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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/27/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Claims 1-11 have been amended. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The added limitations of a housing including at least a first surface, a second surface, and an interior do not have support in the specification. Examiner disagrees that support for these amendments is clearly and unambiguously derived from Fig. 1 of the original drawings. Element 14 in Fig. 1 is labeled as “interface unit 14” in the written disclosure. There is no mention of the unit being contained in a housing. The dotted lines that demarcate interface unit 14 alone do not obviously represent a physical housing. Furthermore, a “first surface”, “second surface”, and “interior” of the housing are not labeled in the drawings nor are they mentioned in the written disclosure. Therefore, the amendments to claim 1 introduce new matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney (US 10918004 B2) in view of Dinkel (US 11001245 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Whitney teaches a hydraulic interface configured to provide hydraulic control between an agricultural towing vehicle (abstract, support machine) and an attachment (abstract, implement), the hydraulic interface configured to supply the attachment with hydraulic power of the agricultural towing vehicle (column 1 line 6, “The present description generally relates to hydraulic implements, or other hydraulic work machines, that are driven or powered by a hydraulic system associated with a support machine”), comprising:
a hydraulic work port (Fig. 2, supply line connector 204) provided at the first surface of the housing and being configured to pass a hydraulic medium delivered by a pump (fluid pump 118) in the agricultural towing vehicle into the hydraulic interface (column 5 line 47, “When connected, the fluid control mechanisms associated with connectors 204 and 206 are opened, thereby providing a hydraulic fluid under pressure though supply line 208 to one or more hydraulically-powered components 126”);
a pressure port (supply line connector 206) provided at the second surface of the housing, the pressure port being hydraulically connected to the hydraulic work port, for delivering hydraulic power from the hydraulic interface to the attachment (column 5 line 47, “When connected, the fluid control mechanisms associated with connectors 204 and 206 are opened, thereby providing a hydraulic fluid under pressure though supply line 208 to one or more hydraulically-powered components 126”);
a hydraulic feedback port (connector 226) provided at the second surface of the housing and being configured to receive a hydraulic feedback pressure from the attachment (column 5 line 67, “A third return line 222 comprises corresponding connectors 224 and 226, and provides a return flow to sensing circuitry 121”);
a signal port (connector 224) provided at the first surface of the housing and being configured to deliver feedback signal in dependence on the hydraulic feedback pressure (column 5 line 67, “A third return line 222 comprises corresponding connectors 224 and 226, and provides a return flow to sensing circuitry 121”);
and a pressure sensor (sensing circuitry 121) provided in the interior of the housing between the hydraulic feedback port and the signal port, the pressure sensor being configured to convert the hydraulic feedback pressure into the feedback signal (column 6 line 3, “return line 222 comprises a load sensing line that can be used by sensing circuitry 121 to sense a load or other operational characteristic of component(s) 126”).
Whitney fails to explicitly teach a housing including at least a first surface, a second surface, and an interior, the housing being configured to be mounted to the agricultural towing vehicle. Because Whitney fails to explicitly teach the housing, they also fail to explicitly teach the ports are all located on the housing. However, it can be assumed that there is a housing for these components, and that these components would be mounted onto the support machine.
Dinkel teaches a housing including at least a first surface, a second surface, and an interior (column 3 line 34; Fig. 1, pressure sensors 20, 19 and hydraulic ports within common housing 21), the housing being configured to be mounted to the agricultural towing vehicle (housing 21 is hydraulically connected to vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Whitney to incorporate the teachings of Dinkel to add the housing. Combining the two prior arts would yield the predictable results of a housing that contains the pressure sensor, and ports that facilitate the hydraulic fluid from the pump to the attachment. Positioning the pressure sensor in a housing with the ports would not change the principle operation of the sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that this would lead to adequately house the electrical components. Furthermore, placing the pressure sensor in a housing is also well-known and routine in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teaches the hydraulic interface of claim 1. Whitney fails to explicitly teach an electrical control unit which has a control port connected to the signal port. However, the sensing circuitry is used in order to control the flow (column 9 lines 42-48), therefore it can be assumed that the signal is being sent to a control unit to control the flow.
Dinkel teaches an electrical control unit connected to sensors (column 8 line 33, “An open-loop and closed-loop control unit 182 is connected at the signal input side to the pressure sensors 160, 162”). Although these sensors 160, 162 are different than sensors 20, 21, it would be obvious to connect the sensors to a control unit so that the sensed measurements can be put to use.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel to further incorporate the teachings of Dinkel. It is obvious to send the sensor signal to a control unit in order to use the measurements to control the flow, and this is well-known and routine in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teaches the hydraulic interface of claim 2. Whitney fails to explicitly teach the electrical control unit has a sensor input to which a signal output of a pressure sensor is connected, wherein an input of the pressure sensor is hydraulically connected to the hydraulic work port. However, the sensing circuitry is used in order to control the flow (column 9 lines 42-48), therefore it can be assumed that the signal is being sent to a control unit to control the flow.
Dinkel explicitly teaches the electrical control unit has a sensor input to which a signal output of a pressure sensor is connected, wherein an input of the pressure sensor is hydraulically connected to the hydraulic work port (column 8 line 33, “An open-loop and closed-loop control unit 182 is connected at the signal input side to the pressure sensors 160, 162”). Although these sensors 160, 162 are different than sensors 20, 21, it would be obvious to connect the sensors to a control unit so that the sensed measurements can be put to use.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel to further incorporate the teachings of Dinkel. It is obvious to send the sensor signal to a control unit in order to use the measurements to control the flow, and this is well-known and routine in the art.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teaches the hydraulic interface of claim 1. Whitney further teaches an adjusting device for adjusting the hydraulic flow (flow control mechanism 238).
Whitney fails to teach the adjusting device is hydraulically interposed between the hydraulic work port and the pressure port.
However, Dinkel teaches an adjusting device that is hydraulically interposed between the hydraulic work port and the pressure port (Fig. 1, valves 50a-50d and 6a-6d).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel to further incorporate the teachings of Dinkel to add an adjusting device in order to control the flow, and this addition would have yielded predictable results. Valves to control flow are well-known and routine in the art.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teach the hydraulic interface of claim 6. Whitney further teaches the adjusting device has a hydraulic control valve (flow control mechanism 238), which can be switched between a plurality of switch positions (column 6 line 30, “a first position (which prevents fluid flow through line 210) to a second position (shown in FIG. 2) that allows fluid flow through line 210”).
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney in view of Dinkel and further in view of Chmielewski (US 5704200 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teaches the hydraulic interface of claim 2. Whitney further teaches the electrical control unit has a control output which is connected to a pump controller of a hydraulic variable displacement pump (fluid pump 118), and a pump output of the hydraulic variable displacement pump is hydraulically connected to the hydraulic work port (supply line 208).
Whitney fails to explicitly teach the type of pump. However, variable displacement pumps are well-known in the art and are often used in agricultural vehicles.
Chmielewski teaches the electrical control unit has a control output which is connected to a pump controller of a hydraulic variable displacement pump (Fig. 1A, pump p; column 47 line 36, “pressure compensated systems with load sense control for the system pump”—load sensing suggests a variable displacement pump), and a pump output of the hydraulic variable displacement pump is hydraulically connected to the hydraulic work port (Fig. 1A, pump p and valve assembly 100).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Whitney in view of Dinkel to incorporate the teachings of Chmielewski. As stated above, variable displacement pumps are well-known in the art and are often used in agricultural vehicles. This would have been a trivial addition to Whitney yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel and Chmielewski teaches the hydraulic interface of claim 3. Whitney fails to teach the electrical control unit has a sensor port to which a signal output of a displacement sensor for detecting a displacement of the pump controller is connected.
However, Dinkel teaches the electrical control unit has a sensor port to which a signal output of a displacement sensor for detecting a displacement of the pump controller is connected (column 7 line 6, “A pressure sensor 20 connected to the line section 22b detects the pressure built up in the pressure space 18 as a result of a displacement of the second piston 16”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Whitney in view of Dinkel and Chmielewski to further incorporate the teachings of Dinkel. While Whitney does not explicitly teach a displacement sensor for the pump controller, this is a common feature in hydraulic systems in order to measure the displacement of the pump. This would have been a trivial addition to Whitney yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teach the hydraulic interface of claim 7. Both Whitney and Dinkel fail to teach the hydraulic control valve includes a proportional valve. However, proportional valves are well-known and common in the art, and would have been a trivial change.
Chmielewski teaches the hydraulic control valve includes a proportional valve (column 8 line 19, “Valve assembly 100 includes a proportional raise control valve 118 (shown in FIG. 2A) and a proportional lower control valve 120 (also shown in FIG. 2A), both fluidly coupled to cylinder 206 to apply pressure corrections when the measured pressure 214 in cylinder 206 deviates from the setpoint value").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel to incorporate the teachings of Chmielewski to make the valve a proportional valve. As stated above, proportional valves are well-known and common in the art, and would have been a trivial change yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney in view of Dinkel and further in view of Woerner (US 20230354733 A1)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teach the hydraulic interface of claim 7. Both Whitney and Dinkel fail to teach the adjusting device has a pressure compensator.
However, Woerner teaches the adjusting device has a pressure compensator (Fig. 1, pressure compensator 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel to incorporate the teachings of Woerner to add a pressure compensator. Pressure compensators are well-known and routine in the art and would have been a trivial addition to Whitney yielding predictable results. It would be obvious that a pressure compensator would lead to a safer and more efficient system.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel teach the hydraulic interface of claim 7. Whitney further teaches a control valve (flow control mechanism 238).
Both Whitney and Dinkel fail to teach the adjusting device has a pressure compensator.
However, Woerner teaches the adjusting device has a pressure compensator (Fig. 1, pressure compensator 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel to incorporate the teachings of Woerner to add a pressure compensator. Pressure compensators are well-known and routine in the art and would have been a trivial addition to Whitney yielding predictable results. It would be obvious that a pressure compensator would lead to a safer and more efficient system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel and Woerner teaches the hydraulic interface of claim 9. Both Whitney and Dinkel fail to teach a delivery output of the pressure compensator is hydraulically connected to a delivery input of the hydraulic control valve, and a delivery output of the hydraulic control valve is connected to a control input of the pressure compensator.
However, Woerner teaches a delivery output of the pressure compensator is hydraulically connected to a delivery input of the hydraulic control valve, and a delivery output of the hydraulic control valve is connected to a control input of the pressure compensator (par. 27, “there is a pressure compensator (differential pressure valve) 10, the control input of which is connected to the port A2 of the pressure control valve 5”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Whitney in view of Dinkel and Woerner to further incorporate the teachings of Woerner. The purpose of a pressure compensator is to keep a consistent pressure, and so the compensator would need to be in communication with the hydraulic control valve to do so. It would have been an obvious conclusion for a delivery output of the pressure compensator to be hydraulically connected to a delivery input of the hydraulic control valve, and a delivery output of the hydraulic control valve to be connected to a control input of the pressure compensator.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights