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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein least one first coupling part” in lines 3-4 should be corrected as --wherein at least one first coupling part--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a sleeve-shaped valve seat \of the directional valve” in lines13-14 should be corrected as --a sleeve-shaped valve seat [[\of]]of the directional valve--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 58 is objected to because of the following informalities: “third cylinder chamber” in line 4 and “(pressure)” in line 3 should be corrected as --a third cylinder chamber-- respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 67 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein least one first coupling part” in line 4 and “a second cylinder chamberin” in lines 12-13 should be corrected as --wherein at least one first coupling part-- and a second cylinder [[chamberin]]chamber in--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 36-38, 40-68 are 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 36:
Claim 36 recites “wherein at least one second coupling part is present in the spindle, wherein at least one second coupling part is present in the housing” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Upon reviewing the originally filed specification, “wherein at least one second coupling part is present in the spindle” is interpreted as --wherein at least one [[second]]first coupling part is present in the housing--.
Claim 36 recites “an actuator piston guided displaceably in a housing” in line 9. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is noted that claim 36 recites “a housing” in line 1. It is not clear whether “a housing” in line 9 refers to one in line 1 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “a housing” in line 9 is interpreted as --[[a]]the housing--.
Claim 37:
Claim 37 recites “an actuator piston guided displaceably in a housing” in line 9. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is noted that claim 37 recites “a housing” in line 1. It is not clear whether “a housing” in line 9 refers to one in line 1 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “a housing” in line 9 is interpreted as --[[a]]the housing--.
Claim 37 recites “the first coupling part has a shoulder on its end” in line 11. However, the term, “its” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, upon reviewing the originally filed specification, “the first coupling part has a shoulder on its end” is interpreted as --the first coupling part has a shoulder on [[its]]an end of the first coupling part--.
Claim 37 recites “the guide bore” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the guide bore” is interpreted as --[[the]]a guide bore--.
Claim 37 recites “a guide bore” in line 13. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. As interpreted above, claim 37 recites a guide bore in line 12. For examination purposes, “a guide bore” in line 13 is interpreted as --[[a]]the guide bore--.
Claim 38:
Claim 38 recites “the guide bore” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the guide bore” is interpreted as --[[the]]a guide bore--.
Claim 38 recites “a guide bore” in line 4. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. As interpreted above, claim 38 recites a guide bore in line 2. For examination purposes, “a guide bore” in line 4 is interpreted as --[[a]]the guide bore--.
Claim 40:
Claim 40 recites “two second coupling parts” in line 1. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 35 (which upon claim 40 depends) recites “at least one second coupling part”. It is not clear whether “two second coupling parts” refers to “at least one second coupling part” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “two second coupling parts” is interpreted as --two of the second coupling parts--.
Claim 41:
Claim 41 recites “a first coupling part” in line 2. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 35 (which upon claim 41 depends) recites “at least one first coupling part” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether “a first coupling part” refers to “at least one first coupling part” of claim 35 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “a first coupling part” of claim 41 is interpreted as --[[a]]the first coupling part--.
Claim 42:
Claim 42 recites “two first coupling parts” in lines 2-3. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 35 (which upon claim 42 depends) recites “at least one first coupling part” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether “two first coupling parts” refers to “at least one first coupling part” of claim 35 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “two first coupling parts” is interpreted as --two of the first coupling parts--.
Claim 43:
Claim 43 recites “at least two second coupling parts” in line 9. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 43 recites “at least one second coupling part” in line 1. It is not clear whether “at least two second coupling parts” refers to “at least one second coupling part” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “at least two second coupling parts” is interpreted as --at least two of the second coupling parts--.
Claim 44:
Claim 44 recites “the first cylinder chamber” in line 8 and “the second cylinder chamber” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the first cylinder chamber” in line 8 and “the second cylinder chamber” in line 9 are interpreted as --[[the]]a first cylinder chamber-- and --[[the]]a second cylinder chamber-- respectively.
Claim 44 recites “at least two second coupling parts” in line 14. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 44 recites “at least one second coupling part” in line 1. It is not clear whether “at least two second coupling parts” refers to “at least one second coupling part” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “at least two second coupling parts” is interpreted as --at least two of the second coupling parts--.
Claim 45:
Claim 45 recites “a first coupling part” in line 2, “a housing” in line 2, “least one first coupling part” in line 6, “at least one second coupling part” in line 7, “a coupling device for a fluid” in line 9, “a spring-loaded, double check valve” in line 10, “an outwardly opening directional valve” in line 12, “a cylinder bore” in line 13, “a first cylinder chamber” in line 13, and “a second cylinder chamber” in line 14. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. All these mentioned limitations are recited in claim 43 which claim 45 depends. For examination purposes, “a first coupling part” in line 2, “a housing” in line 2, “least one first coupling part” in line 6, “at least one second coupling part” in line 7, “a coupling device for a fluid” in line 9, “a spring-loaded, double check valve” in line 10, “an outwardly opening directional valve” in line 12, “a cylinder bore” in line 13, “a first cylinder chamber” in line 13, and “a second cylinder chamber” in line 14 are interpreted as --[[a]]the first coupling part--, --[[a]]the housing--, --the at least one first coupling part--, --the at least one second coupling part--, --[[a]]the coupling device for [[a]]the fluid--, --[[a]]the spring-loaded, double check valve--, [[an]]the outwardly opening directional valve--, --[[a]]the cylinder bore--, --[[a]]the first cylinder chamber--, and --[[a]]the second cylinder chamber-- respectively.
Claim 46:
Claim 46 recites “two second coupling parts” in line 2. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is noted that claim 43 (which upon claim 46 depends) recites “at least one second coupling part” in line 1. It is not clear whether “two second coupling parts” refers to “at least one second coupling part” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “two second coupling parts” is interpreted as --two of the second coupling parts--.
Claim 47:
Claim 47 recites the term, “it” which makes the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “it” is interpreted as --[[it]]the supply bracket--.
Claim 47 recites “at least two second coupling parts” in lines 1-2. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is noted that claim 43 (which upon claim 47 depends) recites “at least one second coupling part” in line 1. It is not clear whether “at least two second coupling parts” refers to “at least one second coupling part” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “at least two second coupling parts” is interpreted as --at least two of the second coupling parts--.
Claim 47 recites “a first coupling part” in lines 2-3. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is noted that claim 43 (which upon claim 47 depends) recites “a first coupling part” in line 2. It is not clear whether “a first coupling part” refers to “a first coupling part” of claim 43 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “a first coupling part” is interpreted as [[a]]the first coupling part--.
Claim 48:
Claim 48 recites “the valve tappets” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the valve tappets” is interpreted as --[[the]] valve tappets--.
Claim 50:
Claim 50 recites the term, “it” in line 4 which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purpose, upon reviewing the claim language, “it” is interpreted as --[[it]] the second seal--.
Claim 51:
Claim 51 recites “the third cylinder chamber” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the third cylinder chamber” is interpreted as --[[the]]a third cylinder chamber--.
Claim 53:
Claim 53 recites “the valve seat” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 52 clearly recites “a valve seat” in line 5-6. For examination purposes, claim 53 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 52.
Claim 54:
Claim 54 recites “a second compression spring” in line 1. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for a “first” compression spring. Also, claim 54 recites “the valve seat” in line 3, “the valve plate” in line 3, and “the valve tappet” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claims 53 recites “a spring element” in line 2, and claim 52 (which upon claim 53 depends) recites “a valve seat”, “a valve plate”, and “a valve plate”. For examination purposes, claim 54 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 53.
Claim 58:
Claim 58 recites “a third compression spring” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “first” and “second” compression springs in the claim. It is noted that claim 53 recites “a spring element” and claim 54 (which is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 53) recites “a second compression spring”. For examination purposes, claim 58 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 54.
Claim 60:
Claim 60 recites “the fluid chamber” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the fluid chamber” is interpreted as --[[the]]a fluid chamber--.
Claim 61:
Claim 61 recites “the third cylinder chamber” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the third cylinder chamber” is interpreted as --[[the]]a third cylinder chamber--.
Claim 63:
Claim 63 recites “at least the second portion of the actuator piston” in lines 1-2 and “at least the second portion of the cylinder bore” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, there is insufficient antecedent basis for a “first” portion of the actuator piston and a “first” portion of the cylinder bore. For examination purposes, claim 63 is interpreted as below:
63. The supply bracket according to claim 43, characterized in that the actuator piston comprises a first portion and a second portion, and the cylinder bore comprises a first portion and a second portion, characterized in that at least the second portion of the actuator piston has an oval or elliptical cross-section, and in that at least the second portion of the cylinder bore has an oval or elliptical cross-section.
Claim 64:
Claim 64 recites “the shoulder”, “the guide bore”, “the valve seat”, “the valve plate”, “the valve tappet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 52 clearly recites “a guide bore”, “a sleeve-shaped valve seat”, “ a valve plate”, and “a valve tappet”. For examination purposes, “the shoulder” is interpreted as --[[the]]a shoulder--, and claim 64 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 52.
Claim 65:
Claim 65 recites “the shoulder of the valve housing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 64 recites “a shoulder of the valve housing” in lines 3-4. For examination purposes, claim 65 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 64.
Claim 67:
Claim 67 recites “at least one first coupling part” in line 14. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 67 recites “at least one first coupling part” in line 4. It is not clear whether “at least one first coupling part” in line 14 refers to one in line 4, or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “at least one first coupling part” in line 14 is interpreted as --the at least one first coupling part--.
claim 68:
Claim 68 recites the term, “it” in line 1 which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “it” is interpreted as --[[it]]the rotary machine--.
Claim 68 recites “at least two second coupling parts” in line 10. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 67 (which upon claim 68 depends) recites “at least one second coupling part” in line 5. It is not clear whether “at least two second coupling parts” refers to “at least one second coupling part” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “at least two second coupling parts” is interpreted as --at least two of the second coupling parts--.
Claim 68 recites “at least one second coupling part”, “a first coupling part”, “a coupling device for a fluid”, “a spring-loaded, double check valve”, “an actuator piston”, “a housing”, “an outwardly opening directional valve”, “a cylinder bore”, “a first cylinder chamber”, and “a second cylinder chamber”. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. All these mentioned limitations are recited in claim 67 which claim 68 depends upon. For examination purposes, “at least one second coupling part”, “a first coupling part”, “a coupling device for a fluid”, “a spring-loaded, double check valve”, “an actuator piston”, “a housing”, “an outwardly opening directional valve”, “a cylinder bore”, “a first cylinder chamber”, and “a second cylinder chamber” are interpreted as --the at least one second coupling part--, --[[a]]the first coupling part--, --[[a]]the coupling device for [[a]]the fluid--, --[[a]]the spring-loaded, double check valve--, --[[an]]the actuator piston--, --[[a]]the housing--, --[[an]]the outwardly opening directional valve--, --[[a]]the cylinder bore--, --[[a]]the first cylinder chamber--, and --[[a]]the second cylinder chamber-- respectively.
Claims 49, 52, 55-57, 59 and 66 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 is would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection set forth in this Office action.
Claims 39, 49, 52, 55-57, 59, 62, 66 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected/objected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 36-37, 43-44, and 67 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 38, 40-42, 45-48, 50-51, 53-54, 58, 60-61, 63-65, 68 would 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The subject matter of the independent claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of independent claims 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, and 67 not found was a use of a spring-loaded, double check valve forming the first coupling part, an outwardly opening directional valve arranged in the actuator piston of the second coupling part; in combination with the limitations set forth in claims 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, and 67 of the instant invention respectively.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
As seen in figs 8-10, the closest prior art, Kimura (US 2010/0096032 A1) teaches a use of a similar coupling device 15 (fig8, para[0105]) (which can be used for a tool holder/supply bracket/rotary machine) comprising at least one first coupling part 20 (fig8, para[0108],[0109]), at least one second coupling part 25 (para[0108],[0109], fig8) present in a housing 11 (fig8), wherein the first coupling part 20 and the second coupling part 25 are suitable for working together to form the coupling device 15 (para[0107]) for a fluid (para[0107]), wherein the first coupling part 15 is formed with a spring-loaded valve 35 (para[0109], with a compression coil spring 40), wherein the second coupling part 25 comprises an actuation piston 55a (para[0120]) guided displaceably in the housing 11 (figs9-10), wherein the actuator piston 55a is a part of a valve 55 (para[0120]). Although the prior art of record teaches a similar coupling device, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kimura to use a spring-loaded, double check valve forming the first coupling part and to use an outwardly opening directional valve arranged in the actuator piston of the second coupling part in combination with the limitations set forth in claims 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, and 67 of the instant invention respectively. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, and 67 of the instant invention respectively.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arisato (US 2003/0066564 A1), Schaldach (6,158,780), and Bertorello (4,678,077) teach similar coupling devices, however, none of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723