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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the objections have been fully considered and are persuasive because applicant’s amendments to the drawings remedies the drawing objection of the office action dated 10/23/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, and U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered are persuasive because claims 1-11 have been canceled and therefore moots these rejections. The objections of office action dated 10/23/2025 has been withdrawn.
See below for updated rejections to claim 12-25.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claims recite “a relief valve” within the first and second subsystems in claims 12 and 16. However, the specification does not discuss any “relief valve” and does not appear to show any relief valve in accordance with conventional definitions.
A relief valve as conventionally understood in hydraulic systems are valves that automatically opens when a pressure in the conduit exceeds a threshold valve. Applicant’s disclosure and hydraulic circuit as seen in applicant’s drawings do not appear to support any valve that corresponds to the claimed “relief valve”.
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 12-25 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.
Claims 12 and 16 recite “a relief valve”. However, applicant’s disclosure and hydraulic circuit as seen in applicant’s drawings do not appear to support any valve that corresponds to the claimed “relief valve”. A relief valve as conventionally understood in hydraulic systems are valves that automatically opens when a pressure in the conduit exceeds a threshold valve. As best understood, the only valves shown in applicant’s drawings are solenoid controlled directional control valves, inlet valves, and discharge valves. None of these automatically open without a control signal from the controller in response to a pressure in the circuit to function as a relief valve. The recitation of a “relief valve” appears to be new matter.
Dependent claims 13-15 and 17-25 fail the written description requirement because they depend from a base claim that fails the written description requirement.
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 12-25 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “relief valve” in independent claim 12 and 16 is used by the claim to mean “The respective release valves V3, V6 are designed as a 4/3-way directional
Valves 4/3 directional control valve” while the accepted meaning of a relief valve is “a valve for the escape of steam or fluid under excessive pressure” as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Independent claims 12 and 16 recite “a relief valve”. It is unclear whether or not this is a typographical error and “relief valve” is supposed to read “release valve” which is discussed in the specification.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the flow-control valve arrangement of the first subsystem and the flow-control valve arrangement of the second subsystem are configured to participate in a fixed correlation.” It is unclear what the valve arrangements are configured to participate in. As best understood, this limitation merely requires some control scheme that relates the first and second flow control valve arrangements together.
Dependent claims 13-15 and 17-25 are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite base claim.
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(s) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US 2008/0087014), hereinafter ‘Schick’ in view of Mason (US 3724330)
Regarding claim 12, Schick discloses: a hydraulic power steering system, comprising:
a steering actuator (12);
a first subsystem (18) including a flow-control valve arrangement including a relief valve (22);
a second subsystem (20) including a flow-control valve arrangement including a relief valve (24); and
a fault detection device (124), wherein:
the first subsystem and the second subsystem are configured to control the steering actuator in opposite steering directions (18 and 20 control the actuator 12 in both directions);
the fault detection device is configured to:
(i) determine and deactivate a faulty component of the first subsystem or the second subsystem (paragraph [0026]); and
(ii) cause a fault-free component of the first subsystem or the second subsystem to maintain control of the steering actuator (paragraph [0026]);
each of the flow-control valve arrangement of the first subsystem and the flow-control valve arrangement of the second subsystem includes an inlet valve and a discharge valve (inlet valve 40, 44; discharge valves 42, 46),
the inlet valve and the discharge valve being continuous-control valves configured to be electrically actuated by control signals (40, 42, 44, 46 are continuous electronically controlled valves) that,
the steering actuator is a hydraulic synchronous cylinder including a first fluid chamber and a second fluid chamber (chambers connected to 14 and 16 are symmetrical);
the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber are separated by a piston (apparent from the Schick Fig. 1); and
each of the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber is directly connected to an output side of the relief valve of the first subsystem and an output side of the relief valve of the second subsystem (see annotated Schick Fig. 1’, relief valves are directly connected to the first and second fluid chambers with output side connected directly to each chamber; absent further limitations to what an “output side” requires, the output conduit including the one way valve and the junction that is directly connected to a fluid chamber comprises an output side of a relief valve).
Schick does not explicitly disclose how it determines a failure in the system and does not explicitly disclose that the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty.
However Mason discloses a hydraulic system similar to Schick and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Mason discloses using solenoid control valves (Mason 11, 13) and having a first a (Mason 60) detects a fault by comparing signals with reference to a reference data (Mason Col. 3-4).
Since Schick remains silent as to how a fault is determined in the system, and since Mason discloses an appropriate method of determining a fault in the system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Schick to have wherein the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty as taught by Mason.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Schick teaches all elements except that the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty. Mason teaches that the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty, which has the function of determining a faulty subsystem. When combined into Schick by implementing the fault detection system method, it maintains its function of determining a faulty subsystem. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to redundancy control that function in the same manner in the environment of hydraulic systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Schick in view of Mason because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination of Schick and Mason further renders obvious:
13. (New) The hydraulic power steering system of claim 12, wherein the flow-control valve arrangement of the first subsystem and the flow-control valve arrangement of the second subsystem are configured to participate in a fixed correlation (as best understood, the fixed correlation between the flow control valve relief valves are operated in a fixed correlation in that they both open when a certain threshold pressure is met in their respective conduits; further the flow control valve arrangements can also be interpreted to include 18 and 20 which share in the control of hydraulic flow to and from the actuator 12).
14. (New) The hydraulic power steering system of claim 12, wherein:
the flow-control valve arrangement of the first subsystem or the flow-control valve arrangement of the second subsystem is configured to deactivate the at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty (paragraph [0026]); and
the flow-control valve arrangement of the first subsystem or the flow-control valve arrangement of the second subsystem with the fault-free component is configured to take over supply to the steering actuator (paragraph [0026]).
15. (New) The hydraulic power steering system of claim 12, wherein:
the relief valves are identical to each other; and the continuous-control valves are identical to each other (see Schick Figures, the same valve symbol indicates identical valves).
17. (New) The hydraulic power steering system of claim 12, wherein, the relief valves and the continuous-control valves are configured to, in a de-energized state, be held in unoperated positions (the springs 23, 27, 64, 66, 68, 70 hold all the valves in their unoperated positions and are locked there until their solenoids are energized to move the valves, the annotated relief valves in 96 remain closed due to their springs and are opened when a threshold pressure is reached).
22. (New) The hydraulic power steering system of claim 13, wherein each of the flow-control valve arrangement of the first subsystem and the flow-control valve arrangement of the second subsystem is configured to provide 50% of a steering capacity for the steering actuator (paragraph [0026] discloses the two flow-regulating arrangements 18 and 20 share in the control of hydraulic flow to and from the actuator 12 which indicates 50% contribution each).
16. (New) A hydraulic power steering system, comprising:
a steering actuator (12);
a first subsystem (18) including a flow-control valve arrangement including a relief valve (see annotated Schick fig. 1’);
a second subsystem (10) including a flow-control valve arrangement including a relief valve (see annotated Schick fig. 1’); and
a fault detection device (124), wherein:
the first subsystem and the second subsystem are configured to control the steering actuator in opposite steering directions (18 and 20 control the actuator 12 in both directions);
the fault detection device is configured to:
(i) determine and deactivate a faulty component of the first subsystem or the second subsystem (paragraph [0026]); and
(ii) cause a fault-free component of the first subsystem or the second subsystem to maintain control of the steering actuator (paragraph [0026]);
each of the flow-control valve arrangement of the first subsystem and the flow-control valve arrangement of the second subsystem includes an inlet valve and a discharge valve (inlet valve 40, 44; discharge valves 42, 46),
the inlet valve and the discharge valve being continuous-control valves configured to be electrically actuated by control signals that (40, 42, 44, 46 are continuous electronically controlled valves),
the relief valves are directional valves (the annotated relief valves are interpreted to be directional valves because they cause fluid to flow in a direction; absent further limitations, this limitation appears to be met); and
the continuous-control valves are flow-control valves (the continuous-control valves 40, 42, 44, 46 are flow control valves because they adjust the amount of flow passing through them based on their control signal control).
Schick does not explicitly disclose how it determines a failure in the system and does not explicitly disclose that the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty.
However Mason discloses a hydraulic system similar to Schick and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Mason discloses using solenoid control valves (Mason 11, 13) and having a first a (Mason 60) detects a fault by comparing signals with reference to a reference data (Mason Col. 3-4).
Since Schick remains silent as to how a fault is determined in the system, and since Mason discloses an appropriate method of determining a fault in the system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Schick to have wherein the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty as taught by Mason.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Schick teaches all elements except that the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty. Mason teaches that the control signals are compared with each other by the fault detection device and a deviation from reference data is determined, lead to deactivation of at least one of the relief valves or the continuous-control valves that is detected as faulty, which has the function of determining a faulty subsystem. When combined into Schick by implementing the fault detection system method, it maintains its function of determining a faulty subsystem. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to redundancy control that function in the same manner in the environment of hydraulic systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Schick in view of Mason because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
25. (New) The hydraulic power steering system of claim 16, wherein the flow-control valves are 2/2-way flow-control valves (40, 42, 44, 46 appear to be 2/2-way flow control valves from Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 supervisor, Nathaniel E. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 March 20, 2026