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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed with the request for continued examination (RCE) on 05 August 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 11 & 13 have been amended and claims 14, 16-18, 23 & 27 have been cancelled. Claims 1-10 were cancelled by a previous amendment. Thus, claims 11-13, 15, 19-22 & 24-26 are presently pending in this application.
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 11-13, 15, 19-22 & 24-26 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 11 as amended recites “an end-position cushioning between the separator piston and the accumulator housing” and then recites “the accumulator housing includes a gap configured to build up a flow resistance which dampens a motion of the separator piston”, which raises several issues.
First, in the application as filed, the gap (72) is a part of the “end-position cushioning” not a part of the “accumulator housing”, per se. Rather, the gap of the end-position cushioning may be defined, in part, by a recess (78) formed in an end face of a closing part (24) of the accumulator, but the gap is also defined, in part, by the end face of the piston.
By contrast, the claim as now presented appears to require a “gap” to be defined by the accumulator housing itself, rather than by an “end position cushioning” defined between the closing part of the accumulator housing and the piston, causing the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Additionally, the scope of the still claimed “end-position cushioning” is now indefinite since the claim recites no details as to what is required of this element and does not relate the gap in the accumulator housing to the end-position cushioning.
Claim 20 recites that the accumulator housing includes :”a closing part which includes the media opening”. It is unclear if this “closing part” is intended to refer to the “end wall of the accumulator housing” or, if they differ in scope, how these similar elements are related, causing the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 11-13, 15, 19-22, 24 & 25 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perrott et al. (US 3,633,627; hereafter Perrott).
Regarding claim 11, Perrott discloses (figs. 1-5) a piston accumulator comprising:
an accumulator housing (incl. 20, 22, 34, 44);
a separator piston (24) configured to: (i) be moved longitudinally in the accumulator housing; and (ii) separate media spaces (i.e., the gas space above and the liquid space below, as in fig. 4) from each other; and
an end-position cushioning between the separator piston and the accumulator housing (i.e., the cushioning effect generated by the fluid interacting with the baffle 44 of the end wall as the piston approaches; see fig. 4 & col. 2, lines 37-41: “during its reverse displacement, the fluid is intercepted by baffle 44 which returns part of it in the direction of the piston as indicated by the arrows in FIG. 4. This slows down the return motion of the piston and eliminates ‘shock echo’”), wherein:
the accumulator housing includes a gap configured to build up a flow resistance which dampens a motion of the separator piston (i.e., the annular gap formed by the frustoconical portion of the baffle 44); and
the gap has a wedge-shaped cross section such that the gap narrows toward a longitudinal axis of the piston accumulator (see fig. 4; the gap, as may be defined by a height between a bottom of the recess and a top surface of the baffle, or between the end wall surface and a bottom edge of the piston, for example, has a wedge-shaped cross-section and narrows toward a longitudinal axis) and the gap has a bottom which is defined in an end wall of the accumulator housing (i.e., the bottom of the gap formed by the baffle 44, which serves as the end wall of the accumulator housing), the end wall of the accumulator housing facing the separator piston (as shown).
Regarding claim 12, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein: the gap is annular and surrounds a media opening (as shown); and the media opening is configured to media-conveyingly connect an interior of one of the media spaces (i.e., the interior of the liquid media space) and an exterior of the piston accumulator (i.e., the conduit system 12).
Regarding claim 13, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein the gap is configured to open into the media opening (i.e., at least when the piston is spaced from the end wall. See fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein a width of the gap decreases continuously in a direction of the media opening (see fig. 4, the width of the gap decreases continuously in a direction of the media opening due to the geometry of the frustoconical portion 48).
Regarding claim 19, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein at least a part of the gap is conical or frustoconical (see fig. 4; the part of the gap corresponding to the fluid space delimited by frustoconical baffle portion 48 is correspondingly frustoconical).
Regarding claim 20, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein the accumulator housing is defined by at least:
a housing wall (20); and
a closing part (incl. 44; or incl. 34 & 44) which includes the media opening.
Regarding claim 21, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein the media opening is configured to media-conveyingly connect the interior of the one of the media spaces (i.e., the lower liquid receiving space) and a media-conveying component (e.g., connecting joint 16) of a technical system (conduit system 12; incl. valve 14).
See also MPEP § 2114(II): "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In the instant case, the accumulator of Perrott is arranged such that the media opening is configured to media-conveyingly connect the interior of the liquid receiving space and a media-conveying component (e.g., joint 16 and/or conduits 12) of a system, and therefor discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim. Whether the system to which the accumulator is connected is a “technical system” appears to be a recitation of the intended use of the system, which does not form part of the claimed accumulator.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that connecting liquid chambers of piston accumulators to hydraulic technical systems via a media opening, in general, is well known in the art. See, e.g., US 4,577,663 to Andersen et al.
Regarding claim 22, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein the technical system is hydraulic.
It is noted that a common and accepted definition of “hydraulic” is “operated by or involving the pressure of water or some other liquid” (e.g., in contrast to a pneumatic / gas-based system).
Perrott discloses that the conduit system (12) to which the media opening is connected may convey “water or noncombustible fluid” (col. 2, lines 26-30) when the gas space is filled with air, or the conduit system (12) may convey “combustible fluids” such as “naphtha, gasoline and other petroleum products” (col. 2, lines 46-54), whereupon the gas space would be filled with an inert gas such as nitrogen.
See also MPEP § 2115: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding claim 24, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein the housing wall (20) is cylindrical (see fig. 2; col. 1, line 64: “a hollow cylindrical body 20”).
Regarding claim 25, the accumulator of Perrott reads on the additional limitation wherein the closing part (incl. 34 & 44) is cylindrical (see fig. 2).
In particular, closing part (incl. 34 & 44) is generally cylindrical as a whole, with outer portion 34 including at least a “cylindrical body or cap 36”, which is explicitly cylindrical, and the end wall / baffle portion 44 including a cylindrical base portion 46.
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.
Claim 26 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrott as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Elmer (US 3,613,734).
Regarding claim 26, Perrott discloses that the closing part (incl. 34 & 44) is configured to be attached to the housing wall (20), e.g., by soldering, brazing, or welding (col. 2, lines 1-3, 21-23), however, Perrott does not explicit disclose the closing part as configured to be screwed into the housing wall.
Elmer teaches a piston accumulator comprising a separator piston (7) and an accumulator housing (incl. 1 & 3), the accumulator housing comprising a housing wall (3) and a closing part (1) including a media opening (2), wherein the closing part is configured to be screwed into the housing wall (see fig; see also col. 2, lines 64-66: “A housing cylinder 3 is threadedly connected to end wall 1…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piston accumulator of Perrott such that the closing part is configured to be screwed into the housing wall, in view of the teachings of Elmer, as the use of a known technique (i.e., connecting a closing part of a piston accumulator to the housing wall by screw threads, as in Elmer) to improve a similar device (i.e., the piston accumulator of Perrott) in the same way (e.g., enabling the closing part to be removably attached to the housing wall in a well-known / conventional manner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2026 have been fully considered, however, applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections set forth in the previous action. New grounds of rejection have been applied to the amended claims in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
