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 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are canceled. Claims 13-31 are newly added. Claim 13-31 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach a directional valve as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees, valve (56) does allow control of flow direction since it allows or prevents flow in a first direction directed towards the steering actuator and in a second direction from the steering actuator towards the hydraulic tank. In that essence, valve (56) allows flow control in all directions. There is no operational or functional distinction present within the claims that distinguish the valve of the instant invention from valve (56) of the prior art. As substantially presented below, all the abilities of the directional valve recited within the claims are adequately addressed by valve (56) of the prior art. Further, even if the examiner was to acquiesce applicant’s narrow reading of the directional valve, such valves are well known in the art as outlined by Bergmann (WO2018/017290 A1) which teaches a directional valve (38) that controls flow direction both to and from steering actuator (17) (Fig 1). Applicant also argues that the prior art fails to teach the claimed invention as newly presented. The examiner respectfully disagrees, the newly presented claims are taught by the prior art as substantially shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13-21 and 25-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergmann et al. (US 2019/0111967 A1) hereinafter Bergmann.
Regarding Claim 13 Bergmann teaches A hydraulic steering device having a steering actuator (48) , a steering unit (Fig 1), and a flow-regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1) , the steering unit (Fig 1) is also used to actuate the steering actuator (48), characterized in that the flow- regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1) is configured to actuate the steering actuator (48); the valve arrangement (Fig 1) has a discharge valve (64) , which is designed as a proportional servo valve (Fig 1), and a directional valve (56), which, in its unactuated position, blocks the fluid-conveying connection between the discharge valve (64) and the steering actuator (48) (Fig 1) and, in its actuated position, actuates the steering actuator (48) in a first or second steering direction (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 14 Bergmann teaches the discharge valve (64) is a first discharge valve; and the steering unit includes a second discharge valve (60) (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 15 Bergmann teaches wherein the second discharge valve (60) is a proportional servo valve (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 16 Bergmann teaches wherein the second discharge valve (60) is an electromagnetically actuated proportional valve (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 17 Bergmann teaches wherein the flow-regulating valve arrangement further includes a supply valve (58); the supply valve (58) is a proportional servo valve; and the directional valve (56) is further configured to, in the unactuated position, block a fluid- conveying connection between the supply valve (58) and the steering actuator (48) (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 18 Bergmann teaches a supply device (30) configured to supply the steering unit and the flow-regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 19 Bergmann teaches wherein the discharge valve (64) is an electromagnetically actuated proportional valve (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 20 Bergmann teaches wherein each of the supply valve (58) and the discharge valve (64) are a 2/2-way proportional valve (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 21 Bergmann teaches the directional valve (56) is an electromagnetically operable switching valve (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 25 Bergmann teaches wherein control lines (Fig 1) of the steering unit open out into connecting lines between the directional valve (56) and the steering actuator (48) (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 26 Bergmann teaches the steering actuator (48) is a constant velocity cylinder (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 27 Bergmann teaches wherein: the steering unit and the flow-regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1) are interconnected in a parallel hydraulic arrangement (Fig 1), and configured to actuate the steering actuator (48); the steering unit is configured to provide a main power supply for the steering actuator (Fig 1); and the flow-regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1) is configured to provide an auxiliary power supply for the steering actuator (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 31 Bergmann teaches a hydraulic steering device comprising: a steering actuator (48); a steering unit (Fig 1); a flow-regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1); and a supply device (30), wherein: the steering actuator (48) is configured to be actuated by the steering unit (Fig 1); the flow-regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1) is configured to actuate the steering actuator (48); the flow-regulating valve arrangement (Fig 1) includes a discharge valve (64), a directional valve (56), a supply valve (58) and a pressure relief valve (60); the discharge valve (64) is a proportional servo valve (Fig 1); the directional valve (56) is configured to: (i) in an unactuated position, block a fluid- conveying connection between the discharge valve (64) and the steering actuator (48) (Fig 1); and (ii) in an actuated position, actuate the steering actuator (46) in a first steering direction or a second steering direction (Fig 1); and the pressure relief valve (60) is connected to a supply line between the supply valve (58) and the directional valve (56) (Fig 1).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann in view of Bergmann (WO 2008/017290 A1) hereinafter Bergmann2.
Regarding Claim 22 Bergmann teaches the directional valve (56) that supplies the steering actuator (48) being an electromagnetically operable switching valve (Fig 1). Bergmann is silent regarding the directional valve being 4/3-way switching valve.
However, Bergmann2 teaches a steering actuator (17) having a 4/3 switching valve (33) that supplies fluid to the steering actuator (17) in multiple directions (Fig 1).
Since both prior arts are in the same field of endvaour and both teach known valve arrangements that are utilized to supply steering actuators, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one valve type for the other by forming the switching valve as a 4/3-way switching valve to achieve a predictable result of forming a supply structure for the steering actuator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 are objected but would be allowable if rewritten including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 28-30 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABIY TEKA whose telephone number is (571)272-9804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-9 PM.
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.
/ABIY TEKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights