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 7/26/24. Amended Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 16-20 are pending.
Regarding the previous drawing objections, the amended drawings overcome these objections.
Regarding the previous claim objections, these have been overcome by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks (p. 10) have clarified the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding the previous 103 rejection of Erznozik in view of Andre, applicant’s arguments (p. 11-14) are considered persuasive as the claimed “a flow controller valve...” as proposed in the 103 combination would result in a different control than the “...prevent the passage of fluid through the supply duct of the hydraulic pump toward the three-position valve so that the displacement of the hydraulic pump is zero or is neutral” and it would not be obvious to further modify Erznozik with the other cited prior art of record to arrive at the applicant's instant invention.
Regarding the previous double patenting issues, these have been remedied by the deletion of claims 10, 12-15.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/25/24 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 uses a possessive (“valve’s”). Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 16, 17, 18, and 20 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 16 recites the limitation "the drive assistance" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Deletion of “the” could remedy this; contrast with Claim 19.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the drive assistance" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Deletion of “the” could remedy this; contrast with Claim 19.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the drive assistance" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Deletion of “the” could remedy this; contrast with Claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the drive assistance" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Deletion of “the” could remedy this; contrast with Claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 19 are allowed.
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 10am-5pm.
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
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745