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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action mailed 08/29/2025, hereinafter FOA. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the FOA. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 and 21-27 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the FOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BUSCHMANN H DE 102012009136 A1, hereinafter Buschmann, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s argument regarding Buschmann failing to disclose the limitation “determining, by a controller of the material testing apparatus, a target pressure”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. [0020-0024] states that a controller (40) determines the target pressure (Ps) by receiving a signal from an external source. This is in concurrence with the applicant’s disclosure [0036] which states “the target pressure is set based on a received signal”. If the applicant wishes to distinguish over this interpretation, a relationship may be claimed by which the target pressure may be determined. Stated another way, using some relationship or algorithm stated within the specification, the method could be amended to specifically claim a step/process by which the target pressure is determined. As far as is determinate, the specification states that the controller determines the pressure setpoint based upon a received signal, in the same way that Buschmann discloses determining the pressure setpoint.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buschmann, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Buschmann fails to disclose “the pump comprises a testing pump that pumps the pressurized hydraulic fluid to the material testing apparatus, and the electric motor drives both the testing pump and a cooling pump that pumps the pressurized hydraulic fluid to a cooling apparatus external to the HPU” is accurate. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the limitation is rejected by McAnespie; Donald I. US 5240403 A.
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.
-(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buschmann.
Regarding claim 1, Buschmann discloses (Fig. 1-2) a method of controlling a hydraulic power unit (HPU, 10) for providing a pressurized hydraulic fluid (hydraulic fluid, as indicated in [0003]) to a material testing apparatus (MTA) [0012], the HPU having an electric motor (31) and a pump (20), the method comprising:
determining, by a controller of the material testing apparatus (40), a target pressure (Ps) of the pressurized hydraulic fluid that will be provided to the material testing apparatus for a material test process ([0020-0024] states that a controller (40) determines the target pressure (Ps) by receiving a signal from an external source. This is in concurrence with the applicant’s disclosure [0036] which states “the target pressure is set based on a received signal”); and
controlling a pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid based on
the target pressure and
a fluid flow rate (Qs) of the pressurized hydraulic fluid provided to the material testing apparatus during the material test process (401-408, [0024-0027] discloses controlling the pressure based on at least (Ps & Qs)).
Regarding claim 2, Buschmann discloses (Fig. 1-2) the controlling the pressure comprises controlling a rotational speed (n) of the electric motor (408, [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, the controlling the pressure comprises controlling a fluid displacement of the pump (407, [0027])
Regarding claim 4, Buschmann discloses (Fig. 1-2) the controlling the pressure comprises controlling both a fluid displacement of the pump (407, [0027]) and a rotational speed (n) of the electric motor (408, [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Buschmann discloses (Fig. 1-2) measuring a rotational speed of the motor or a fluid displacement of the pump via a sensor (speed sensor (33) [0022], displacement sensor (α, depicted as sensed with dot line, [0027]) ;
and determining the fluid flow rate based on the rotational speed of the motor or the fluid displacement of the pump measured by the sensor ([0025] discloses determining the fluid flow rate, which is subsequently adjusted via feedback as measured via the sensors [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Buschmann discloses (Fig. 1-2) wherein the target pressure is: determined based on a user-input received at a user interface ([0023] states that “a target delivery pressure (Ps)… are supplied”, [0024] states “The target delivery pressure (Ps) is feed to…”, fundamentally, some form of user fed the (Ps) at some form of interface to controller (40)).
Regarding claim 22, Buschmann discloses (Fig. 1-2) wherein the target pressure (Ps) is determined by the controller (40) of the material testing apparatus [0020-24] based on user input received at a user interface ([0020-0023] states that “a target delivery pressure (Ps)… are supplied”, [0024] states “The target delivery pressure (Ps) is feed to…”, fundamentally, some form of user fed the (Ps) at some form of interface to controller (40)).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann as disclosed above for claim 1, and in further view of STEFANI; Matteo et al. US 20210254642 A1, hereinafter Stefani. 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); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (measuring flow rate). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 5, Buschmann discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that measuring the fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid provided to the material testing apparatus during the material test process via a fluid flow sensor. Instead, Buschmann discloses measuring a rotational speed of the motor or a fluid displacement of the pump via a sensor (speed sensor (33) [0022], displacement sensor (α, depicted as sensed with dot line, [0027])); and determining the fluid flow rate based on the rotational speed of the motor or the fluid displacement of the pump measured by the sensor ([0025] discloses determining the fluid flow rate, which is subsequently adjusted via feedback as measured via the sensors [0027]).
Stefani discloses measuring the fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid provided to the material testing apparatus during the material test process via a fluid flow sensor (27, [0053] states control of an electric motor speed and or hydraulic pump displacement may be based on a measure flow rate by a sensor, and that in doing so enables precise control even at low flow rates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Buschmann, by measuring the fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid via a fluid flow sensor, as taught by Stefani, for the purpose of enabling precise control even at low flow rates.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann in further view of McAnespie; Donald I. US 5240403 A, hereinafter Mcanespie. 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); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (cooling of working fluid). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 21, Buschmann discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1. Buschmann further discloses (Fig. 1-2) the pump (20) comprises a testing pump (20) that pumps the pressurized hydraulic fluid to the material testing apparatus [0012], and the electric motor drives the testing pump [0020].
Buschmann fails to explicitly state that the electric motor drives both the testing pump and a cooling pump that pumps the pressurized hydraulic fluid to a cooling apparatus external to the HPU.
McAnespie discloses (Fig. 10) an HPU having an electric motor (426) and a pump (428), the pump comprises a testing pump (428) that pumps the pressurized hydraulic fluid to the material testing apparatus (interpreted herein as a receiver of the pressurized fluid, such as actuator device (406)) and the electric motor drives both the testing pump and a cooling pump (430, Col 11 Ln 57-58) that pumps the pressurized hydraulic fluid to a cooling apparatus (494) external to the HPU (Col 12 Ln 22-39 states that (494) is preferably an air cooled heat exchanger necessitating its location external to the HPU to receive air flow), for the purpose of ensuring the temperature of the fluid remains within a desired operating range Col 12 Ln 55-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Buschmann, by providing the electric motor driven cooling pump and cooling apparatus, as taught by McAnespie, for the purpose of ensuring the temperature of the fluid remains within a desired operating range.
Claims 23-24 and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann as disclosed above for claim 1, and in further view of Shimadzu. 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); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (measuring flow rate). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 23, Buschmann fails to explicitly state that the method further comprising the target pressure is determined based on an amount of force needed to be output by the material testing apparatus for the material test process.
Shimadzu discloses (Fig. 1-2, 5) a method of controlling a hydraulic power unit (HPU, 30) for providing a pressurized hydraulic fluid (“hydraulic fluid”) to a material testing apparatus (MTA, (11/12/21)) [0023], the HPU having an electric motor (34) and a pump (33), the method comprising:
determining a target pressure (“target value of the supply pressure”) of the pressurized hydraulic fluid that will be provided to the material testing apparatus for a material test process [0010];
wherein the target pressure is determined based on an amount of force needed to be output by the material testing apparatus for the material test process ([0010] discloses determining a relationship between an amount of force required by the testing apparatus and the target pressure).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique (determining the target pressure based on an amount of force required by the material testing apparatus) in the same way to the "base" device and the results (controlling the pressure of the 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 determining the target pressure based on an amount of force required by the material testing apparatus in the device of Buschmann to control the pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid as taught by Shimadzu as this is a known technique amongst similar devices ready for improvement.
To further clarify the modification, the method/control of Buschmann is modified to further determine the target pressure as a function dependent upon the required amount of force needed to be output by the material testing apparatus for the material test process as is taught by Shimadzu.
Regarding claim 24, Buschmann fails to explicitly state that the method further comprising the target pressure is determined based on the amount of force needed to be output by the material testing apparatus for the material test process and a relationship between the pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid provided to the material testing apparatus and a force output by the material testing apparatus.
Shimadzu discloses (Fig. 1-2, 5) a method of controlling a hydraulic power unit (HPU, 30) for providing a pressurized hydraulic fluid (“hydraulic fluid”) to a material testing apparatus (MTA, (11/12/21)) [0023], the HPU having an electric motor (34) and a pump (33), the method comprising:
determining a target pressure (“target value of the supply pressure”) of the pressurized hydraulic fluid that will be provided to the material testing apparatus for a material test process [0010];
wherein the target pressure is determined based on an amount of force needed to be output by the material testing apparatus for the material test process ([0010] discloses determining a relationship between an amount of force required by the testing apparatus and the target pressure).
Regarding claim 27, Buschmann further discloses (Fig. 1-2) the target pressure comprises a first target pressure, the material test process comprises a first material test process, and the fluid flow rate comprises a first fluid flow rate (Buschmann discloses the above method for at least one first material test).
Buschmann fails to explicitly state that the method further comprising:
determining a second target pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid that will be provided to the material testing apparatus for a second material test process; and
controlling the pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid based on the second target pressure and a second fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid provided to the material testing apparatus during the second material test process.
Shimadzu discloses (Fig. 1-2, 5) a method of controlling a hydraulic power unit (HPU, 30) for providing a pressurized hydraulic fluid (“hydraulic fluid”) to a material testing apparatus (MTA, (11/12/21)) [0023], the HPU having an electric motor (34) and a pump (33), the method comprising:
determining a target pressure (“target value of the supply pressure”) of the pressurized hydraulic fluid that will be provided to the material testing apparatus for a material test process [0010]; and
controlling a pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid based on the target pressure and a fluid flow rate (“motor power supply frequency”) of the pressurized hydraulic fluid provided to the material testing apparatus during the material test process ([0010] further states controlling the pressure based on the target pressure and motor power supply frequency, hereinafter frequency, which is a value indicative of motor/pump speed and delivered pump fluid flow rate);
determining a second target pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid that will be provided to the material testing apparatus for a second material test process; and
controlling the pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid based on the second target pressure and a second fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid provided to the material testing apparatus during the second material test process ([0038] states that the determining/controlling is also performed for a first/preliminary test, thereby requiring a first target pressure, second flow rate, [0039] states that the determining/controlling is also performed for a second test, thereby requiring a second target pressure, second flow rate).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique (controlling the pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid based on a second target pressure and a second fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid) in the same way to the "base" device (controlling the pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid based on the first target pressure and a first fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid) and the results (performing a second material test process) 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 control the pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid based on a second target pressure and a second fluid flow rate of the pressurized hydraulic fluid in the device of Buschmann to perform a second material test process as taught by Shimadzu as this is a known technique amongst similar devices ready for improvement.
To further clarify the modification, the method/control of Buschmann is modified to further determine an additional/second target pressure and fluid flow rate to perform an additional second material test process as taught by Shimadzu.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann as disclosed above for claim 1, and in further view of Hobson; Nicholas M. US 5988989 A, hereinafter Hobson. 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); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (measuring flow rate). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 25, Buschmann discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the pump or the motor are positioned in a hydraulic fluid reservoir of the HPU.
Hobson discloses (Fig. 1) an HPU comprising a pump (16) and a motor (14), wherein the pump or the motor are positioned in a hydraulic fluid reservoir (12) of the HPU (as depicted, both (14 & 16) are located in (12) for the purpose of reducing the amount of perceptible noise generated by the pump and motor (Abstract, Col 2 Ln 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Buschmann, by positioning the pump or the motor in a hydraulic fluid reservoir of the HPU, as taught by Hobson, for the purpose of reducing the amount of perceptible noise generated by the pump and motor.
Regarding claim 26, Buschmann discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the pump and the motor are positioned in a hydraulic fluid reservoir of the HPU.
Hobson discloses (Fig. 1) an HPU comprising a pump (16) and a motor (14), wherein the pump and the motor are positioned in a hydraulic fluid reservoir (12) of the HPU (as depicted, both (14 & 16) are located in (12) for the purpose of reducing the amount of perceptible noise generated by the pump and motor (Abstract, Col 2 Ln 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Buschmann, by positioning the pump or the motor in a hydraulic fluid reservoir of the HPU, as taught by Hobson, for the purpose of reducing the amount of perceptible noise generated by the pump and motor.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3745