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 with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on March 25th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claims 13-15 and 17-18 relate to the method of pressurizing an accumulator including positioning components relative to one another. This is not found persuasive because Invention I, the elected invention, maintains a different classification as it requires mechanically deforming the end cap to create radially inwardly projections which isn't required for Invention II and does not require the damper components for pressurizing the end cap as required by Invention II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 25th, 2026.
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.
Claim 11 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.
It is unclear as to the number of projections the reduction land of claim 10, line 2 produces. Based on the drawings, it is reasonable to conclude that the deformation due to the reduction land would produce a singular inwardly extending projection that encompasses the entire circumference of the end cap instead of additional projections as described in claim 11. Furthermore, there is no indication in the drawings to show additional projections circumferentially spaced apart. It is assumed that the projections, as defined in claim 11, is a singular feature that encompasses the circumference of the second end of the end cap.
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, 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deferme (US 20210270342).
Regarding claim 1, Deferme teaches: A method of pressuring an accumulator including an end cap and a floating piston, the method comprising: positioning the floating piston outside of an inner volume of the end cap (floating piston 161 is positioned outside of the accumulator sleeve 166 [Para. 65, lines 11-29]); supplying pressurized gas to the inner volume of the end cap through an open end of the end cap (pressurized gas is supplied to the inner volume 163 of the accumulator sleeve 166 [Para. 65, lines 11-29]); inserting the floating piston through the open end in sealing engagement with the end cap to define a pressurized gas chamber within the end cap (Inserts the floating piston 161 through the open end 174 of the accumulator sleeve 166 and it creates a pressurized gas chamber 163 [Para. 65, lines 11-29]); mechanically deforming the end cap to define a radially inwardly extending projection (An indent 179 is made in the end cap/accumulator sleeve 166 [Para. 65, lines 11-29]); and restricting removal of the floating piston from the end cap with the radially inwardly extending projection (The indent 179 is there to restrict the floating piston 161 from being pushed out the open end 174 due to the pressurized gas [Para. 65, lines 11-29]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Deferme teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising translating the floating piston within the end cap to reduce the volume of the pressurized gas chamber a predetermined amount and the predetermined amount generates a target gas pressure within the end cap (Floating piston 161 is positioned in the accumulator sleeve 166 a distance to reached desired pressure of 3-8 bar [Para. 64, lines 6-9]).
Regarding claim 12, Deferme teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed without providing a port extending through the end cap in communication with the pressurized gas chamber (The accumulator is pressurized without a port to the pressurized gas chamber [Para. 65, lines 12-17, Para. 67, lines 1-7and Fig. 3]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deferme (US 20210270342) in view of Rausch et. al. (US 20220325726).
Deferme teaches limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach the further limitations of claim 2.
Rausch et. al. teaches: further comprising evacuating the inner volume of the end cap prior to the supplying pressurized gas. (The chamber 9 is evacuated before filling with nitrogen gas [Para. 7]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the general method of pressurizing an accumulator of Deferme with the teachings of Rausch et. al. because the evacuation of the chamber and the subsequent filling of nitrogen/a gas in order to precisely set the pre-load pressure (Para. 8, lines 7-8).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deferme (US 20210270342) in view of Cao et. al. (CN 116423200).
Regarding claim 3, Deferme teaches limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach the further limitations of claim 3.
Cao et. al. teaches: further comprising providing a fixture including a cavity and coupling the end cap to the fixture and placing the cavity in fluid communication with the inner volume of the end cap (Base structure 3 which has a cavity and the end cap is coupled to in fluid communication with the cavity [Fig. 7 and Step S2]), wherein the supplying pressurized gas step includes providing pressurized gas to the cavity (Gas enters the cavity via the ports 11 [Fig. 7 and Step S3]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the general method of pressurizing an accumulator of Deferme with the apparatus to pressurize an accumulator of Cao et. al. because it improves reliability and simplifies the process of pressurizing the accumulator, reduces cost, avoids safety accidents (Para. 5).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the combination of Deferme and Cao et. al. teaches: The method of claim 3, further comprising positioning the floating piston within the cavity prior to the supplying pressurized gas (Piston 5 is sat in the cavity of the base structure 3 [Completed in step S1 and shown Fig. 1 and 7]). Further comprising engaging the piston with an axially movable ram, wherein the ram is translated to perform the inserting the floating piston step (The base structure comprises a rod 1 that engages the piston and axially moves the piston upwards into the accumulator body [Step S4 and Figs. 7 and 8]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deferme (US 20210270342) in view of Werner (DE 4407261).
Regarding claim 8, Deferme teaches: The method of claim 1, which includes mechanically deforming the cap to form an indent or tapered rim but fails to teach the specifics of utilizing a jaw to form said indentation.
Werner teaches: wherein mechanically deforming includes moving a jaw into contact with a surface of the end cap (A jaw 27 utilized to form the inwardly extending projections [Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 53-61).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the general method of pressurizing an accumulator of Deferme with the apparatus to produce the radially inwardly extending project of Werner because it is an easy method of sealing a piston which doesn’t cause tolerance problems (Col. 5, ~lines 40-46) and improves strength to handle greater forces due to maintaining wall thickness and reducing forming forces (Col. 1, line 57 – Col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Deferme and Werner teaches: The method of claim 8, wherein mechanically deforming further includes moving an opposing jaw into contact with the surface of the end cap to define another radially inwardly extending projection (Includes two jaws 27 on opposing sides of the cylinder 5 which creates another radially inwardly extending projection – See marked image below [Werner - Fig. 1]).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Deferme and Werner teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein mechanically deforming includes axially driving the open end of the end cap into a reduction land (The radially inwardly extending projection is shown to be created via a reduction land 17 – See image below [Werner – Fig. 1]).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Deferme and Werner teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein mechanically deforming includes defining additional radially inwardly extending projections circumferentially spaced apart from the radially inwardly extending projection (additional projections defined on either side of the cylinder [Werner – Fig. 1, see left marked image below and Deferme – Fig. 9, see right marked image below]).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
521
230
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keil (US 9533538) teaches: an accumulator with a gas chamber filled with nitrogen and crimped at two ends so as to prevent a floating piston from leaving (Fig. 2-3 and 20).
Rajabi (US 6460571) teaches: an accumulator with a floating piston with a gas chamber and a crimping device to secure the piston within the accumulator (Para. 5-6, 9).
Hasegawa (US 5311910) teaches: an accumulator mechanically deformed with a floating piston in the cap and pressurized by nitrogen gas (Para. 6, and Figs. 3-5).
Giorgini (US 20130213029) teaches: an accumulator with a floating piston and a gas chamber filled with nitrogen gas (Fig. 3 and Para. 38).
Kort et. al. (US 20050224122) teaches: a floating piston accumulator with a pressurized gas chamber and is pinched at two ends to secure the piston within the accumulator (Para. 19 and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881. 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.
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights