DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 08/10/2026.
Claims are currently pending and have been examined below. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/20/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The foreign reference JP 7010073A was not considered as it does not have an abstract provided.
Specification
The amendment filed on 08/10/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
(i) In lines 4-6 of par. 26 “The fluid-driven hatch utilizes a fluid drive source, such as a pneumatic drive commonly found on rail cars and trailer trucks, to generate a fluid force from fluid pressure that exceeds local ambient or atmospheric pressure”.
(ii) In lines 8-10, “Once the fluid pressure in the fluid conduit increases to a first (lower) fluid pressure above ambient or atmospheric, the lock actuator is actuated to unlock a closed hatch cover”.
(iii) In lines 3-5 of par. 45, “The fluid drive source supplies elevated fluid pressure (i.e., at a pressure above ambient or atmospheric) to a fluid conduit that is in communication with both a fluid-driven cover actuator and a fluid-driven lock actuator”.
The amendment designates specific value to the first fluid pressure that was not previously disclosed nor supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not disclose exact pressure values for the actuation of the latch and the cover, therefore the specific values of the fluid pressures introduces new matter issues.
In applicant’s remarks, applicant notes “Thus, it is clear from the original disclosure that a pressure increase is required to reach the first internal pressure, and Applicant submits that it would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the "elevated" pressures in question would be relative to ambient or atmospheric, as fluid-driven equipment of this type is generally designed to operate in response to fluid pressures higher than ambient or atmospheric, unless designed as a vacuum-driven system”. The highlighted quotes above implies that there is an assumption regarding to these ‘elevated’ pressures being relative to the ambient or atmospheric pressures. Furthermore, as applicant noted in the arguments, it is known by one of the ordinary skill in the art that internal pressures can also be below ambient or atmospheric pressures if they are utilizing vacuum systems and since the original disclosure does not disclose that the pressure system of the invention uses a vacuum-driven system, the internal pressures of applicant’s invention can be below atmospheric pressures and one cannot assume that the ‘elevated’ pressure is relative to ambient or atmospheric pressure.
In applicant’s remarks, applicant also notes “Support may be found in at least original claims 7 and 16, which included the statement "a bidirectional valve that is ... configured to be selectively toggled between an opening state that increases the fluid pressure at said fluid-driven lock actuator to said first internal pressure."”. Examiner notes that this only discloses that there is a base fluid pressure (before the lock actuator is actuated) that is lower than the first internal pressure. Neither claims 7 nor 16 places a specific value for the first internal pressure relative to the ambient or atmospheric pressure values.
Examiner notes that if this amendment was directed to the specification objection below, note that examiner presented an option that would not introduce new matter issues by not designating specific values to the first internal pressure and second internal pressure (i.e., the first and second internal pressures are elevated relative to when the actuators are not actuating either the latch or the cover).
Lastly, examiner also notes that ambient or atmospheric pressure is not a fixed value such that different factors can change this pressure value and the original disclosure does not provide sufficient support regarding the parameters on what quantifies as “ambient or atmospheric”. See attached resource below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
1196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Source: https://www.starpumpalliance.com/expertise/pump-lexicon/atmospheric-pressure/
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par. 44, “The fluid drive source supplies elevated fluid pressure to a fluid conduit that is in communication with both a fluid-driven cover actuator and a fluid-driven lock actuator” is objected because it is unclear what is ‘elevated’ mean. Are the pressures elevated from a state when the cover and lock actuators are not actuating the respective cover and latch or that the second internal pressure is an elevated first internal pressure?
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1
Recitations such as “when the fluid pressure in said fluid conduit reaches a first internal pressure above ambient pressure” on lines 16-17 discloses new matter issues. See same new matter issues set forth in the specification objection above.
Claim 14
Recitations such as “when the fluid pressure in said fluid conduit reaches a first elevated internal pressure above ambient pressure” on lines 19-20 discloses new matter issues. See same new matter issues set forth in the specification objection above.
All claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected for including the 112 issues of the claim from which it depends.
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 1-4 and 6-17 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.
Claims 1 and 14
The term “above ambient pressure” in claims 1 and 14, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “above ambient pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As noted in the source above, the ambient or atmospheric pressure is not a fixed value and that different factors affect this value. The scope of the claim is unclear because the original disclosure does not provide sufficient parameters that one of the ordinary skill in the art would be able to appreciate the actual scope or value of the of the term ‘ambient pressure’. For the purpose of the examination below, the ambient pressure was interpreted as the internal pressure under certain parameters that allows the fluid-driven lock actuator to perform its function. This issue is also present in claim 14.
Claim 14
The term “elevated” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is applicant attempting to claim that the internal fluid pressure is continued to rise past the second internal pressure, or is the limitation merely a statement that the second internal pressure is the elevated pressure of the first internal pressure, or that the first internal pressure and second internal pressure are higher pressures compared to the internal pressure when none of the actuators were actuated? Also, the limitation ‘elevated’ blurs the scope of the claim as it is unclear how ‘elevated’ actually are both first internal pressure and second internal pressure.
All claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected for including the 112 issues of the claim from which it depends. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulte (DE 102010002625).
Note that a translated copy of Schulte was attached with this Office Action, please refer to that document for reference to the specification.
Claim 1
(Schulte discloses) A fluid-driven hatch (figure 1) for a bulk material container (intended use; the invention of Schulte can be used to operate openings of a bulk material container), said hatch comprising:
a fluid-driven cover actuator (9 and 10) configured to be coupled at a hatch opening in the bulk material container (intended use);
a cover (door; not shown but disclosed at least on abstract and page 9 of the specification) coupled to said fluid-driven cover actuator and movable in response to said fluid-driven cover actuator (last par. of page 9), between an open configuration (movement towards direction 6) wherein the hatch opening is substantially uncovered, and a closed configuration (movement towards direction 5) wherein the hatch opening is substantially covered (page 9 and first par. of page 10);
a locking device (3 and 14-16) comprising a latch (3) and a fluid-driven lock actuator (14) adapted to selectively move said latch from a locked position (last 4 lines of page 11 to the first par. of page 12 discusses the closing mechanics of the door and latch which discusses that the latch 3 is raised in the stroke direction 4 when the door is closed) to an unlocked position (when the latch 3 is pressed down) when said cover is in said closed configuration (lines 24-32 of page 11 discussing the unlocked position of the latch prior to movement of the door to the open position); and
a fluid conduit (17 and 22-23) that fluidly connects said fluid-driven cover actuator, said fluid-driven lock actuator, and a fluid drive source (21), wherein said fluid conduit is configured so that during an unlocking operation a fluid pressure in said fluid conduit is conveyed to both said fluid-driven cover actuator and said fluid-driven lock actuator (line 22 of page 10 to line 4 of page 11);
wherein said fluid-driven lock actuator is configured to move said latch from said locked position to said unlocked position when the fluid pressure in said fluid conduit reaches a first internal pressure above ambient pressure (the first internal pressure in the actuator 14 to operate latch 3; lines 24-34 of page 11; note that this was interpreted as best understood by the examiner in light of the 112 issues above); and
wherein said fluid-driven cover actuator is configured to urge said cover from said closed configuration to said open configuration when the fluid pressure in said fluid conduit reaches a second internal pressure (the second internal pressure in the actuator 9 which leads to movement of rack 8 to the right; lines 20-36 of page 11) that is higher than the first internal pressure (Excerpt 1 from page 11 discusses an increased pressure in the cover actuator 9; note that lines 20-24 of page 11 discusses that there is already fluid pressure in the chamber 10 of the actuator 9 thus the additional increased pressure discussed in Excerpt 1 below teaches a higher internal pressure; also see definition of ‘increase’ below), wherein the second internal pressure is also applied to said fluid-driven lock actuator by the fluid drive source to maintain said latch in the unlocked position (this is taught since both actuators are always connected [see figure 1] thus the pressure in the cover actuator is also directed to the lock actuator).
PNG
media_image2.png
309
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
PNG
media_image3.png
96
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Claim 2
(Schulte discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 1, wherein when said cover is in said closed configuration, said latch is configured to move from said locked position to said unlocked position in response to said first internal pressure before said cover begins to move from said closed configuration to said open configuration in response to said second internal pressure (lines 20-34 of page 11).
Claim 4
(Schulte discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 1, wherein said fluid-driven cover actuator and said fluid-driven lock actuator are fluidly connected in parallel by said fluid conduit (figure 1; through line 22 and line 23).
Claim 7
(Schulte discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 1, further comprising a bidirectional valve (double-piston-cylinder 13) that is fluidly connected to said fluid conduit and configured to be selectively toggled between an opening state (state associated when rack 8 is moved to the right) that increases the fluid pressure at said fluid-driven lock actuator to said first internal pressure, and a closing state (state associated when rack 8 is moved to the left) that reduces the fluid pressure at said fluid-driven lock actuator to less than said first internal pressure (line 35 of page 11 to line 24 of page 12).
Claim 8
(Schulte discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 7, wherein said fluid-driven cover actuator comprises a first end, a second end, and a cover actuation rod (all three parts shown in Partial Annotated figure 1 below), wherein when said bidirectional valve is in said opening state a fluid pressure of said second end increases to said second internal pressure to urge said cover actuation rod away from said second end of said fluid-driven cover actuator (lines 20-34 of page 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
479
745
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 1
Claim 9
(Schulte discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 8, further comprising a rack and pinion assembly (7 and 8; figure 1) coupled to said cover and to said cover actuation rod, wherein as said cover actuation rod is urged away from said second end of said fluid-driven cover actuator, said rack and pinion assembly is actuated to rotate said cover towards said open configuration (lines 20-34 of page 11).
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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, and 7-9 above, in view of Matye (US 20180313131).
Claims 3 and 10
(Schulte discloses)
“The fluid-driven hatch of claim 1” (claim 3);
“The fluid-driven hatch of claim 9” (claim 10);
Schulte is silent regarding wherein said locking device further comprises a latch pivot, said latch pivotably coupled to said latch pivot and adapted to selectively move about said latch pivot in response to said fluid-driven lock actuator, wherein said latch is engaged with a latch receiver in said locked position to secure said cover in said closed configuration, and wherein said latch is disengaged from the latch receiver in said unlocked position.
(However, Matye teaches) a locking device (121; Matye figures 15-17A) further comprises a latch pivot (123), said latch pivotably coupled to said latch pivot and adapted to selectively move about said latch pivot in response to a fluid-driven lock actuator (160), wherein said latch is engaged with a latch receiver (129) in a locked position to secure a cover (114) in a closed configuration (Matye figure 17), and wherein said latch is disengaged from the latch receiver in said unlocked position (Excerpt 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Schulte with the locking device of Matye to further improve the locking of the device of Schulte as such improving security and further reducing the chances of accidental unlatching without affecting the operation of the fluid-driven lock actuator.
PNG
media_image5.png
206
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, and 7-9 above, in view of Strab (US 5515649).
Claim 6
(Schulte discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 1.
Schulte fails to disclose further comprising a remote hatch control operable to selectively move said cover between said open configuration and said closed configuration.
(However, Strab discloses) a remote hatch control (13 and 14; Strab figure 1) operable to selectively move a cover (17) between an open configuration and a closed configuration (lines 35-38 of col. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the system of Schulte with the remote hatch control of Strab for the expected and predictable benefits of long distance actuation and control of the cover therefore improving user convenience.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte in view of Matye, as applied to claims 3 and 10 above, in further view of Kelton (US 3964280).
Claim 11
(Schulte, as modified above, discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 10.
Modified Schulte fails to disclose wherein said latch comprises a distal portion having a ramp surface and a catch surface, said ramp surface configured to slide along the latch receiver as said cover moves to said closed configuration, wherein said latch pivots away from said locked position as said ramp surface slides along the latch receiver and said latch pivots back towards said locked position once said ramp surface has slid past the latch receiver, wherein said catch surface engages with the latch receiver to secure said cover in said closed configuration.
(However, Kelton teaches) a latch (28; Kelton figures 1-5) comprises a distal portion (top portion by 36) having a ramp surface (36) and a catch surface (horizontal flat surface below 36 engaging 34 in figure 1), said ramp surface configured to slide along a latch receiver (34) as a cover (14) moves to a closed configuration, wherein said latch pivots away from said locked position as said ramp surface slides along the latch receiver and said latch pivots back towards said locked position once said ramp surface has slid past the latch receiver (Excerpt 3 from col. 3 below), wherein said catch surface engages with the latch receiver to secure said cover in a closed configuration (Excerpt 3 below).
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 shape of the latch of modified Schulte with the shape of the latch of Kelton to provide the feature of the inclined surface and the function of the ramp and catch surfaces of the latch of Kelton (described in Excerpt 3 below) thus the shape of the modified latch engages with the latch receiver upon bearing the weight of the cover thus the camming engagement of the latch and latch receiver moves the cover to the closed configuration without significant force required therefore improving the security of the hatch.
PNG
media_image6.png
147
427
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 3
Claim 12
(Schulte, as modified above, discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 11, further comprising a resilient member (31) coupled to said fluid-driven lock actuator and configured to exert a biasing force on said fluid-driven lock actuator in a direction opposite to a fluid force exerted upon said fluid-driven lock actuator by the fluid drive source (lines 14-20 of page 12).
Claim 13
(Schulte, as modified above, discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 12, wherein said locking device is coupled to said cover (figure 1).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte in view of Strab.
Claim 14
(Schulte discloses) A fluid-driven hatch (figure 1) for a bulk material container (intended use; the invention of Schulte can be used to operate openings of a bulk material container), said hatch comprising:
a fluid-driven cover actuator (9 and 10) configured to be coupled at a hatch opening in the bulk material container (intended use);
a cover (door; not shown but disclosed at least on abstract and page 9 of the specification) coupled to said fluid-driven cover actuator, between an open configuration (movement towards direction 6) wherein the hatch opening is substantially uncovered, and a closed configuration (movement towards direction 5) wherein the hatch opening is substantially covered (page 9 and first par. of page 10);
a locking device (3 and 14-16) comprising a latch (3) and a fluid-driven lock actuator (14) adapted to selectively move said latch from a locked position (last 4 lines of page 11 to the first par. of page 12 discusses the closing mechanics of the door and latch which discusses that the latch 3 is raised in the stroke direction 4 when the door is closed) to an unlocked position (when the latch 3 is pressed down) when said cover is in said closed configuration (lines 24-32 of page 11 discussing the unlocked position of the latch prior to movement of the door to the open position); and
a fluid conduit (17 and 22-23) that fluidly connects said fluid-driven cover actuator, said fluid-driven lock actuator, and a fluid drive source (21), wherein said fluid conduit is configured so that during an unlocking operation a fluid pressure in said fluid conduit is conveyed to both said fluid-driven cover actuator and said fluid-driven lock actuator (line 22 of page 10 to line 4 of page 11);
wherein said fluid-driven lock actuator is configured to move said latch from said locked position to said unlocked position when the fluid pressure in said fluid conduit reaches a first elevated internal pressure above ambient pressure (the first internal pressure in the actuator 14 to operate latch 3; lines 24-34 of page 11; note that this was interpreted as best understood by the examiner in light of the 112 issues above); and
wherein said fluid-driven cover actuator is configured to urge said cover from said closed configuration to said open configuration when the fluid pressure in said fluid conduit reaches a second elevated internal pressure (the second internal pressure in the actuator 9 which leads to movement of rack 8 to the right; lines 20-36 of page 11) that is higher than the first elevated internal pressure (Excerpt 1 from page 11 discusses an increased pressure in the cover actuator 9; note that lines 20-24 of page 11 discusses that there is already fluid pressure in the chamber 10 of the actuator 9 thus the additional increased pressure discussed in Excerpt 1 below teaches a higher internal pressure), wherein the second elevated internal pressure is also applied to said fluid-driven lock actuator by the fluid drive source (this is taught since both actuators are always connected [see figure 1] thus the pressure in the cover actuator is also directed to the lock actuator).
Schulte fails to disclose a remote hatch control operable to selectively move said cover between said open configuration and said closed configuration, and to selectively move said latch between said locked position and said unlocked position.
(However, Strab discloses) a remote hatch control (13 and 14; Strab figure 1) operable to selectively move a cover (17) between an open configuration and a closed configuration (lines 35-38 of col. 4), and to selectively move a latch (58; Strab figure 4) between a locked position (position shown in Strab figure 4) and a unlocked position (depressed position of 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the system of Schulte with the remote hatch control of Strab for the expected and predictable benefits of long distance actuation and control of the cover therefore improving user convenience.
Claim 15
(Schulte, as modified above, discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 14, wherein said fluid-driven cover actuator and said fluid-driven lock actuator are fluidly connected in parallel by said fluid conduit (figure 1; through line 22 and line 23).
Claim 16
(Schulte, as modified above, discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 14, further comprising a bidirectional valve (double-piston-cylinder 13) that is fluidly connected to said fluid conduit and configured to be selectively toggled between an opening state (state associated when rack 8 is moved to the right) that increases the fluid pressure at said fluid-driven lock actuator to said first elevated internal pressure, and a closing state (state associated when rack 8 is moved to the left) that reduces the fluid pressure at said fluid-driven lock actuator to less than said first elevated internal pressure (line 35 of page 11 to line 24 of page 12).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte in view of Strab, as applied to claims 14-16 above, in view of Matye.
Claim 17
(Schulte, as modified above, discloses) The fluid-driven hatch of claim 14.
Modified Schulte is silent regarding wherein said locking device further comprises a latch pivot, said latch pivotably coupled to said latch pivot and adapted to selectively move about said latch pivot in response to said fluid-driven lock actuator, wherein said latch is engaged with a latch receiver in said locked position to secure said cover in said closed configuration, and wherein said latch is disengaged from the latch receiver in said unlocked position.
(However, Matye teaches) a locking device (121; Matye figures 15-17A) further comprises a latch pivot (123), said latch pivotably coupled to said latch pivot and adapted to selectively move about said latch pivot in response to a fluid-driven lock actuator (160), wherein said latch is engaged with a latch receiver (129) in a locked position to secure a cover (114) in a closed configuration (Matye figure 17), and wherein said latch is disengaged from the latch receiver in said unlocked position (Excerpt 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide modified Schulte with the locking device of Matye to further improve the locking of the device of Schulte as such improving security and further reducing the chances of accidental unlatching.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments directed to the specification objection have been considered, however since the amendments directed to the objection in the specification introduces new matter issues, the objection was maintained.
Applicant's amendments directed to the claim 112(b) rejections have been considered. Claim 5 was canceled therefore the rejection was withdrawn. Amendment directed to claim 14 introduces new matter issues therefore the rejection was maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
(i) “The Office Action reads two different elevated pressure levels in Schulte because there is an "increased pressure" used to open the door lock, and then "increased pressure" in the fluid line results in opening the door. However, Applicant does not read this interpretation into Schulte's disclosure. It is clear from Schulte's disclosure that one elevated fluid pressure first causes the lock to open once a pressure-sensitive check valve opens, and then the same elevated fluid pressure opens the door”,
(ii) “Although Schulte references "increasing pressure" and "the pressure increase in the pressure chamber can 10 be used to the rack 8th in 1 to move to the right with associated opening movement," this does not mean that Schulte teaches a higher fluid pressure actuates the door opening movement compared to the fluid pressure that actuates an unlock function”, and
(iii) “Once unlocked, the door opener 9 is able to open the now-unlocked door under the same fluid pressure being fed by the door opener supply line 22 to both the door opener 9 and the control line 35. Schulte does not teach or suggest any fluid pressure used to unlock the door, except to the extent that opening pressure in line 22 is used to open the check valve 33 so that the door's "dead weight" can cause it to sink and unlock, whereupon the same "increased" pressure in the door opener supply line 22 can then open the door as the pressure acts on opener 9”.
Examiner draws attention to the recitations of the independent claims 1 and 14: “wherein said fluid-driven lock actuator is configured to move said latch from said locked position to said unlocked position when the fluid pressure in said fluid conduit reaches a first internal pressure above ambient pressure”. The recitation of claims 1 and 14 recites that as long as the first internal pressure is reached, the fluid-driven lock actuator moves the latch to the unlocked position. This is emphasized because the claim does not recite that the first internal pressure is the exact pressure value that directly triggers the unlocking of the latch. For example, if the pressure that triggers the unlocking of the latch is 15 psi, the first internal pressure can be anywhere between 0-14 psi so long as the initial pressure of the system starts from 0 psi and increases therefrom.
Applicant agrees that Schulte discloses an increasing pressure within the conduit (see Excerpt 1 above). The rejection above and the previous rejection interpreted the first internal pressure as a pressure value lower than the pressure value that triggers the opening of the cover.
Applicant seems to interpret that the first internal pressure directly triggers the unlocking of the latch, which is much narrower than what the claims recite. If applicant wants this interpretation, applicant should further define the scope of the claims such that the first internal pressure is the threshold pressure value that directly triggers the unlocking of the latch.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights