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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/12/24 is acknowledged.
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: Please see the drawing objections below and the 112 rejections further below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 1 language - “a first ride control position configured to couple the accumulator with the tank port to discharge the accumulator; a second ride control position configured to couple the pump port to the accumulator to charge the accumulator; a third ride control position configured to balance an accumulator pressure of the accumulator with a work port pressure of the work port; and a fourth ride control position configured to couple the accumulator to the work port.”; in order of presentation:
“a first ride control position configured to couple the accumulator with the tank port to discharge the accumulator” – specification discusses this for example at [0030, 0031] – earlier in the specification at [0004, 0005] state this is depicted in Fig. 3 or Fig. 5 (Fig. 5 having the fifth position). Annotated Fig. 3 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
950
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
646
1048
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed connections are not shown. Schematically, possibly illustrated in Fig. 2 as annotated below, though examiner notes Figs. 1/2 and Fig. 3 are not the same embodiment (ex. [0046], note 352 placement and description):
PNG
media_image3.png
860
920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“a second ride control position configured to couple the pump port to the accumulator to charge the accumulator” – the specification for example at [0009, 0030, 0055-0057] references Fig. 8:
PNG
media_image4.png
514
1042
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The claimed connections are not shown. Schematically, this is not shown in Fig. 2.
“a third ride control position configured to balance an accumulator pressure of the accumulator with a work port pressure of the work port” – the specification for example at [0010, 0030, 0059-0061] references Fig. 9:
PNG
media_image5.png
685
1372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The claimed connections are not shown. Schematically, this is not shown in Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image6.png
428
627
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“a fourth ride control position configured to couple the accumulator to the work port” – specification states at [0011] this is Fig. 10, and [0030, 0045, 0062-0064] discuss the fourth position):
PNG
media_image7.png
682
1364
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The claimed connections are not shown. Schematically, this is potentially represented in Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image8.png
871
734
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 language - “wherein the pressure balancing spool includes a biasing assembly configured to bias the pressure balancing spool into the neutral position when a difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure is within a predetermined pressure differential; wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the first balancing position when the accumulator pressure is greater than the work port pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential; and wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the second balancing position when the work port pressure is greater than the accumulator pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential.” Described in applicant’s specification at [0061] for example, but the associated Fig. 9 shows what appears to be an area and therefore force balance between the work and accumulator pressures given both the accumulator pressure seems to act on equal surface areas and the work passage pressure seems to act on equal surface areas; that is, as currently understood, even if there is an imbalance of the accumulator and work pressures the pressure balancing spool would not be moved given the accumulator pressure or the work pressure acting on surfaces that are equal:
PNG
media_image9.png
677
1175
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
494
550
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 language – “wherein the ride control spool is further configured to move to a fifth ride control position configured to couple the pump port directly to the tank port” specification for example at [0012, 0048-0050, 0066-0067], drawings Figs. 4, 5, and 11:
PNG
media_image11.png
982
1103
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Based on the presence of restriction orifice 362, the identified topmost position is thought to be the fifth position but this illustrated position does not match the claimed position. Likewise, the physical embodiment of Fig. 11 does not show the claimed subject matter:
PNG
media_image12.png
727
1070
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 language – “a monoblock valve that includes both the directional control valve and the ride control valve.” (Claim 14 recites two alternatives, one currently shown)
Claim 19 language – “wherein the biasing assembly includes a first balancing spring and a second balancing spring positioned on opposite ends of the pressure balancing spool to bias the pressure balancing spool to the neutral position when a pressure difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure is within a predetermined pressure differential; wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the first balancing position and compresses the first balancing spring when the accumulator port passage pressure is greater than the work port passage pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential; and wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the second balancing position and compresses the second balancing spring when the work port passage pressure is greater than the accumulator port passage pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential.” – Described in applicant’s specification at [0061] for example, but the associated Fig. 9 shows what appears to be a balance between the work and accumulator pressures given both the accumulator pressure seems to act on equal surface areas and the work passage pressure seems to act on equal surface areas; that is, as currently understood, even if there is an imbalance of the accumulator and work pressures the pressure balancing spool would not be moved given the accumulator pressure or the work pressure acting on surfaces that are equal:
PNG
media_image9.png
677
1175
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
494
550
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 25 language – “the pressure balancing spool being configured to move relative to the ride control spool to selectively couple the accumulator port with each of the pump port and the tank port.”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
318 (ex. [0030])
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to because
the unlabeled rectangular box(es) (114, 116, 122, 124, 128) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels; alternatively, graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate (MPEP 608.02 V, IX).
In Figs. 1, 2, and 4, symbol designated by 342 is a non-conventional graphical drawing symbol
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 is currently non-idiomatic, reciting “wherein the control valve is configured one of:”; examiner believes this should read something like “wherein the control valve is configured --as-- one of:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a biasing assembly configured to bias the pressure balancing spool into the neutral position when a difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure is within a predetermined pressure differential” in claim 4 (interpreted as 420, ex. [0038])
“a controller configured to energize the first electrohydraulic pressure regulating valve to move the ride control spool” in claim 6 (interpreted as 128, ex. [0033])
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.
Examiner further notes on claim interpretation:
Claim 11 recites “the control valve further includes…”. Claim 11 depends from Claim 1. Claim 1 establishes “a control valve”, “a directional control valve”, and “a ride control valve”. Claim 11 has been interpreted as referring to the “a control valve”.
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 1-15, 19-21, and 25 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 pressure balancing spool configured to selectively couple the accumulator with the pump port and the tank port” and later “wherein the ride control spool is configured to move between each of: a first ride control position configured to couple the accumulator with the tank port to discharge the accumulator; a second ride control position configured to couple the pump port to the accumulator to charge the accumulator; a third ride control position configured to balance an accumulator pressure of the accumulator with a work port pressure of the work port; and a fourth ride control position configured to couple the accumulator to the work port”. This is indefinite. The claim language is indefinite if the “pressure balancing spool” itself is “configured to selectively couple the accumulator with the pump port and the tank port” or if this limitation is in conjunction with the other spool; as best understood the “tank port” and “pump port” are not ports on the pressure balancing spool itself. The claim language is indefinite if the “ride control spool” itself is in each of the claimed positions to accomplish the connections; the drawings appear to show 3 (Fig. 2) or 4 (Fig. 4, with the “fifth” position) positions. This is also relevant to the claimed “third position” since, as best understood, the “pressure balancing spool” does the balancing (specification at [0037]) and not the “ride control spool”; this is unclear since the claim recites “wherein the ride control spool is configured to move between each of” which appears to limit this position to the ride control spool itself. For the purposes of examination, examiner has treated the “third ride control position” as being reliant upon the pressure balancing spool to achieve the “balancing”, in accordance with a best understanding of the instant invention.
The term “low leak” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low leak” 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. “low leak check valve” 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.
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 1-7, 15, and 19, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery (US 20220025914, on applicant’s IDS) in view of Mizoguchi et al. (US 20070056277, on applicant’s IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Slattery teaches
A ride control system for a hydraulic machine having a pump (204, [0024]), an actuator (208), and a tank (206), the ride control system comprising:
an accumulator (202); and
a control valve (100) having a work port (either 112 or 114) configured to couple to the actuator, a pump port (106) configured to couple to the pump, and a tank port (110) configured to couple the tank, and an accumulator port (104) configured to couple to the accumulator, the control valve including:
a ride control valve (with 116, 118) including:
a valve body (part of 102);
a ride control spool (116) movably disposed within the valve body, the ride control spool configured to selectively couple the work port, the tank port, the pump port, and the accumulator (Figs. 3-6); and
a pressure balancing spool (118) movably disposed within the valve body, the pressure balancing spool configured to selectively couple the accumulator with the pump port (ex. Fig. 3) and the tank port (ex. unillustrated [0068])
wherein the ride control spool is configured to move between each of:
a first ride control position configured to couple the accumulator with the tank port to discharge the accumulator (ex. unillustrated [0068])
a second ride control position configured to couple the pump port to the accumulator to charge the accumulator (Fig. 3);
a third ride control position configured to balance an accumulator pressure of the accumulator with a work port pressure of the work port (Fig. 4); and
a fourth ride control position configured to couple the accumulator to the work port (Fig. 5).
Slattery does not teach
a directional control valve configured to selectively couple the work port, the pump port, and the tank port to operate the actuator.
Slattery teaches the actuator 208 and states “The hydraulic cylinder actuator 208 represents, for example, the boom actuator 20 or the boom actuator 38 described above.” (ex. [0026]). Both of these actuators 20 and 38 are described to lift and lower their connected part (ex. [0019-0020, 0025]) in addition to describing the damping oscillations (ex. [0021, 0032]).
Mizoguchi teaches
For a ride control system for a hydraulic machine,
a ride control valve (ex. with 31), and
a directional control valve (29, ex. [0089, 0101]) configured to selectively couple the work port, the pump port, and the tank port to operate the actuator.
Since both references are directed to ride control systems, 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 system of Slattery to include a directional control valve as taught by Mizoguchi in order to provide an appropriate manner of controlling lifting and lowering of the actuator in addition to the vibration/oscillation suppression functionality.
Regarding Claim 2,
The ride control system of claim 1, wherein the second ride control position is an infinitely variable position, in which the ride control spool moves between the first ride control position and the third ride control position to vary a charging rate of the accumulator (Figs. 3, 4, and unillustrated as described in [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3,
The ride control system of claim 1, wherein the pressure balancing spool is movable between each of:
a neutral position (ex. as depicted in Fig. 4) configured to decouple the accumulator from both the tank port and the pump port;
a first balancing position (unillustrated [0068]) configured to decouple the accumulator from the pump port and to couple the accumulator to the tank port to discharge the accumulator; and
a second balancing position (ex. as depicted in Fig. 3) configured to decouple the accumulator from the tank port and to couple the accumulator to the pump port to charge the accumulator.
Regarding Claim 4,
The ride control system of claim 3, wherein the pressure balancing spool includes a biasing assembly (340, 344) configured to bias the pressure balancing spool into the neutral position (ex. as depicted in Fig. 4) when a difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure is within a predetermined pressure differential;
wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the first balancing position (unillustrated [0068]) when the accumulator pressure is greater than the work port pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential; and
wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the second balancing position (ex. as depicted in Fig. 3) when the work port pressure is greater than the accumulator pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential.
Regarding Claim 5,
The ride control system of claim 1, wherein the ride control valve further includes a first electrohydraulic pressure regulating valve (120, ex. [0030]) configured to move the ride control spool from the first ride control position to each of the second ride control position, the third ride control position, and the fourth ride control position.
Regarding Claim 6,
The ride control system of claim 5, further including a controller (122, ex. [0030, 0031]) configured to energize the first electrohydraulic pressure regulating valve to move the ride control spool.
Regarding Claim 7,
The ride control spool of claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to energize the first electrohydraulic pressure regulating valve to move the ride control spool from the third ride control (Fig. 4) position to the fourth ride control position (Fig. 5) when a pressure difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure is within a predetermined pressure differential.
Examiner note: As Slattery teaches the controller energizing the first electrohydraulic pressure regulating valve to move between positions (ex. [0059]). As this may coincide with the claimed condition (“when a pressure difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure is within a predetermined pressure differential.”) Slattery is held to teach the current claim language; contrast current “when” with something like “in response to”.
Regarding Claim 15,
The ride control system of claim 1, wherein the valve body of the ride control valve defines a plurality of passages (Figs. 3-5) including a work passage (for either 112/304 or 114/306) coupled to the work port, a tank passage (for 310) coupled to the tank port, an accumulator passage (for 302 coupled to the accumulator, and a pump passage (for 308) coupled to the pump port.
Regarding Claim 19,
The ride control system of claim 4 , wherein the biasing assembly includes a first balancing spring (340) and a second balancing spring (344) positioned on opposite ends of the pressure balancing spool to bias the pressure balancing spool to the neutral position (ex. as depicted in Fig. 4) when a pressure difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure is within a predetermined pressure differential; wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the first balancing position (unillustrated [0068]) and compresses the first balancing spring (340) when the accumulator port pressure is greater than the work port pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential; and wherein the pressure balancing spool is biased to the second balancing position (ex. as depicted in Fig. 3) and compresses the second balancing spring (342) when the work port pressure is greater than the accumulator port pressure by at least the predetermined pressure differential.
Claims 8 and 14, as far as it is definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Mizoguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizoguchi.
Regarding Claim 8, Slattery as modified teaches
The ride control system of claim 7, wherein the controller (122).
Slattery as modified does not teach
the controller is configured to determine the pressure difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure based on a first sensor configured to measure the work port pressure and a second sensor configured to measure the accumulator pressure.
Slattery does not teach a sensor explicitly, instead teaching “input signals” ([0030]).
Mizoguchi teaches
For a ride control system for a hydraulic machine,
the controller (57a, ex. Fig. 7) is configured to determine the pressure difference between the work port pressure and the accumulator pressure (ex. [0162-0163]) based on a first sensor (81) configured to measure the work port pressure and a second sensor (82) configured to measure the accumulator pressure.
Since both references are directed to ride control systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Slattery to include a sensors as taught by Mizoguchi in order to provide feedback for measuring system parameters, allowing for control over the system to ensure safety and reliability. This also allows the controller to exert control over the system parts (valves) in response to system conditions.
Regarding Claim 14, Slattery as modified teaches
The ride control system of claim 1, a valve section with the ride control valve (housing 102).
Slattery does not teach
wherein the control valve is configured one of: a sectional valve that includes a first valve section with the directional control valve and a second valve section with the ride control valve, the first valve section and the second valve section being directly coupled to one another; and a monoblock valve that includes both the directional control valve and the ride control valve.
Mizoguchi teaches
For a ride control system for a hydraulic machine,
wherein the control valve is configured one of: a monoblock (25, Figs. 2-3, [0088]) valve that includes both the directional control valve and the ride control valve.
Since both references are directed to ride control systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Slattery to include both the directional control valve and the ride control valve in a monoblock valve body as taught by Mizoguchi in order to provide an appropriate mounting of the valves for use that would perform equally well with predictable results.
Claim 10, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Mizoguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huth et al. (US 20250084871).
Regarding Claim 10, Slattery as modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the ride control valve further includes a pressure relief valve configured to limit the accumulator pressure to a maximum accumulator pressure.
Huth teaches
For a hydraulic system with an accumulator,
a pressure relief valve (V3, Figure, [0033]) configured to limit the accumulator pressure to a maximum accumulator pressure.
Since both references are directed to ride control systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Slattery to include a pressure relief valve as taught by Huth in order to prevent excessive pressure in the accumulator, thereby increasing safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-13, 20, 21, and 25 would appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 related to a ride control system with valves and an accumulator.
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, 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745