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
Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-15 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims are responsive to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/21/2026, hereinafter NFOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuzhou Heavy Machinery Co., Ltd. CN 103332636 (A), hereinafter Xuzhou, in view of Knapp, Jurgen Michael et al. US 20040168434 A1, hereinafter Knapp, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that the modified device of Xuzhou/Knapp fails to disclose the limitation “wherein the first component is formed by 3D printing; and wherein the hydraulic power unit is located below a base of the work platform body configured to support a firefighter”, is accurate. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MEZZINO; Giacomo et al. US 20210246914 A1 and 김동남 KR 200322590 Y1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the NFOA on 01/21/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
Claim 1 Ln 5 states the claim limitation “hydraulic actuating element”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “configured to drive” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “the hydraulic actuating element includes a swing hydraulic cylinder, the swing hydraulic cylinder including a fixed component and a rotating component that rotates relative to the fixed component under the drive of hydraulic fluid, one of the fixed component and the rotating component being connected to the carrying component, and the other being connected to the work platform body”, described in the specification [0023] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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, 3-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuzhou Heavy Machinery Co., Ltd. CN 103332636 (A), hereinafter Xuzhou, in view of Knapp, Jurgen Michael et al. US 20040168434 A1, hereinafter Knapp, in further view of MEZZINO; Giacomo et al. US 20210246914 A1, hereinafter Mezzino, and in further view of 김동남 KR 200322590 Y1, hereinafter KR. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (hydraulic power units (HPU), aerial work platforms); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (how to assemble an HPU, construction of work platforms). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) an aerial work platform for a fire fighting vehicle, comprising:
a carrying component (30);
a work platform body (20) mounted on the carrying component and swingable relative to the carrying component to adjust the levelness of the work platform body [0032];
a hydraulic actuating element (1) connected to the carrying component and the work platform body, and configured to drive the work platform body to swing relative to the carrying component [0035-0037]; and
a hydraulic power unit comprising
a hydraulic pump (2) and
a first reversing valve (3) fluidly connected to the hydraulic pump,
the first reversing valve being fluidly connected to the hydraulic actuating element (depicted as such in Fig. 4),
a first component (the housing/manifold depicted in Fig. 4 and 5 encompassing (3)).
Xuzhou fails to explicitly state that the first component is formed with a first pump cavity accommodating a pumping component of the hydraulic pump and a first reversing valve cavity accommodating a valve core of the first reversing valve. Instead, Xuzhou discloses/depicts housings in Fig. 4 and 5 whereby the pump and first reversing valves and associated components are distinct.
Knapp discloses (Fig. 1, 2) a hydraulic power unit (HPU) comprising:
a hydraulic pump (9) and
a first reversing valve (36) fluidly connected to the hydraulic pump, the first reversing valve being fluidly connected to a hydraulic actuating element (2, depicted as such in Fig. 1, 2),
a first component (8) formed with a first pump cavity (11.1) accommodating a pumping component (10) of the hydraulic pump and a first reversing valve cavity (31/33) accommodating a valve core (38) of the first reversing valve.
Knapp further discloses the HPU is compact (“very small design” [0002]) and robust (“operate trouble-free even in rough environments” [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Xuzhou, by providing the HPU with the first component, as taught by Knapp, for the purpose of providing an HPU that is compact and robust.
To further clarify the modification, the pumping unit (2) and valve unit (3) of Xuzhou are merged into a single unit as taught by Knapp for the purpose of compactness and robustness.
Xuzhou further fails to explicitly state that the first component is formed by 3D printing. Instead, Xuzhou is silent regarding manufacturing method.
As stated by MPEP 2113 I., product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. As the claimed invention herein does not disclose any particular feature or structural particularity that is constrained by 3D printing, the claimed 3D printing process is the same as or obvious from the product of Xuzhou and/or Knapp. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
However, assuming arguendo, the 3D printing process did provide some particular feature or structural particularity:
Mezzino discloses (Fig. 2-5) a hydraulic power unit (HPU) comprising:
a hydraulic pump (“one or more pumps” [0045]) and
a first reversing valve (115) fluidly connected to the hydraulic pump, the first reversing valve being fluidly connected to a hydraulic actuating element (“various components” [0003]),
a first component (114) formed with a first pump cavity (not depicted, but disclosed as being incorporated therein [0045]) accommodating a pumping component (not depicted, but disclosed as being incorporated therein [0045]) of the hydraulic pump and a first reversing valve cavity (the depicted cavities in Fig. 5) accommodating a valve core (the fundamentally required components of the valve that reside within the cavities) of the first reversing valve,
wherein the first component is formed by 3D printing for the purpose optimizing and efficiently designing the first component [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Xuzhou, by forming the first component in a 3D printing process, as taught by Mezzino, for the purpose of optimizing and efficiently designing the first component.
To further clarify the modification, Mezzino merely modifies the manufacturing process of the first component of Xuzhou and/or Knapp.
Xuzhou further fails to explicitly state that the hydraulic power unit is located below a base of the work platform body configured to support a firefighter
KR discloses (Fig. 1-3) an aerial work platform for a fire fighting vehicle, comprising:
a carrying component (30);
a work platform body (90) mounted on the carrying component and swingable relative to the carrying component to adjust the levelness of the work platform body [0038];
a hydraulic actuating element (37) connected to the carrying component and the work platform body, and configured to drive the work platform body to swing relative to the carrying component [0037]; and
a hydraulic power unit comprising
a hydraulic pump (96) and
a first component (the housing/manifold depicted in Fig. 3 encompassing (96));
wherein the hydraulic power unit is located below a base of the work platform body configured to support a firefighter [0040].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement" technique (hydraulic power unit location below platform base) in the same way to the "base" device (hydraulic power unit location above platform base) and the results (supplying the hydraulic actuating element with pressurized hydraulic fluid) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the hydraulic power unit below a base of the work platform body in the device of Xuzhou to supply the hydraulic actuating element with pressurized hydraulic fluid as taught by KR as the is a known technique amongst similar devices ready for improvement.
To further clarify the modification, the hydraulic power unit of Xuzhou is moved to be located below a base of the work platform body as taught by KR.
Regarding claim 3, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) wherein the first component is further formed with a flow passage fluidly connecting the hydraulic pump and the first reversing valve (as depicted in Fig. 4, there is a passage connecting (2 & 3)), and hydraulic fluid inlet-outlets fluidly connecting the hydraulic actuating element and the first reversing valve (as depicted in Fig. 4, there are inlet-outlets connecting (3 & 1)) .
Regarding claim 4, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) wherein the hydraulic power unit further comprises a first relief valve (as depicted in Fig. 4, there is a relieve valve immediately downstream of (2)) fluidly connected to the hydraulic pump, and the modified device of Xuzhou discloses the first component (depicted manifold of (3), Xuzhou, (8) of Knapp) is further provided with a first relief valve cavity accommodating a valve core of the first relief valve (as disclosed above, Knapp discloses providing cavities for valve cores within the first component (8)) .
Regarding claim 5, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) the hydraulic power unit further comprises a motor in transmission connection with the hydraulic pump, (depicted in Fig. 4, is an electric motor having a transmission connection/shaft to the pump).
Knapp further discloses (Fig. 1-2) the hydraulic power unit further comprises a motor (26) in transmission connection (16, 14, 25, 17) with the hydraulic pump (9), the motor being mounted at an end (the depicted right end in Fig. 1) of the first component (8).
Regarding claim 6, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) the hydraulic power unit further comprises a hydraulic fluid tank (T) fluidly communicated with the hydraulic pump (depicted in Fig. 4 as fluidly communicated to (2)).
Knapp further discloses (Fig. 1-2) the hydraulic power unit further comprises a hydraulic fluid tank (19) fluidly communicated with the hydraulic pump [0015], the hydraulic fluid tank being mounted at an end (depicted left end in Fig. 1) of the first component away from the motor (26) [0015].
Regarding claim 7, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) further comprising a controller ([0041-0042] discloses the valve (3) is an electromagnetic control valve which fundamentally has a form of controller in signal connecting thereto).
Xuzhou fails to explicitly state that the controller is in signal connection with the motor, the controller being configured to control an actuating quantity of the hydraulic actuating element by controlling a rotating speed of the motor.
Knapp further discloses a controller in signal connection with the motor, the controller being configured to control an actuating quantity of the hydraulic actuating element by controlling a rotating speed of the motor ([0023, 0025] states that the motor is an electric motor that is ‘activated’ and ‘switched off’ thereby controlling the rotation speed of the motor and subsequent actuating quantity of the actuating element; the fact that the electric motor is ‘activated’ and ‘switched off’ fundamentally requires a form of controller having an electrical signal connection of some form with the motor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Xuzhou, by activating and switching off the electric motor with the controller, as taught by Knapp, for the purpose of controlling an actuating quantity of the hydraulic actuating element.
Regarding claim 8, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) further comprising a manual control unit (4/5), the manual control unit comprising a human manipulated second reversing valve (5), the second reversing valve being fluidly connected to the hydraulic actuating element ((5) is depicted as fluidly connected to (1)) [0039].
Regarding claim 9, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) further comprising a first shuttle valve (6), a first inlet (depicted left port of (6)) of the first shuttle valve being fluidly connected to the first reversing valve (3), a second inlet (depicted right port of (6)) of the first shuttle valve being fluidly connected to the second reversing valve (5), an outlet (depicted top port of (6)) of the first shuttle valve being fluidly connected to the hydraulic actuating element (1).
Knapp further discloses (Fig. 1-2) the first component being further provided with a first shuttle valve cavity accommodating a valve core of the first shuttle valve (as disclosed above, Knapp discloses providing cavities for valve cores within the first component (8)).
Regarding claim 10, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) wherein the manual control unit (4/5) further comprises a second component (depicted manifold housing (4/5) in Fig. 5), the second component being provided with a second reversing valve cavity accommodating a valve core of the second reversing valve (fundamentally, the depicted object in Fig. 5 housing (5) therein requires a cavity and core of/for valve (5)).
Regarding claim 11, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) wherein the manual control unit further comprises a human powered pump (4, [0039]) fluidly connected to the second reversing valve [0039].
Regarding claim 12, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) wherein the second component (depicted manifold housing (4/5) in Fig. 5) is provided with a second pump cavity accommodating a pumping component of the human powered pump (fundamentally, the depicted object in Fig. 5 housing (4) therein requires a cavity and pumping component of/for pump (4)); and the manual control unit further comprises a second relief valve (as depicted in Fig. 4, there is a relieve valve immediately downstream of (4)) fluidly connected to the human powered pump,
Knapp further discloses (Fig. 1-2) the second component being further provided with a second relief valve cavity accommodating a valve core of the second relief valve (as disclosed above, Knapp discloses providing cavities for valve cores within a component (8)).
Regarding claim 13, Xuzhou discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 10, except fails to explicitly state that the second component is formed by 3D printing. Instead, Xuzhou is silent regarding manufacturing method.
As stated by MPEP 2113 I., product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. As the claimed invention herein does not disclose any particular feature or structural particularity that is constrained by 3D printing, the claimed 3D printing process is the same as or obvious from the product of Xuzhou and/or Knapp. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
However, assuming arguendo, the 3D printing process did provide some particular feature or structural particularity:
Mezzino discloses (Fig. 2-5) a hydraulic power unit (HPU) comprising:
a hydraulic pump (“one or more pumps” [0045]) and
a reversing valve (115) fluidly connected to the hydraulic pump, the reversing valve being fluidly connected to a hydraulic actuating element (“various components” [0003]),
a component (114) formed with a pump cavity (not depicted, but disclosed as being incorporated therein [0045]) accommodating a pumping component (not depicted, but disclosed as being incorporated therein [0045]) of the hydraulic pump and a first reversing valve cavity (the depicted cavities in Fig. 5) accommodating a valve core (the fundamentally required components of the valve that reside within the cavities) of the first reversing valve,
wherein the component is formed by 3D printing for the purpose optimizing and efficiently designing the first component [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Xuzhou, by forming the second component in a 3D printing process, as taught by Mezzino, for the purpose of optimizing and efficiently designing the second component.
To further clarify the modification, Mezzino merely modifies the manufacturing process of the second component of Xuzhou and/or Knapp.
Regarding claim 14, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) wherein the hydraulic actuating element (1) comprises a swing hydraulic cylinder [0035], the swing hydraulic cylinder comprising a fixed component (“fixed housing” [0035]) and a rotating component (“output flange” [0035]) that rotates relative to the fixed component under the drive of hydraulic fluid, one of the fixed component and the rotating component being connected to the carrying component, and the other being connected to the work platform body [0035].
Regarding claim 15, Xuzhou discloses (Fig. 1-5) a fire fighting vehicle [0023], comprising the aerial work platform for a fire fighting vehicle of claim 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 MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights