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 .
Drawings
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (ex. [0004]). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
In Claim 2, “smaller-diameter portion” is interpreted as relative to the lands rather than comparting against an absolute standard.
In Claim 2, “the common spool includes: a pair of lands that opens and closes the pair of supply/discharge passages” has been interpreted as the “opens and closes” refers to the fluid communication between the spool bore and the pair of supply/discharge passages.
In Claim 3, “the common spool is divided into: a first spool including a land that opens and closes one of the pair of supply/discharge passages; and a second spool including a land that opens and closes the other one of the pair of supply/discharge passages.” has been interpreted as the “opens and closes” refers to the fluid communication between the spool bore and the pair of supply/discharge passages.
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 1-8 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 1 recites in part “the housing including a first pump passage and a second pump passage that extend in the particular direction”. This is indefinite. The preamble of Claim 1 recites “a multi-control valve”; that is, the claim appears to be limited to a valve. The recitation of “a first pump passage” and “a second pump passage” raises questions as to whether pump(s) need(s) to be present to meet the claim limitation or if these recitations carry any further structural significance beyond being a passage.
Claim 1 recites in part “the first pump passage and the second pump passage being located at both sides of the spools, respectively”. This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of the claimed location (“both sides of the spools, respectively”) are not understood. Claim 1 begins with “spools that are located side by side in a particular direction” and “the housing including a first pump passage and a second pump passage that extend in the particular direction” as best understood, this is depicted below:
PNG
media_image1.png
858
1302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first pump passage 11 and the second pump passage 12 are both in the vertical direction of Fig. 1. Since the vertical direction of Fig. 1 is established as the “particular direction”, the labeling follows this direction. The spools being round (cylindrical) shapes makes the term “side” somewhat of an ambiguous designation. This issue of “sides” is compounded when the terms “side by side” and “sides” are being used in ways that do not agree:
PNG
media_image2.png
858
1185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
That is, applicant establishes example “sides” 1 and 2 (examiner designations for discussion) of the topmost spool 3 and then “sides” A and B of second-topmost spool 3. Side 2 and Side A are side by side, with Side B being side by side with the next spool and so forth along the spools. Then the claim recites “the first pump passage and the second pump passage being located at both sides of the spools, respectively”. But 11 and 12 (the pump passages) are not located “at both sides of the spools, respectively”. Pump passage 11 is located to the left of the spools 3 as viewed in Fig. 1 and pump passage 12 is located to the right of the spools 3 as view in Fig. 1. Neither passage 11 nor 12 are in line or of the same “sides” that are previously established. Further complicating this is the use of “both sides of the spools, respectively” when each passage is on one, opposite “side” of the spool from the other passage, neither passage being on “both sides, respectively”. It may be that by more particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the spatial relationships of the various claimed parts the metes and bounds of the claimed invention may be clarified.
Claim 2 recites in part “the housing includes a pair of supply/discharge passages that are located at both sides, respectively, of the first communication passage or the second communication passage”. This is indefinite. The location of the “sides” is not understood, nor is the use of “both sides, respectively” understood. “a pair” at “both sides” may be referring to two or four elements, depending on interpretation.
Claim 3 recites in part “wherein the housing includes a pair of supply/discharge passages that are located at both sides, respectively”. This is indefinite. The location of the “sides” is not understood, nor is the use of “both sides, respectively” understood. “a pair” at “both sides” may be referring to two or four elements, depending on interpretation.
The term “normal” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” 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. “normal spool” is rendered indefinite as a result.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites in part “the common spool is divided into: a first spool including a land that opens and closes one of the pair of supply/discharge passages; and a second spool including a land that opens and closes the other one of the pair of supply/discharge passages.”. Claim 1 has established a spool. Now Claim 3 appears to be attempting to redefine the previously established single spool into two spools. Claim 3 therefore fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (US 11692332) in view of Pieper (US 6964281).
Examiner note: For the purposes of examination, the indefinite claim language related to the orientation of structure of the “sides” (please see above) is being treated as consistent with the orientations presented in applicant’s drawings and specification.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakajima teaches
A multi-control valve comprising:
spools (ex. for 23-26, ex. Figs. 1, 5); and
a housing including a slide hole that receives therein a spool (for 25, Fig. 5), the housing including a first pump passage (for A, Fig. 5) and a second pump passage (for B, Fig. 5), the first pump passage and the second pump passage being located at both sides of a spool (Fig. 5), respectively, wherein
the spools include a common spool (ex. 25, Fig. 5) that is used in common for the first pump passage and the second pump passage,
the slide hole include a merging slide hole (for 25, Fig. 5) that receives therein the common spool, and the housing includes:
a first communication passage (between B and 25) that is located at the first pump passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the first pump passage to the merging slide hole; and
a second communication passage (between A and 25) that is located at the second pump passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the second pump passage to the merging slide hole.
Nakajima does not explicitly teach
spools that are located side by side in a particular direction
a housing including slide holes that receive therein the respective spools, the first pump passage and the second pump passage being located at both sides of the spools.
Nakajima discloses one spool in the housing (Fig. 5) and discloses other spool valves and associated passages schematically (Fig. 1) but does not include some claimed details in physical form.
Pieper teaches
For a multi-control valve (ex. Fig. 1),
spools (20, ex. Figs. 1, 2, 5) that are located side by side in a particular direction
a housing (12) including slide holes (23) that receive therein the respective spools.
PNG
media_image3.png
379
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since both references are directed to multi-control valves, 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 multi-control valve of Nakajima to have spools in a housing as taught by Pieper in order to provide an appropriate physical manifestation of the schematic representation of Nakajima. As Nakajima teaches the basic structure of the one valve section (Fig. 5), the use of plural duplicate valve sections is being taught by Pieper. The remainder of the claim limitations are met once the modification is made.
Regarding Claim 2,
The multi-control valve according to claim 1, wherein
the housing includes a pair of supply/discharge passages that are located at both sides, respectively, of the first communication passage or the second communication passage (Fig. 5),
the common spool includes:
a pair of lands (on 25) that opens and closes the pair of supply/discharge passages; and
a smaller-diameter portion (on 25) that couples the pair of lands to each other, and
at least one of the first communication passage or the second communication passage includes:
a bridge passage (for either 28 or 30) whose both ends communicate with an annular passage between an inner peripheral surface of the merging slide hole and the smaller- diameter portion; and
a communication hole (for either 28 or 30), through which the first pump passage or the second pump passage communicates with the bridge passage.
PNG
media_image4.png
628
817
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
The multi-control valve according to claim 1, wherein
the spools include a normal spool (any of spools for 13, 14, 23, 24, 26, or 25 (since unclear if this excludes prior “common” citation, see 112(b) above) that is used for one of the first pump passage or the second pump passage.
Regarding Claim 6,
The multi-control valve according to claim 1, wherein the housing includes a first side surface (as annotated) and a second side surface (as annotated) that are parallel to an arrangement plane of the spools (into/out of page as depicted), the first side surface and the second side surface facing away from each other (as annotated), the first pump passage is located between the first side surface and the spools (as annotated), the second pump passage is located between the second side surface and the spools (as annotated), and a distance (as annotated) from the first side surface to the first pump passage is greater than a distance (as annotated) from the second side surface to the second pump passage.
PNG
media_image5.png
563
1068
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8,
The multi-control valve according to claim 1, wherein
a logic valve (28 or 30) that allows a flow from the first pump passage or the second pump passage toward the merging slide hole, but prevents a reverse flow, the logic valve being a valve whose opening degree when allowing the flow from the first pump passage or the second pump passage toward the merging slide hole is changeable, is located on at least one of the first communication passage or the second communication passage.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Pieper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20190162324).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakajima as modified teaches
The multi-control valve according to claim 1, wherein the housing includes a pair of supply/discharge passages (for 28 and 30) that are located at both sides, respectively, of the first communication passage or the second communication passage (Fig. 5).
Nakajima does not teach
the common spool is divided into:
a first spool including a land that opens and closes one of the pair of supply/discharge passages; and a second spool including a land that opens and closes the other one of the pair of supply/discharge passages.
Nakajima teaches a single spool.
Tanaka teaches
the common spool is divided into:
a first spool (ex. 12L, Fig. 1) including a land that opens and closes one of the pair of supply/discharge passages; and a second spool (ex. 12R) including a land that opens and closes the other one of the pair of supply/discharge passages.
“According to the present invention, the supply flow rate and the discharge flow rate with respect to each supply/discharge port can be controlled independently, and the increase in size of the housing can be suppressed.” ([0025]).
Since both references are directed to valves, 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 spool of Nakajima to be a first spool and a second spool as taught by Tanaka such that “the supply flow rate and the discharge flow rate with respect to each supply/discharge port can be controlled independently”.
Claim 5, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Pieper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2002181008 - on applicant’s IDS, hereinafter JP008.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakajima as modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
a maximum diameter of the common spool is greater than a maximum diameter of the normal spool.
JP008 teaches
For a multi-control valve (Figs. 1-9),
a maximum diameter of a spool is greater than a maximum diameter of another spool.
From applicant’s provided translation (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image6.png
362
962
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
219
957
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Since both references are directed to valves, 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 valve of Nakajima to have a larger maximum diameter than a maximum of the normal spool as taught by JP008 in order to “ensure the maximum required flow rate of the actuator” ([0016]).
Claim 7, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Pieper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tougasaki et al. (US 8393348).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakajima as modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
the housing includes a slide hole that is located between the first side surface and the first pump passage and that receives therein another spool different from the spools.
While Nakajima teaches check valve 30 and a further unlabeled valve at bottom of Fig. 5, neither of these are shown as spool valves.
Tougasaki teaches
For a multi-control valve (Figs. 1-6),
a check valve (20),
the housing includes a slide hole (30) that is located between the first side surface and the first pump passage (ex. Fig. 6) and that receives therein another spool (26) different from the spools (18).
Tougasaki teaches using control valve 25 with spool 26 to control the check valve 20. “Therefore, a flow is hardly allowed to occur in the pressure oil for producing a pressure to limit the opening degree of the check valve 20. As a result, it is possible to reduce a pressure loss in the pressure chamber of the directional control valve assembly.” (Col. 9, lines 35-38).
Since both references are directed to valves, 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 check valve 30 of Nakajima to have an associated slide hole and spool for control as taught by Tougasaki in order to “limit the opening degree of the check valve 20. As a result, it is possible to reduce a pressure loss in the pressure chamber of the directional control valve assembly.” (Col. 9, lines 35-38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention including multi-control valve.
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-6pm.
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, Kenneth Bomberg can be reached on 571-272-4922. 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 M. QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745