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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 5, 2025 has been entered.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase. See prior Office action for 112(f) claim interpretation.
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 1-3, 8-10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KUMASAKA (U.S. Patent Publication US 2015/0078944 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KUMASAKA discloses: an apparatus for actively regulating a delivery volume of a displacement pump (see Figures 2, 6, and 9), the apparatus comprising:
a regulating piston (302) configured to travel along a displacement path (see Figures 2 and 6, where the displacement path is (w));
a spring element (303) applying a spring force directly on the regulating piston in an effective direction along the displacement path of the regulating piston (see Figures 2 and 6, that shows the spring force is applied in the negative “w” direction) ; and
a force-applying means (301) configured to apply a supplemental force to the regulating piston against the effective direction of the spring element (see Figures 2 and 6, ¶0136-¶0137, ¶0139, where the supplemental force applies a force in the “w” direction via (307)), wherein the delivery volume depends on a differential pressure from the displacement pump applied together with the supplemental force to the regulating piston against the spring force (see Figures, 2 and 9, ¶0134-¶0139, and ¶0163, and see Figure 9 shows that the discharge flow amount is controlled by the solenoid (supplemental force)).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, KUMASAKA discloses: the force-applying means comprises a solenoid valve (¶0136).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, KUMASAKA discloses: the solenoid valve comprises a rod (307) that is movable along the displacement path of the regulating piston and acts on the regulating piston (see Figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, KUMASAKA discloses: a system comprising:
a displacement pump (see Abstract) comprising a suction port (43) and a pressure port (44); and
an apparatus (3, 301) coupled to the displacement pump for actively regulating a delivery volume of the displacement pump (see Abstract, ¶0134-¶0139), the apparatus comprising:
a regulating piston (302) configured to travel along a displacement path (see Figures 2 and 6, where the displacement path is (w));
a spring element (303) applying a spring force directly on the regulating piston along the displacement path of the regulating piston (see Figures 2 and 6, that shows the spring force is applied in the negative “w” direction); and
a force-applying means (301) configured to apply a supplemental force to the regulating piston against the effective direction of the spring element (see Figures 2 and 6, ¶0136-¶0137, ¶0139, where the supplemental force applies a force in the “w” direction via (307)), wherein the delivery volume depends on a differential pressure from the displacement pump applied together with the supplemental force to the regulating piston against the spring force (see Figures, 2 and 9, ¶0134-¶0139, and ¶0163, and see Figure 9 shows that the discharge flow amount is controlled by the solenoid (supplemental force)).
Regarding claim 15, KUMASAKA discloses: the displacement pump is a vane pump (see Abstract and Figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 16, KUMASAKA discloses the method as claimed would be the normal use of the displacement pump disclosed above in claim 8.
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 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMASAKA in view of BOYLAN (U.S. Patent Publication US 2018/0117232 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, KUMASAKA discloses the claimed invention which including the force-applying means being a solenoid valve, however, fails to disclose the force-applying means comprises a pneumatic valve.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, BOYLAN teaches: changing between different types of valves such as a pneumatic valve can be swapped for other valves (see ¶0126).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have swapped the valve in KUMASAKA for the pneumatic valve, since a substitution of one known element (i.e. a solenoid valve) for another known element (i.e. pneumatic valve ) requires only routine skill in the art and would have produced predictable results. Furthermore, BOYLAN teaches that it is well-known in the art to swap between different valves that are controlled by different mechanisms (i.e. oil for hydraulic valves and air for pneumatic valves). In addition, the applicant has not provided any criticality to the type of valve, and therefore, the choice of valve that is used is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, KUMASAKA discloses the claimed invention which including the force-applying means being a solenoid valve, however, fails to disclose the force-applying means applies the additional force to the regulating piston comprises a hydraulic valve.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, BOYLAN teaches: using a hydraulic valve (see ¶0126) and changing between different types of valves such as a hydraulic valve can be swapped for other valves (see ¶0126).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have swapped the valve in KUMASAKA for the hydraulic valve, since a substitution of one known element (i.e. a solenoid valve) for another known element (i.e. hydraulic valve) requires only routine skill in the art and would have produced predictable results. Furthermore, BOYLAN teaches that it is well-known in the art to swap between different valves that are controlled by different mechanisms (i.e. oil for hydraulic valves). In addition, the applicant has not provided any criticality to the type of valve, and therefore, the choice of valve that is used is a matter of design choice.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMASAKA in view of EICKMANN (U.S. Patent 3,379,006).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, KUMASAKA discloses the claimed invention which including the force-applying means being a solenoid valve, however, fails to disclose the force-applying comprises an electric motor.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, EICKMANN teaches: valve means (503) is an electric solenoid or a pulse motor (which is considered to both be operated by an electric motor) (see Column 11, lines 45-47).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have swapped the valve of KUMASAKA to utilize an electric motor to control the solenoid valve of KUMASAKA (i.e. an electric solenoid), since a substitution of one known element (i.e. the solenoid valve of KUMASAKA) for another known element (i.e. the solenoid valve of EICKMANN utilizing an electric motor) requires only routine skill in the art and would have produced predictable results (i.e. better control over the valve due to the consistency of supplying electric current to the valve). Furthermore, EICKMANN teaches that it is well-known in the art to use an electric solenoid valve or an electric motor (pulse motor) to control a valve. In addition, the applicant has not provided any criticality to the type of valve, and therefore, the choice of valve that is used is a matter of design choice.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMASAKA in view of NONAKA (U.S. Patent 8,556,022 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, KUMASAKA discloses the claimed invention which including the force-applying means being a solenoid valve, however, fails to disclose the force-applying means comprises a second spring element.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, NONAKA teaches: a solenoid valve (51) (see Figures 1 and 2, Column 1, lines 17-25) the force-applying means applies the additional force to the regulating piston comprises a second spring element (12, 21) (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the force-applying means applies the additional force to the regulating piston via a second spring element in the apparatus of KUMASAKA, in order to control the operation of the valve (see Column 1, lines 17-25 of NONAKA). Furthermore, utilizing a solenoid valve with a second spring element is well-known in the art as evidence by NONAKA, where performing a simple substitution of one valve (i.e. the solenoid valve of KUMASAKA) requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. better control over the opening degree of the valve).
Response to Arguments
The amendment to the claims and the arguments presented on Pages 7-14 have resolved the 112(a) rejection, which is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746