of the at least one door curtain being allowed to close due to the weight of the at least one door curtain and driving the at least one hydraulic motor to provide the potential energy fluid pressure to the pressure accumulator and thereby storing the potential energy fluid pressure within the pressure accumulator (ex. Fig. 1, [24]); and
providing at least one secondary directional control valve (8a or 8b) in direct fluid communication with the pressure accumulator, wherein the at least one secondary directional control valve enables the potential energy fluid pressure stored in the pressure accumulator to be discharged to the at least one hydraulic motor and to thereby drive the at least one hydraulic motor to open or close the at least one door curtain (ex. Fig. 1, [24]).
KR600 does not teach
via a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator
KR600 teaches an accumulator with two ports:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mercier teaches
For a hydraulic door drive
a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator (Fig. 3 or Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image3.png
300
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
394
190
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Since both references are directed to hydraulic door drives, 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 accumulator and associated connections of KR600 to use a sole port as taught by Mercier in order to provide an alternative arrangement that would perform equally well with predictable results. This also provides the added benefit of using a simpler form of an accumulator that use only one hole instead of two in the housing. Using a line between valves 10 and 8b of KR600 with a connection to a sole port of the accumulator, as taught by Mercier, renders the claimed invention obvious.
Alternatively, in another interpretation of KR600 (where [24] refers only to [23]):
Regarding Claim 18, KR600 teaches
A method for operating a hydraulic door drive, the method comprising the following steps:
utilizing the hydraulic door drive (Fig. 1) for driving a lifting door that opens (Fig. 2), wherein the lifting door comprises at least one door curtain (100, ex. Figs. 1-2, ex. [23]),
providing at least one hydraulic motor (3) configured to drive the at least one door curtain (Figs. 1-2, ex. [22, 24]);
providing at least one hydraulic unit, comprising a hydraulic pump (2) and at least one main directional control valve (6), for supplying the at least one hydraulic motor of the hydraulic door drive with pressurized hydraulic fluid; and
providing a pressure accumulator (9) connected to the at least one hydraulic motor, wherein the pressure accumulator is in fluid communication with the at least one hydraulic motor, the at least one main directional control valve and the hydraulic pump (Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one main directional control valve (6) enables fluid communication between the at least one hydraulic motor, the hydraulic pump and the pressure accumulator in order to store potential energy fluid pressure generated by downward movement of the at least one door curtain being allowed to close due to the weight of the at least one door curtain and driving the at least one hydraulic motor to provide the potential energy fluid pressure to the pressure accumulator and thereby storing the potential energy fluid pressure within the pressure accumulator (ex. Fig. 1, [24]); and
providing at least one secondary directional control valve (8a or 8b) in direct fluid communication with the pressure accumulator, wherein the at least one secondary directional control valve enables the potential energy fluid pressure stored in the pressure accumulator to be discharged to the at least one hydraulic motor and to thereby drive the at least one hydraulic motor to open or close the at least one door curtain (ex. Fig. 1, [24]).
KR600 does not teach
via a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator
or to be at least concomitantly driven by the at least one door curtain,
in order to store potential energy fluid pressure generated by downward movement of the at least one door curtain being allowed to close due to the weight of the at least one door curtain and driving the at least one hydraulic motor to provide the potential energy fluid pressure to the pressure accumulator and thereby storing the potential energy fluid pressure within the pressure accumulator.
KR600 teaches an accumulator with two ports:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mercier teaches
For a hydraulic door drive
a sole port provided in the pressure accumulator (Fig. 3 or Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image3.png
300
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
394
190
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kacludis teaches
For a hydraulic drive lifting and lowering a load (liftgate, Figs. 1-9),
providing at least one hydraulic motor (100 - Fig. 4; 422, 424 - Fig. 9) configured to drive at least one load (“liftgate”) or to be at least concomitantly driven by the at least one load (ex. Col. 8, lines 53-60, Col. 10, line 17-Col. 11, line 43, Col. 11, line 62-Col. 12, line 43),
a pressure accumulator (140 - Fig. 4; 440 - Fig. 9) connected to the at least one hydraulic motor (100 - Fig. 4; 422, 424 - Fig. 9),
in order to store potential energy fluid pressure generated by downward movement of the at least one load being allowed to lower due to the weight of the at least one load and driving the at least one hydraulic motor to provide the potential energy fluid pressure to the pressure accumulator and thereby storing the potential energy fluid pressure within the pressure accumulator (ex. Col. 8, lines 53-60, Col. 10, lines 37-44).
Since both KR600 and Mercier references are directed to hydraulic door drives, 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 accumulator and associated connections of KR600 to use a sole port as taught by Mercier in order to provide an alternative arrangement that would perform equally well with predictable results. This also provides the added benefit of using a simpler form of an accumulator that use only one hole instead of two in the housing. Using a line between valves 10 and 8b of KR600 with a connection to a sole port of the accumulator, as taught by Mercier, renders the claimed invention obvious.
Since both KR600 and Kacludis references are directed to hydraulic drives for lifting and lowering loads, 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 hydraulic drive of KR600 to store potential energy in the form of fluid pressure in the accumulator from a lowering load as taught by Kacludis in order to reduce energy consumption of the pump. Once the teachings of Kacludis is applied to KR600 (note the load in KR600 is the door curtain) then the remainder of the claim language is met.
Regarding Claim 19,
The method according to claim 18, wherein pressurized hydraulic fluid is fed from the at least one hydraulic unit to the at least one hydraulic motor (Fig. 1, ex. [22-25, 28]).
Regarding Claim 20,
The method according to claim 18, wherein at least one port (5 or 7) acts as a hydraulic fluid inlet of the at least one hydraulic motor.
Regarding Claim 21,
The method according to claim 18, wherein the pressure accumulator and a pressurized fluid supply line (any of lines connecting 2 to 6 or 6 to 3 or 9 to 3) of the at least one hydraulic unit are connected with at least one port (5 or 7) acting as a hydraulic outlet of the at least one hydraulic motor.
Regarding Claim 22,
The method according to claim 18, wherein the pressure accumulator is connected with a supply line of the at least one hydraulic motor, and wherein the at least one hydraulic unit is prevented from providing pressurized hydraulic fluid to drive the at least one hydraulic motor via the at least one main directional control valve (ex. system off).
Regarding Claim 25,
The method according to claim 18, the method further comprising loading the pressure accumulator with fluid pressure generated by the hydraulic pump (ex. [28]).
Claim 5, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR600 in view of Mercier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of King et al. (US 20070120377).
Regarding Claim 5, KR600 as modified teaches
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1.
KR600 as modified does not teach
wherein the hydraulic door drive comprises a hydraulic linear actuator interacting with the at least one door curtain in order to lock the at least one door curtain and secure the at least one door curtain against falling
King teaches
For a hydraulic door drive,
wherein the hydraulic door drive comprises a hydraulic linear actuator (430, Fig. 9, ex. [0034]) interacting with the at least one door curtain in order to lock the at least one door curtain and secure the at least one door curtain against falling.
Since both references are directed to hydraulic door drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hydraulic door drive of KR600 to also include a hydraulic linear actuator for locking the door curtain against falling as taught by King in order to provide a manner of locking the door to prevent inadvertent lowering of the door, thereby increasing the safety of the door.
Claim 6, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR600 in view of Mercier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kersten et al. (US 4941320, on applicant’s IDS).
Regarding Claim 6, KR600 as modified teaches
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1.
KR600 as modified does not teach
wherein the at least one hydraulic motor is configured with a brake in order to secure the at least one door curtain against falling.
Kersten teaches
For a hydraulic door drive,
wherein the at least one hydraulic motor (47, ex. Figs. 1, 6, ex. Col. 3, lines 31-41) is configured with a brake (49) in order to secure the at least one door curtain against falling.
Since both references are directed to hydraulic door drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hydraulic door drive of KR600 to also include a brake for the hydraulic motor as taught by Kersten in order to provide a manner of holding the motor in a braked position against undesired movement, thereby increasing safety of the door.
Claim 7, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR600 in view of Mercier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pedersen (US 4274328).
Regarding Claim 7, KR600 as modified teaches
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1.
KR600 as modified does not teach
wherein a line rupture protection valve is provided in an interconnection line between the pressure accumulator and the at least one hydraulic motor in order to secure the at least one door curtain against falling.
Pedersen teaches
For a hydraulic lifting system,
wherein a line rupture protection valve (16’) is provided in an interconnection line between a pressure source (10’) and a hydraulic motor (12’) in order to secure a hydraulically actuated load against falling.
The present invention is an improvement upon this type of apparatus, and it accomplishes the arrangement of a hydraulic safety system which is self-actuating and is reliable and operative in the event that the hydraulic pressure is inadvertently reduced, and the lifted load or the like wll [sic] not be immediately released in response to the reduced hydraulic pressure. (Col. 1, lines 22-30; ex. Col. 1, lines 8-53).
Since both references are directed to hydraulic lifting systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hydraulic door drive of KR600 to also include a line rupture protection valve as taught by Pedersen in order to provide a manner of holding the motor with the lifted door curtain such that in the event that the hydraulic pressure is inadvertently reduced, and the lifted load or the like wll [sic] not be immediately released in response to the reduced hydraulic pressure. Once the modification is made to KR600, the remainder of the claim language is met.
Claim 9, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR600 in view of Mercier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mercier.
Regarding Claim 9, KR600 as modified teaches
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1.
KR600 as modified does not teach
wherein the at least one hydraulic motor comprises at least two hydraulic motors, wherein the at least one door curtain comprises at least two door curtains, and wherein the hydraulic pump is coupled to each of the at least two hydraulic motors of each of the at least two door curtains.
Mercier teaches
For a hydraulic door drive,
wherein the at least one hydraulic motor (136) comprises at least two hydraulic motors (note plurality of 105 in Fig. 3, also Col. 4, lines 66-70), wherein the at least one door comprises at least two doors, and wherein the hydraulic pump (97) is coupled to each of the at least two hydraulic motors of each of the at least two door.
Since both references are directed to hydraulic door drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hydraulic door drive of KR600 to also include another hydraulic motor and door as taught by Mercier in order to provide an appropriate manner of actuating plural doors from a single pump. This also multiple doors to be opened with only one pump. As KR600 teaches door curtain type doors, once the teaching of Mercier is applied to KR600 the remainder of the claim language is met.
Claim 12, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR600 in view of Mercier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lofts (US 2924031).
Regarding Claim 12, KR600 as modified teaches
The hydraulic door drive according to claim 1.
KR600 as modified does not explicitly teach
wherein the hydraulic pump comprises a linear pump actuated by loading an operating ramp.
Lofts teaches
For a hydraulic door drive,
wherein the hydraulic pump comprises a linear pump (with 168, 178, Fig. 10) actuated by loading (ex. by a vehicle) an operating ramp (188).
Since both references are directed to hydraulic door drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hydraulic door drive of KR600 to also include a linear pump actuated by loading an operating ramp as taught by Lofts in order to provide an alternate manner of pumping fluid for the hydraulic circuit, thereby providing a redundant manner of actuation of the door.
Claim 23, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR600 in view of Mercier as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Lofts, or, alternatively, over KR600 in view of Mercier and Kacludis as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Lofts.
Regarding Claim 23, KR600 as modified in either rejection above teaches
The method according to claim 18.
KR600 as modified does not teach
wherein the hydraulic pump comprises a linear pump actuated by loading an operating ramp.
Lofts teaches
For a hydraulic door drive,
wherein the hydraulic pump comprises a linear pump (with 168, 178, Fig. 10) actuated by loading (ex. by a vehicle) an operating ramp (188).
Since both references are directed to hydraulic door drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hydraulic door drive of KR600 to also include a linear pump actuated by loading an operating ramp as taught by Lofts in order to provide an alternate manner of pumping fluid for the hydraulic circuit, thereby providing a redundant manner of actuation of the door.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would appear to 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745