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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7-8, 14, 16-20 & 22-23 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is withdrawn. Claims 2-6, 9-13, 15& 21 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening defines a first terminal circumferential end and a second opposite terminal circumferential end, and the second sealing ridge is wider in the radial direction than the first sealing ridge exclusively in a circumferential region that is defined between the first and second circumferential ends
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 7-8, 14, 16-20 & 22-23 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.
As to Claim 7, the limitation “the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening defines a first terminal circumferential end and a second opposite terminal circumferential end, and the second sealing ridge is wider in the radial direction than the first sealing edge exclusively in a circumferential region that is defined between the first and second circumferential ends” is considered new matter. This limitation is a negative limitation. This claim requires the second sealing ridge is wider in the radial direction than the first sealing ridge such that the span of the width does NOT extend beyond the first and second terminal circumferential ends. There is no support in the specification for this negative limitation. The original disclosure only has support for a broad region associated with the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening, but does not define where the region begins or ends. As such, any attempt to define where the claimed region begins or ends does not have supporting the original disclosure.
The term “exclusive”, or any variation thereof, was only used once in the specification, at the bottom of Page 10, describing how the drum 4 exclusively contacts the second portion 22 of the control plate 15. This section does not describe any details of the second sealing ridge, so does not provide any boundaries for the claimed region.
The original 10/13/2022 claim set uses the term “exclusively” twice, once each in Claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 do describe the second sealing ridge width, but only broadly in terms of a generic region. No mention of the wider portion of the second sealing ridge being exclusively between first and second circumferential ends is made. Additionally, none of the original claims —or the original disclosure—provide any guidance on the specific boundaries of the claimed region.
Instant application Figure 3 may show the wider portion of the second sealing ridge being exclusively between first and second circumferential ends. However, it is difficult to ascertain where the wider portion begins and ends due to the angled view of the control plate in Figure 3. Since a planar view is not provided, it is not possible to positively ascertain where the wider portion begins or ends, and any interpretation stating the wider portion is within the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening may just be an optical illusion due to the sole angle provided in the original disclosure. Additionally, the figures do not define where the first and second circumferential ends are defined. For instance, the respective circumferential ends may be broadly interpreted in the two central openings shown in Figure 3. This would place the wider region outside of the respective circumferential ends, not exclusively between the ends, as claimed.
Lastly, Applicant is attempting to redefine the claimed region from a broad bounded (i.e., anywhere on the high pressure side of the plate between either end of the low-pressure openings) region to a narrow bounded (i.e., between the circumferential ends) region. This redefinition does not have support, especially when used in combination with the term “exclusively”. As illustrated below, Applicant does not have support for removing Area 1 from the defined exclusive region. Applicant is attempting to claim only Region B, whereas the original disclosure allows for the all of Region A.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Instant Application Figure 3, Modified by Examiner
For the reasons stated above, the limitation does not have sufficient written support in the originally filed disclosure, so is considered new matter.
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 7-8, 14, 16-20 & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopecki (U.S. PGPub 2017/0159640), as evidenced by vocabulary.com (see Opening - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms _ Vocabulary.com pdf from vocabulary.com/dictionary/opening), as further evidenced by collinsdictionary.com (see attached CIRCUMFERENTIAL definition in American English _ Collins English Dictionary pdf from collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/circumferential#google_vignette).
As to Claim 7, Kopecki teaches an axial piston machine (the machine shown in Figure 1, using the control plate shown in Figure 18), comprising:
a housing (Paragraph 0031);
a cylinder drum (1) rotatably mounted in (Paragraph 0055) the housing (Paragraph 0031) and defining (as shown in Figure 1) piston recesses (2/18); and
a control plate (Figure 18) which has at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening (20; see Figure 18 below) and at least one kidney-shaped low-pressure control opening (22; see Figure 18 below), which are configured to alternately connect (Paragraph 0060) the piston recesses (2/18) of the cylinder drum (1) to a high-pressure connection and a low-pressure connection (Paragraph 0060), respectively, during rotation of (Paragraph 0015) the cylinder drum (1),
wherein, on a contact face (see Figure 18 below, shown as 14 in Figure 1) between (as shown in Figure 1) the control plate (Figure 18) and the cylinder drum (1), a radially inner, first sealing ridge (see Figure 18 below) and a radially outer, second sealing ridge (see Figure 18 below) are formed (as shown in Figure 18), the second sealing ridge (see Figure 18 below) being wider in a radial direction (see end of paragraph for clarification), in some portions, than the first sealing ridge (see Figure 18 below),
wherein the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening (20; see Figure 18 below; note the website vocabulary.com defines the term “opening” as “an open or empty space in or between things”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the notch portion of the high-pressure opening extending counterclockwise shown in Figure 18 below is “an open or empty space in or between things” of the high-pressure opening) defines a first terminal circumferential end (see Figure 18 below; note the website collinsdictionary.com defines the term “circumferential” as “of, at, or near the circumference; surrounding; lying along the outskirts”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the first terminal end shown in Figure 18 below is “lying on the outskirts” of the high-pressure opening) and a second opposite terminal circumferential end (see Figure 18 below), and the second sealing ridge (see Figure 18 below) is wider in the radial direction than the first sealing ridge (see Figure 18 below) in (as shown in Figure 18) a circumferential region (the region between the first terminal circumferential end and the second terminal circumferential end, from the first terminal circumferential end clockwise to the second terminal circumferential end, as viewed in Figure 18) that is defined between (as shown in Figure 18) the first and second circumferential ends (see Figure 18 below) and encompasses each opening (as shown in Figure 18 below) of the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening (20; see Figure 18 below), and
wherein the at least one kidney-shaped low-pressure control opening (22; see Figure 18 below) is arranged outside (as shown in Figure 18 below) the circumferential region (the region between the first terminal circumferential end and the second terminal circumferential end, from the first terminal circumferential end clockwise to the second terminal circumferential end, as viewed in Figure 18). The additional relief field 546 in the third quarter 38 of the control plate shown in Figure 18 shows the second sealing surface as being wider in the radial direction than the first sealing ridge outside of the third quadrant. When viewing Figure 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the second sealing ridge is wider than the first sealing ridge.
PNG
media_image2.png
632
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kopecki Figure 18, Modified by Examiner
Kopecki Figure 18 does not teach the second sealing ridge is wider in the radial direction than the first sealing ridge exclusively in a circumferential region that is defined between the first and second circumferential ends.
Kopecki Figure 7 is presented as an alternative placement for the wider portion (246) of the second sealing ridge, and teaches the second sealing ridge (see Figure 7 below) is wider (246) in the radial direction (radially out from the center of control plate 12) than the first sealing ridge (see Figure 7 below) exclusively in (as shown in Figure 7) a circumferential region (the region starting at the first circumferential end, moving clockwise, and terminating at the second circumferential end, as shown in Figure 7 below) that is defined between (as shown in Figure 7) the first (see Figure 7 below; note the website collinsdictionary.com defines the term “circumferential” as “of, at, or near the circumference; surrounding; lying along the outskirts”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the first terminal end shown in Figure 7 below is “lying on the outskirts” of the high-pressure opening) and second (see Figure 7 below) circumferential ends.
PNG
media_image3.png
405
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kopecki Figure 7, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the wider portion of the second sealing ridge, as taught by Kopecki Figure 18, exclusively in the circumferential region, as taught by Kopecki Figure 7, to counteract tilting of the cylinder drum (Paragraph 0015) in which the tilting is approximately 30° (Paragraph 0069).
Additionally, Kopecki Paragraphs 0063-0073 & 0082-0086 continues to teach the placement of the wider portion of the second sealing ridge –the relief surface—is a result-effective variable, where the placement of the wider portion of the second sealing ridge is dictated by the tilting direction of the cylinder drum (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the wider portion of the second sealing ridge exclusively in the circumferential region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 8, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach the first sealing ridge (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) and the second sealing ridge (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) are formed on (as shown in Figure 18) the control plate (Figure 18).
As to Claim 14, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach the axial piston machine (the machine shown in Figure 1, using the control plate shown in Figure 18) possesses (as shown in Figure 18) a swash plate (10) design.
As to Claim 16, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach the second sealing ridge (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) has a radially outwardly directed extension (the extension of the second sealing ridge 546) in (as shown in Figure 7, and as an obvious optimization) the circumferential region (the region between the first terminal circumferential end and the second terminal circumferential end, from the first terminal circumferential end clockwise to the second terminal circumferential end, as viewed in Figure 18) defined between (as shown in Figure 18) the first and second circumferential ends (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above). The portion of the second sealing ridge in region 546, in Figure 18, extends radially outward from the rest of the second sealing ridge.
As to Claim 17, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach in the radial direction (up and down in Figure 1), the control plate (12 in Figure 1, using the control plate in Figure 18) has a first portion (see Figure 1 below), a second portion (see Figure 1 below) and a third portion (see Figure 1 below), and the second portion (see Figure 1 below) has a greater thickness (as shown in Figure 1) in an axial direction (left and right in Figure 1) than the first portion (see Figure 1 below) and the third portion (see Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
875
833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kopecki Figure 1, Modified by Examiner
As to Claim 18, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 7 & 17, and continues to teach a control face (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) of the control plate (Figure 18) includes the contact face (14), and the control face (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) is formed in (as shown in Figures 1/18) the second portion (see Figure 1 in the Claim 17 rejection above).
As to Claim 19, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening (20; see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) includes a plurality of kidney-shaped high-pressure control openings (20; see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) having different dimensions (at least the kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening in first quadrant 38 has different dimensions than the rest of the kidney-shaped high-pressure control openings due to the tail shape on the kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening in first quadrant 38).
As to Claim 20, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach the contact face (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) is an annular contact face (as shown in Figure 18).
As to Claim 22, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach the second sealing ridge (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) has a radially outwardly directed extension (the extension of the second sealing ridge 546) exclusively in (as shown in Figure 7, and as an obvious optimization) the circumferential region (the region between the first circumferential end and the second circumferential end, from the first circumferential end clockwise to the second circumferential end) between (as shown in Figure 18) the first and second circumferential ends (see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above).
As to Claim 23, Kopecki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, and continues to teach the at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening (20; see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above) includes four (Figure 18 shows 5, so teaches 4) kidney-shaped high-pressure control openings (20; see Figure 18 in the Claim 7 rejection above), each of which has different dimensions (at least the kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening in first quadrant 38 has different dimensions than the rest of the kidney-shaped high-pressure control openings due to the tail shape on the kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening in first quadrant 38; as such each of the remaining openings have a different dimension than the opening with the tail shape).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant argues instant application Figure 3 shows the objected to claim language. Examiner disagrees.
Since Applicant redefined –without support—the boundaries of the claimed region, Applicant has also failed to show the redefined boundary with respect to the other structure in Figure 3. As such, the objection is maintained.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection, Applicant argues the rejection should be withdrawn with multiple points. Examiner disagrees with each point, as described below.
Applicant argues (see Point 1 on Page 8 of the 09/09/2025 Applicant Remarks) the written description requirement is satisfied when the application reasonably conveys to those skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date, and the burden is on the Examiner to show the written description is not satisfied with a preponderance of evidence; implying the original disclosure does have sufficient support, and Examiner did not meet these requirements, although Applicant provided no supporting evidence in Point 1. Since Applicant did not provide any evidence in Point 1, Examiner refers to the 112(a) rejection above as evidence the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description, and a thorough and complete written description is provided by Examiner.
Applicant argues (see Point 2 on Page 9 of the 09/09/2025 Applicant Remarks) Examiner has not provided a proper 112(a) analysis, claiming the Examiner did not consider whether the specification as a whole reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the invention. Examiner disagrees. A prima facie rejection has been provided above, which clearly considers the specification as a whole, including annotated figures, and citing specific language in the specification. As such, Applicant’s argument for Point 2 is not persuasive. If Applicant still believes Examiner’s analysis is incorrect, Applicant should point to specific problems in Examiner’s analysis.
Applicant argues (see Point 3 on Page 9 of the 09/09/2025 Applicant Remarks) the original disclosure provides implicit and explicit support for the claimed limitation, by pointing to originally filed Claims 11-12. Applicant concedes the claimed region is not explicitly defined in the original disclosure, but contends the most reasonable interpretation of the “region is that it encompasses the region between the ends of the high-pressure control openings, as is explicitly shown in the drawings”. Applicant also argues Examiner did not present any alternative theory explaining how one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably interpret the limitation. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion.
First, original Claims 11 & 12 only state the claimed region is “exclusively in the region of the at least one high-pressure control opening” —Claim 11--, and the radially outwardly directed extension is “exclusively in the region of the at least one high-pressure control opening”. However, neither of Claims 11 or 12 —nor the original disclosure—describe the specific boundaries of the claimed region. One of ordinary skill in the art would only conclude the claimed region is broadly associated with the at least one high-pressure control opening, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have no way of concluding the specific boundaries of the claimed region.
As described in the rejection above, there is nothing in the original disclosure which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude the claimed region has defined boundaries. It would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude —among other reasonable interpretations-- the claimed region could begin and end anywhere between the disclosed at least one kidney-shaped high-pressure control opening and the disclosed at least one kidney-shaped low-pressure control opening --which is an alternative theory explaining how one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably interpret the limitation. When considering this, the claimed limitation with the narrowly –and unsupported-- defined region is neither “inherent” nor “implied” as argued by Applicant.
Applicant continues to argue instant application Figure 3 shows the claimed limitation. Examiner points to previous responses to this argument in previous rejections, since this point has been beaten to death. Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s statement. Even if Applicant is correct, the argument is moot, since the argument is not directed to the issue at hand. The issue is the redefinition of the claimed region, which the original disclosure does not have sufficient support for.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 7, Applicant argues Kopecki, as modified, does not teach each of the claimed limitations. Specifically, Applicant argues Kopecki Figure 7 does not show the wider portion of the second sealing ridge exclusively in the circumferential region, since the notch is not kidney shaped or an opening. Examiner disagrees.
With regards to the use of the term kidney shaped, it appears, Applicant appears to be arguing subject matter which is not claimed. There is nothing in the claim which requires the notch to be kidney shaped, only that the high-pressure control opening be kidney shaped. What is claimed is the kidney shaped high-pressure control opening defines first and second terminal circumferential ends, which Kopecki is shown to do in the 103 rejection above, since the Kopecki opening defines the right side of the notch, as shown in Figure 7.
Further, it appears Applicant is using very narrow and unsupported definition for the term “opening”. As described in the 103 rejection above, the rejection is in line with the definition provided by vocabulary.com. However, it should also be pointed out, the limitation also does not require the first and second terminal ends to be openings, only that the high-pressure openings define the respective terminal ends, as Kopecki does.
Applicant also appears to be using a very narrow and unsupported definition for the term “kidney shaped”. It is not clear what definition Applicant is using, since the term was nether defined by the original disclosure nor Applicant. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude “kidney shaped” is a shape which resembles a kidney with minor deviations. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the high-pressure openings with or without the notch is broadly kidney shaped, since the notch would only be considered a minor deviation.
In light of the above, all rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783