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 (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 7/16/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/16/25.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
The preamble has been considered as limiting the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02).
Applicant has provided special definitions (MPEP 2173.01, 2173.05(a) III, and 2111.01 IV):
“As such, the term "actuation capability" (and its variants) refers to the actuation speeds of the actuator that would be achieved if the actuator was being actuated solely by the pumping (flow) capacity of the pump.” ([0037])
“As such, the actuator may be referred to simply as a "cylinder" in the following description.” ([0039])
Related to special definition discussed in “ii. a.” above, the Claim 1 limitations “wherein the electro-hydraulic actuator system is operable to actuate the actuator at actuation speeds that are higher than a maximum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the maximum flow capability thereof and at actuation speeds that are lower than a minimum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the minimum flow capability thereof” have been interpreted as limiting the “maximum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the maximum flow capability thereof” and likewise the “a minimum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the minimum flow capability thereof” to the pump as designed, consistent with the specification, rather than a temporal manner of operation.
In Claim 2, “wherein the electro- hydraulic actuator system has an energy efficiency level equal to or greater than 80%” has been interpreted as referring to the energy efficiency of the electro-hydraulic actuator system as a whole rather than any individual part, consistent with the specification.
In Claim 4, “low-pressure accumulator” has been interpreted as referring to an accumulator where the pressure is considered “low” relative to the general operating pressure rather than any one particular threshold value, consistent with the specification.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL - A high-efficient solution for electro-hydraulic actuators with energy regeneration capability, hereinafter Nplcapability.
Regarding Claim 1,
An electro-hydraulic actuator system having a closed-circuit architecture (ex. Fig. 2), the electro-hydraulic actuator system comprising:
an actuator (CYL) having extension and retraction modes of operation;
a fixed-displacement hydraulic pump (HP) and a variable speed electric motor (EM) configured in combination to constitute an individual electro-hydraulic unit that is coupled to the actuator for actuation thereof between the extension and retraction modes, the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump having a maximum flow capability associated with a maximum operating speed (nmax) of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump and having a minimum flow capability associated with a minimum operating speed (nmn) of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump (ex. table 2); and
a bypass valve (BPV) in parallel to the actuator;
wherein the electro-hydraulic actuator system is operable to actuate the actuator at actuation speeds that are higher than a maximum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the maximum flow capability thereof and at actuation speeds that are lower than a minimum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the minimum flow capability thereof (ex. section 2.3).
Examiner note: Examiner notes there are four authors listed for the Nplcapability reference while the instant application has two inventors. The instant application claims priority to a provisional application filed 2/9/21 while the Nplcapability reference was publicly available in 11/13/20, which is prior to the filing date but less than one year before. MPEP 2153 discusses prior art exceptions for inventor-originated disclosures, including MPEP 2153.01(a) which states:
If, however, the application names fewer joint inventors than a publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A and B, and the publication names as authors A, B and C), it would not be readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure and the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) unless there is evidence of record that an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) applies.
Since there are fewer joint inventors named in the application than the publication and there is no evidence of record that an exception under 35 USC 102(b)(1) applies, the Nplcapability reference currently qualifies as prior art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, wherein the electro- hydraulic actuator system has an energy efficiency level equal to or greater than 80% (ex. abstract, sections 1, 4, and 5).
Regarding Claim 3,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, wherein the actuator is a single-rod double-acting cylinder (ex. Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, further comprising a low-pressure accumulator (ACC) configured to compensate for differential flow between a bore side area and a rod side area of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 5,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 4, further comprising two pilot check valves (PCV1, PCV2) that, in combination with the low-pressure accumulator, are configured to control charging or discharging of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 6,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, further comprising two directional on/off valves (DV1, DV2) configured to enable load holding by the actuator.
Regarding Claim 7,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, further comprising pressure relief valves (RV1, RV2) on both sides of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump that are configured to avoid over-pressurizations in either extension or retraction of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 8,
A method for configuring the electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, the method comprising:
determining a target maximum actuation velocity for the electro-hydraulic actuator system (ex. section 3.1)
selecting the actuator based on the target maximum actuation velocity (ex. section 3.1);
determining an operational pressure of the electro-hydraulic actuator system based on a load force requirement of the actuator (ex. section 3.1);
selecting a fixed-displacement hydraulic pump based on the flow rate of the actuator and the operational pressure of the electro-hydraulic actuator system (ex. section 3.1); and
selecting a variable speed electric motor based on power requirements of the electro-hydraulic actuator system (ex. section 3.1).
Regarding Claim 9,
The method of claim 8, further comprising:
selecting an accumulator (ex. section 3.1) based on the actuator with pressure and power level limited by a drain pressure of the electro-hydraulic actuator system; and selecting valves (ex. section 3.1) based on flow rate of the actuator and operational pressure of the electro-hydraulic actuator system.
Regarding Claim 10,
The method of claim 9, wherein selecting the valves includes limiting the flow rate to the maximum flow capability associated with the maximum operating speed (nmax) of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump of the electro-hydraulic actuator system (ex. section 3.1).
Claims 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamizuru et al. (WO 2018028944, machine translation accompanies this office action).
Regarding Claim 1,
An electro-hydraulic actuator system having a closed-circuit architecture (Figs. 1-10), the electro-hydraulic actuator system comprising:
an actuator (4) having extension and retraction modes of operation;
a fixed-displacement hydraulic pump (2) and a variable speed electric motor (6) configured in combination to constitute an individual electro-hydraulic unit that is coupled to the actuator for actuation thereof between the extension and retraction modes, the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump having a maximum flow capability associated with a maximum operating speed (nmax) of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump and having a minimum flow capability associated with a minimum operating speed (nmn) of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump; and
a bypass valve (76; alternatively, 80) in parallel to the actuator;
wherein the electro-hydraulic actuator system is operable to actuate the actuator at actuation speeds that are higher than a maximum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the maximum flow capability thereof and at actuation speeds that are lower than a minimum actuation capability of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump at the minimum flow capability thereof (examples - p. 13 of translation “This allows the Hydraulic machine 2 are relieved. Thus, a recuperation even at high Nominal forces and rated speeds of the differential cylinder 4 via the hydraulic machine 2, which is designed with respect to average nominal forces occur, since this is simply relieved when needed via the circulation valve 76. In the operating mode in FIG. 3, the valves 40, 46, 50, 52 and 80 are closed. It would be conceivable to use the circulation valve 80 as an alternative to the circulation valve 76 in this operating mode.” or p. 13 “According to FIG. 5, the adjusting drive 1 is shown in an operating mode in which both the hydraulic machine 2 and the high-pressure accumulator 36 are used for moving the piston 8 of the differential cylinder 4. This is a hybrid mode. In this case, the hydraulic power of the hydraulic pump 2 designed for medium rated load alone is no longer sufficient to provide the differential cylinder 4 with the desired --> Speed 98 and required cylinder force 96 extend. For this reason, the high-pressure accumulator 36 is connected.”).
Regarding Claim 3,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, wherein the actuator is a single-rod double-acting cylinder (Figs. 1-10).
Regarding Claim 4,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, further comprising a low-pressure accumulator (26) configured to compensate for differential flow between a bore side area and a rod side area of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 5,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 4, further comprising two pilot check valves (62, 64) that, in combination with the low-pressure accumulator, are configured to control charging or discharging of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 6,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, further comprising two directional on/off valves (22, 24) configured to enable load holding by the actuator.
Regarding Claim 7,
The electro-hydraulic actuator system of claim 1, further comprising pressure relief valves (82, 84) on both sides of the fixed-displacement hydraulic pump that are configured to avoid over-pressurizations in either extension or retraction of the actuator.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamizuru in view of NPL - Individual Electro-Hydraulic Drives for Off-Road Vehicles, hereinafter Nplvehicles.
Regarding Claim 2, Kamizuru teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the electro- hydraulic actuator system has an energy efficiency level equal to or greater than 80%.
Kamizuru is silent to the efficiency of the system.
Nplvehicles teaches
For an electro-hydraulic actuator system,
wherein the electro- hydraulic actuator system has an energy efficiency level equal to or greater than 80% (slides 4, 15, and 22).
Since both references are directed to electro-hydraulic actuator systems, 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 system of Kamizuru to achieve an efficiency equal to or greater than 80% as taught by Nplvehicles in order to minimize cycle power (slide 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NPL - A closed circuit electro-hydraulic actuator with energy recuperation capability and Gomm each teach elements of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745