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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/24/2026.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 10, 11 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.
Claim2 recites “Piston bore”. It is unclear if this is a second piston bore or the same piston bore claimed in claim 1.
The term “about” in claims 4,7,10,11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-2, 5, 6, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard et al. (US 10312653 B2) in view of Ikegaya (US 5806481 A).
In re claim1 : Ballard discloses a hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300), comprising: a hydraulic pump (fig.2, 40) defining a piston bore (fig.4, 46, referred as pumping chamber); a hydraulic piston (fig.4, 44) arranged within the piston bore(fig.4, 46);
Ballard is silent about a coating applied to an interior surface of the piston bore, the coating in direct contact with the interior surface of the piston bore and arranged between the interior surface of the piston bore and the piston.
However, Ikegaya teaches about a coating (fig.2(a), 10) applied to an interior surface (fig.2(a), 2a) of the piston bore (fig.11(a),91), the coating (fig.2(a), 10) in direct contact with the interior surface (fig.2(a), 2a) of the piston bore (fig.11(a),91) and arranged between the interior surface (fig.2(a), 2a) of the piston bore (fig.11(a),91) and the piston (fig.2(a), 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic tool disclosed by Ballard and apply a coating to the piston bore (fig.8, 46) for the purpose of having a tool that is durable (col2, lines 25-51).
In re claim2, which depends on claim 1 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 1.
Ikegaya teaches (col4, lines 57-62, referred as sleeveless piston bore) about piston bore (fig.11(a), 91) does not include a piston sleeve arranged between the interior surface (fig.2(a), 2a) of the piston bore (fig.11(a),91) and piston (fig.2(a), 11).
In re claim5, which depends on claim 1 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 1.
Ikegaya teaches the coating is applied to the interior surface of the piston bore via electroplating (col9, lines 43-58).
In re claim6, which depends on claim 1 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 1.
Ikegaya teaches the coating (fig.7a, 67) is applied to the interior surface (fig.7a, 61a) of the piston bore (fig.7a, 61, referred as cylinder bore) and honing treatment is done after a plating coating is formed (col4, lines 62-64).
Note that, when the coating is honed it reduces coating material and make the coating thinner. The claimed phrase “the coating is applied to the interior surface of the piston bore at a first thickness and is honed down to a second, different thickness” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
In re claim8, which depends on claim 1 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 1. Ballard further discloses the piston bore (fig.8, 46) is a blind hole (“BH”, see annotated first picture from Ballard below).
Annotated picture : Ballard (fig.8)
PNG
media_image1.png
479
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim9, which depends on claim 8 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 8.
Ikegaya teaches the interior surface (fig.11(a), 91a) of the piston bore (fig.11(a), 91) defines a height (“H1”, see annotated picture below), and wherein the coating (fig.11(a), 92) includes a height (“H2”, see annotated picture below) that is less than the height of the interior surface (“H1”) of the piston bore (fig.11(a), 91).
Annotated picture: Ikegaya (fig.11(a))
PNG
media_image2.png
410
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim10, which depends on claim 9 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 9.
Both Ballard and Ikegaya are silent about the height of the coating is about 60-70 percent of the height of the interior surface of the piston bore. Note however that, Ikegaya teaches about the height of the coating (“H2”, see annotated second picture from Ikegaya above) is less than the height of interior surface of the piston bore (“H1”, see annotated second picture from Ikegaya above) since only the area upon which the piston slides is plated (col. 2, lines 9-11) which makes the height of the coating a result effective parameter.
Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 10 except for the height of the coating is about 60-70 percent of the height of the interior surface of the piston bore. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool of Ballard in view of Ikegaya and make the height of the coating (“H2”) 60-70 percent of the cylinder bore height (“H1”) by sealing the lower portion of cylinder bore (the sealing member position can be move up/down to change the height see fig.10a, 83, col3, lines 16 - 35) for the purpose of applying coating only on the interior sliding surface on which the piston would move up/down, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim12, which depends on claim 1 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 1.
Ballard further discloses the hydraulic tool further comprising : a crimper/cutter assembly (fig.11, 400, col8 lines 40-45, note that the crimper/cutter assembly can be part of the tool described in fig.1,fig.3 and/or fig.9), the assembly including a head portion (fig.9, 308) and a body portion (fig.9, 314, referred as tool main section, col7 line 51 to col8 line 16); wherein the body portion (fig.9, 314) includes the hydraulic pump (fig.3, 40) and a ram (fig.3, 100) hydraulically connected (fig.3, 70, col3 lines 42-45) to the hydraulic pump (fig.3, 40); and wherein pressurization of hydraulic fluid (col3 lines 42-45) within the hydraulic pump (fig.3, 40) actuates the ram (fig.3, 100) to elicit corresponding actuation of a jaw (fig.1, 150) positioned within the head portion (fig.9, 308) of the crimper/cutter assembly (fig.11, 400).
Claim 3-4, 7, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard in view of Ikegaya as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Grazen (US 3168457 A).
In re claim3, which depends on claim 1 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (Ballard: fig.9, 300) of claim 1.
Both Ballard and Ikegaya are silent about a nickel matrix silicon carbide coating.
However, Grazen teaches coating is a nickel matrix silicon carbide coating (col7, lines 5-15, note that Grazen teaches a cylinder coating, fig.1, 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic tool disclosed by Ballard in view of Ikegaya and add nickel matrix silicon carbide coating on the piston bore surface for the purpose of improving ductility (Grazen, col9, lines 33-39), wear resistance (Grazen, col9, lines 47-54).
In re claim4, which depends on claim 3 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya and Grazen discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 3.
Both Ballard and Ikegaya are silent about an exterior surface of the coating includes between about 20% and about 30% silicon carbide.
However, Grazen teaches an exterior surface of the coating includes between about 20% and about 30% silicon carbide (col5 lines 19-28, also see col7, lines 39-49).
In re claim7, which depends on claim 6 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 6.
Ballard is silent about the first thickness is about .175 mm, and wherein the second thickness is about .124 mm.
However, Ikegaya teaches the second thickness is 0.1mm which is about 0.124 mm (col5, lines 3-5).
Both Ballard and Ikegaya are silent about the first thickness is about .175 mm.
The claimed phrase “the first thickness is about .175 mm” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
In re claim11, which depends on claim 1 : Ballard in view of Ikegaya discloses the hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300) of claim 1.
Both Ballard and Ikegaya are silent about the coating has a hardness value of between about 40 and about 60 HRC.
However, Grazen teaches the coating (fig.5, 58, 59) has a hardness value of between about 40 and about 60 HRC (Grazen teaches a hardness value of 57.5 HRC, col7 lines 5-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic tool disclosed by Ballard in view of Ikegaya and add a coating with hardness value between about 40 and about 60 HRC as taught by Grazen (col7 lines 5-9) for the purpose of improving ductility (Grazen, col9, lines 33-39) and wear resistance (Grazen, col9, lines 47-54).
In re claim20, Ballard discloses a hydraulic tool (fig.9, 300), comprising : a crimper/cutter assembly (fig.11, 400, col8 lines 40-45, note that the crimper/cutter assembly can be part of the tool described in fig.1,fig.3 and/or fig.9), the assembly including a head portion (fig.9, 308) and a body portion (fig.9, 314, referred as tool main section, col7 line 51 to col8 line 16); a hydraulic pump (fig.3, 40) arranged within the body portion (fig.9, 314) of the crimper/cutter assembly, the hydraulic pump (fig.3, 40) including a hydraulic piston (fig.8, 44) arranged within a hydraulic piston bore (fig.8, 46, referred as pumping chamber), a ram (fig.3, 100) arranged within the body portion (fig.9, 314) and hydraulically connected (fig.3, 70, col3 lines 42-45) to the hydraulic pump (fig.3, 40); and a movable jaw (fig.9, 350) arranged within the head portion (fig.9, 308), the jaw (fig.9, 350) to actuate in response to corresponding actuation of the ram (fig.3, 100) via pressurization of hydraulic fluid (col3 lines 42-45) within the hydraulic pump (fig.3, 40);
Ballard is silent about the hydraulic piston bore including a coating applied directly to an interior surface of the piston bore; wherein the coating is a nickel matrix silicon carbide coating.
However, Ikegaya teaches about a piston (fig.2(a), 11) arranged within a piston bore (fig.11(a),91), and the piston bore (fig.11(a),91) including a coating (fig.2(a), 10) applied directly to an interior surface (fig.2(a), 2a) of the piston bore (fig.11(a),91);
Both Ballard and Ikegaya are silent about the coating is a nickel matrix silicon carbide coating.
However, Grazen teaches the coating is a nickel matrix silicon carbide coating (col7, lines 5-15, note that Grazen teaches a cylinder coating, fig.1, 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic tool disclosed by Ballard in view of Ikegaya, coat interior surface of the piston bore taught by Ikegaya and use nickel matrix silicon carbide for the coating as taught by Grazen (col7, lines 5-15) for the purpose of improving durability (Ikegaya, col4, lines 25-51), ductility (Grazen, col9, lines 33-39), and wear resistance (Grazen, col9, lines 47-54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights