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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/26/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 is amended; claims 2, 7-10 are canceled; claims 15-23 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 regarding claim 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the modification of AAPA with Yoshimura is not obvious because in Yoshimura, the piston 31 is separate from valve member 20 and therefore does not prevent rotation of valve member 20.
However, the rejection is AAPA in view of Yoshimura. Yoshimura is used only to teach the lug being integral, the rest of the claim is taught by AAPA. Therefore, the configuration of the piston and valve member is not pertinent to the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, due to the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of AAPA, Yoshimura, and Watanabe.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA; Figures 1 and 2) in view Yoshimura (U.S. 2010/0181510).
Regarding claim 6, AAPA discloses a hydraulic valve (1) comprising: a valve housing (4) defining a housing bore 3 (see paragraph 0035); and a control slider (2) movably mounted in the housing bore along a longitudinal axis, the control slider (2) having two end portions each arranged on either side of a middle portion of the control slider (2), wherein the control slider (2) comprises an anti-rotation lock (5) configured to protrude radially outward from the control slider (2) wherein the anti-rotation lock (5) is accommodated in a guide groove (8) of a pole tube (9) mounted on the valve housing 4 (see paragraph 0035), wherein the anti-rotation lock (5) is configured to prevent rotation of the control slider (2) about the longitudinal axis relative to the valve housing (4) and wherein the anti-rotation lock (5) is a lug (5) radially outwardly protruding from a first end portion (see annotated figure above) of the two end portions, wherein the first end portion (see annotated figure above) defines an end edge (see annotated figure above) of the control slider (2) and wherein the lug (5) is spaced apart from the end edge (see annotated figure above; see paragraphs 0003 and 0035).
AAPA fails to disclose wherein the anti-rotation lock is an integral lug.
It is noted that Applicant has provided a special definition and has defined integral to mean “In particular, control slider integral means that the lug and the control slider are manufactured in the same manufacturing step, and that the lug is not mounted on the control slider subsequently or in a separate manufacturing or assembly step” (paragraph 0010).
Yoshimura teaches wherein an anti-rotation lock (36) is an integral lug (36) radially outwardly protruding the a first end portion (see annotated figure above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide wherein the anti-rotation lock is an integral lug, as taught by Yoshimura. Doing so would provide a stronger lug, less prone to failure.
Regarding claim 15, AAPA as modified, teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the integral lug (5) extends in a longitudinal direction of the control slider 2 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the control slider integral lug (5) has a width (see Figure 1); wherein the control slider integral lug (5) protrudes radially from the first end portion (see annotated figure above).
AAPA fails to disclose wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm, because Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm, provides an advantage or solves any stated problem. Please note that paragraph 0021 states “the elongated extension of the control slider integral lug prevents unthreading from the guide groove”. Any lug would be an elongated extension which would prevent removal from a guide groove. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected AAPA’s valve, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the sizes taught by AAPA or the claimed sizes because both sizes would perform the same function of maintaining the position of the lug.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of AAPA.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11-14, 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. 2014/0166139), in further view of Yoshimura.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 from AAPA.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1B from Watanabe.
PNG
media_image3.png
474
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1B from Watanabe for claim 21.
PNG
media_image4.png
474
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1B from Watanabe for claim 23.
Regarding claims 1, 11-14, AAPA discloses a control slider (2) arranged longitudinally displaceably in a housing bore of a hydraulic valve (1), the control slider (2) comprising: a first end portion (see annotated figure above) extending directly from a side of a middle portion (see annotated figure above); and a lug (5) radially outwardly protruding from the first end portion (see annotated figure above), wherein the first end portion (see annotated figure above) defines an end edge (see annotated figure above) of the control slider (2), wherein the lug (5) is spaced apart from the end edge (see annotated figure above), wherein the first end portion (see annotated figure above) is integral with the middle portion (see annotated figure above), such that movement of the first end portion (see annotated figure above) relative to the middle portion (see annotated figure above) is prevented.
AAPA fails to disclose a middle portion having a plurality of control edges; two end portions each extending directly from either side of the middle portion; an integral lug; wherein a second end portion of the two end portions and the first end portion are integral with the middle portion; wherein the second end portion of the two end portions and the first end portion are integral with the middle portion, such that movement of the first end portion relative to the second end portion and the middle portion is prevented; wherein, the plurality of control edges includes a first control edge, a second control edge, and a third control edge, the first control edge is adjacent to the first end portion and is formed without a control window, the second control edge is longitudinally between the first control edge and the third control edge, and the second control edge includes a control window, and the third control edge is adjacent to a second end portion of the two end portions and is formed without a control window; wherein, the second control edge defines a cylindrical surface, and the control window is a recess that interrupts the cylindrical surface; wherein, the first control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface, and the third control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface; wherein, a group of control edges of the plurality of control edges each define a corresponding control window,, and each control window and the integral lug are rotationally aligned.
It is noted that Applicant has provided a special definition and has defined integral to mean “In particular, control slider integral means that the lug and the control slider are manufactured in the same manufacturing step, and that the lug is not mounted on the control slider subsequently or in a separate manufacturing or assembly step” (paragraph 0010).
Watanabe teaches an anti-rotation spool valve comprising a middle portion (see annotated figure above) having a plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above); two end portions (see annotated figure above) each extending directly from either side of the middle portion (see annotated figure above); wherein a second end portion (see annotated figure above) of the two end portions (see annotated figure above) and the first end portion (see annotated figure above) are integral with the middle portion (see annotated figure above) such that movement of the first end portion (see annotated figure above) relative to the second end portion (see annotated figure above) and the middle portion (see annotated figure above) is prevented; wherein, the plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above) includes a first control edge (see annotated figure above), a second control edge (see annotated figure above), and a third control edge (see annotated figure above), the first control edge (see annotated figure above) is adjacent to the first end portion (see annotated figure above) and is formed without a control window, the second control edge (see annotated figure above) is longitudinally between the first control edge (see annotated figure above) and the third control edge (see annotated figure above), and the second control edge (see annotated figure above) includes a control window (see annotated figure above), and the third control edge (see annotated figure above) is adjacent to a second end portion (see annotated figure above) of the two end portions (see annotated figure above) and is formed without a control window; wherein, the second control edge (see annotated figure above) defines a cylindrical surface, and the control window (see annotated figure above) is a recess that interrupts the cylindrical surface (see Figure 1B); wherein, the first control edge (see annotated figure above) defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface, and the third control edge (see annotated figure above) defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface (see Figure 1B); wherein, a group of control edges (see 2nd control edge in the annotated figure above) of the plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above) each define a corresponding control window (see annotated figure above), and each control window (see annotated figure above) and an integral lug (38) are rotationally aligned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide a middle portion having a plurality of control edges; two end portions each extending directly from either side of the middle portion; wherein a second end portion of the two end portions and the first end portion are integral with the middle portion; wherein the second end portion of the two end portions and the first end portion are integral with the middle portion, such that movement of the first end portion relative to the second end portion and the middle portion is prevented; wherein, the plurality of control edges includes a first control edge, a second control edge, and a third control edge, the first control edge is adjacent to the first end portion and is formed without a control window, the second control edge is longitudinally between the first control edge and the third control edge, and the second control edge includes a control window, and the third control edge is adjacent to a second end portion of the two end portions and is formed without a control window; wherein, the second control edge defines a cylindrical surface, and the control window is a recess that interrupts the cylindrical surface; wherein, the first control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface, and the third control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface; wherein, a group of control edges of the plurality of control edges each define a corresponding control window,, and each control window and the integral lug are rotationally aligned, as taught by Watanabe. Paragraph 0003 of Applicant’s specification states that the control slider of AAPA comprises a number of control edges, but fails to show the entire control slider. Therefore, the combination would provide a known structure for the spool valve.
The combination fails to teach an integral lug.
Yoshimura teaches wherein an anti-rotation lock (36) is an integral lug (36) radially outwardly protruding the a first end portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide wherein the anti-rotation lock is an integral lug radially outwardly protruding the a first end portion, as taught by Yoshimura. Doing so would provide a stronger lug, less prone to failure.
Regarding claim 3, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, and further teaches wherein the integral lug (5) extends in a longitudinal direction of the control slider 2 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the control slider integral lug (5) has a width (see Figure 1); wherein the control slider integral lug (5) protrudes radially from the first end portion (see annotated figure above).
AAPA fails to disclose wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm, because Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm, provides an advantage or solves any stated problem. Please note that paragraph 0021 states “the elongated extension of the control slider integral lug prevents unthreading from the guide groove”. Any lug would be an elongated extension which would prevent removal from a guide groove. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected AAPA’s valve, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the sizes taught by AAPA or the claimed sizes because both sizes would perform the same function of maintaining the position of the lug.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide wherein the control slider integral lug is between 2 mm and 6 mm wide; wherein the control slider integral lug protrudes radially from the first end portion between 1 mm and 3 mm, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of AAPA.
Regarding claims 18-23 AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to teach wherein, the middle portion includes a plurality of control edges includes a first control edge, a second control edge, and a third control edge, the first control edge is adjacent to the first end portion and is formed without a control window, the second control edge is longitudinally between the first control edge and the third control edge, and the second control edge includes a control window, and the third control edge is adjacent to a second end portion of the two end portions and is formed without a control window; wherein, the second control edge defines a cylindrical surface, and the control window is a recess that interrupts the cylindrical surface; wherein, the first control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface, and the third control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface; wherein, a group of control edges of the plurality of control edges each define a corresponding control window,, and each control window and the integral lug are rotationally aligned; the middle portion includes a plurality of control edges, at least two control edges of the plurality of control edges each define a corresponding control window, and each control window wand the integral lug are rotationally aligned; wherein the second end portion of the two end portions and the first end portion are integral with the middle portion, such that movement of the first end portion relative to the second end portion and the middle portion is prevented; the middle portion includes a plurality of control edges, each control edges defines a same length in the longitudinal direction of the control slider.
Watanabe teaches an anti-rotation spool valve comprising a middle portion (see annotated figure above) having a plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above), the plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above) includes a first control edge (see annotated figure above), a second control edge (see annotated figure above), and a third control edge (see annotated figure above), the first control edge (see annotated figure above) is adjacent to the first end portion (see annotated figure above) and is formed without a control window, the second control edge (see annotated figure above) is longitudinally between the first control edge (see annotated figure above) and the third control edge (see annotated figure above), and the second control edge (see annotated figure above) includes a control window (36), and the third control edge (see annotated figure above) is adjacent to a second end portion (see annotated figure above) of the two end portions (see annotated figure above) and is formed without a control window; wherein, the second control edge (see annotated figure above) defines a cylindrical surface, and the control window (see annotated figure above) is a recess that interrupts the cylindrical surface (see Figure 1B); wherein, the first control edge (see annotated figure above) defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface, and the third control edge (see annotated figure above) defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface (see Figure 1B); wherein, a group of control edges (see 2nd control edge in the annotated figure above) of the plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above) each define a corresponding control window (see annotated figure above), and each control window (see annotated figure above) and an integral lug (38) are rotationally aligned; wherein the second end portion (see annotated figure above) of the two end portions (see annotated figure above) and the first end portion (see annotated figure above) are integral with the middle portion (see annotated figure above), such that movement of the first end portion (see annotated figure above) relative to the second end portion (see annotated figure above) and the middle portion (see annotated figure above) is prevented; the middle portion (see annotated figure above) includes a plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above), at least two control edges (see annotated figure above) of the plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above) each define a corresponding control window (see annotated figure above), and each control window (see annotated figure above) and the integral lug (38) are rotationally aligned (further regarding this limitation, if the spool were to rotate, it would be around the longitudinal axis running through the spool, both annotated control windows and the lug would rotate along that axis as they are a part of the spool and therefore are rotationally aligned) ; the middle portion (see annotated figure above) includes a plurality of control edges (see annotated figure above), each control edges (see annotated figure above) defines a same length in the longitudinal direction of the control slider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide a middle portion having a plurality of control edges; the plurality of control edges includes a first control edge, a second control edge, and a third control edge, the first control edge is adjacent to the first end portion and is formed without a control window, the second control edge is longitudinally between the first control edge and the third control edge, and the second control edge includes a control window, and the third control edge is adjacent to a second end portion of the two end portions and is formed without a control window; wherein, the second control edge defines a cylindrical surface, and the control window is a recess that interrupts the cylindrical surface; wherein, the first control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface, and the third control edge defines an uninterrupted cylindrical surface; wherein, a group of control edges of the plurality of control edges each define a corresponding control window,, and each control window and the integral lug are rotationally aligned; the middle portion includes a plurality of control edges, at least two control edges of the plurality of control edges each define a corresponding control window, and each control window wand the integral lug are rotationally aligned; wherein the second end portion of the two end portions and the first end portion are integral with the middle portion, such that movement of the first end portion relative to the second end portion and the middle portion is prevented; the middle portion includes a plurality of control edges, each control edges defines a same length in the longitudinal direction of the control slider, as taught by Watanabe. Paragraph 0003 of Applicant’s specification states that the control slider of AAPA comprises a number of control edges, but fails to show the entire control slider. Therefore, the combination would provide a known structure for the spool valve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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 supervisors, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753