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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 07/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the restriction election filed 07/25/2025 and the amendments filed 12/27/2024. As directed by the amendments: claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15-18 are amended; claims 3, 7, 14 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/27/2024, with respect to the drawing objections and claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/27/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “energy recovery device” in claims 5 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 and 18 are rejected under 112(b). Claim limitation “energy recovery device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. In the arguments provided on 12/27/2024, Applicant notes that the energy recovery device is described in paragraphs 0056 and 0089-0092. However, the energy recovery device is not further defined by any structure in those paragraphs. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 6 and 16-18 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 6 recites the limitation "the first side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the overall valve system, flow, and number of each element are unclear and indefinite. For instance, claim 16 recites “a plurality of main spool valves each actuating a respective hydraulic device, each of said main spool valves defining a delivery line and a discharge line” which is plural, but further recites a singular feed line and pressure compensator. Limitations such as “a pressure compensator comparing a local pressure taken at the delivery line” are unclear and indefinite because it is unknown which delivery line of the plurality is being claimed. There are multiple instances of similar indefinite limitations in claim 16. Figure 1 appears to have one feed line, two main spool valves, and two pressure compensators. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted in the singular because it is unclear and indefinite which elements are being claimed and how the elements function together.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, and 16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dixen et al. (EP 2,891,806).
PNG
media_image1.png
854
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 from Dixen.
Regarding claim 1, Dixen discloses:
A hydraulic distributor (1) comprising:
A main spool valve (2) for actuating a hydraulic device (connected to A, B), said main spool valve (2) defining a delivery line (see annotated figure above) and a discharge line T
A feed line (P) supplying a flow rate of an operating fluid at a working pressure to the delivery line (see annotated figure above) for actuating the hydraulic device (connected to A, B)
A pressure compensator (3) comparing a local pressure signal taken at the delivery line (see annotated figure above) and a maximum load sensing pressure signal representing the working pressure of said hydraulic device (connected to A, B; see paragraphs 0039 and 0030)
Wherein said pressure compensator (3) intercepts said delivery line (see annotated figure above) and said discharge line T (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 2, Dixen discloses:
Wherein both said delivery line (see annotated figure above) and said discharge line (T) are simultaneously intercepted by said pressure compensator 3 (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 6, Dixen discloses:
Wherein said pressure compensator (3) comprises a spring (11) proving an additional force to the local pressure signal acting on a first side (see paragraphs 0029 and 0030)
Regarding claim 16, Dixen discloses:
A hydraulic distributor (1) comprising:
A main spool valve (2) for actuating a hydraulic device (connected to A, B), said main spool valve (2) defining a delivery line (see annotated figure above) and a discharge line T
A feed line (P) supplying a flow rate of an operating fluid at a working pressure to the delivery line (see annotated figure above) for actuating the hydraulic device (connected to A, B)
A pressure compensator (3) comparing a local pressure signal taken at the delivery line (see annotated figure above) and a maximum load sensing pressure signal representing the working pressure of said hydraulic device (connected to A, B; see paragraphs 0039 and 0030)
An energy recovery line (see annotated figure above)
Further regarding this limitation, the energy recovery line has not been further defined.
Wherein said pressure compensator (3) intercepts said delivery line (see annotated figure above) and said discharge line T (see Figure 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, and 15 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 8-11 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.
Claims 5, 17, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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 supervisors, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881.. 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753