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
Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11-13 and 21-33 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's response is in regards to the rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/03/2025, hereinafter NFOA2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koponen; Tenho et al. US 20210360879 A1, hereinafter Koponen, in view of AFSHARI; Thomas US 20170114807 A1, hereinafter Afshari have been fully considered and but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding Koponen failing to disclose an end cap, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that the portion of the device identified as a hydraulic cylinder end cap (57) is not an end cap because it is depicted as ‘unitary’ with an outer hydraulic cylinder (17.1). The applicant further argues that identifying (57) as the hydraulic cylinder end cap is an ‘arbitrary division’ of the outer cylinder (17.1). In response, the entirety of the cylinder is depicted as ‘unitary’ as is commonly done by those of ordinary skill in the art when the individual components thereof are generic or unrelated to the invention of the reference. Stated another way, detail is provided where needed to fully comprehend the applicant’s (Koponen’s) invention. Koponen provides detailed structure in relation to the ‘sequence valve’ and associated structure while not providing detail elsewhere as it is unnecessary and/or generic. Furthermore, to follow the applicant’s line of reasoning/argument, the device of Koponen is incapable of being manufactured as both end caps are depicted as being ‘unitary’ thereby not allowing the internal components (such as 35, 46, 12, 11) to be inserted therein. Clearly (17.1) is provided with a structure/technique by which these components are inserted but is simply not shown as it extraneous to Koponen’s invention. Furthermore, despite being ‘assembled’, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the components of the cylinder system/actuator as a cylinder (17.1) and at least one end cap (57). Therefore, Koponen discloses a hydraulic cylinder end cap (57).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding Koponen failing to disclose a sequence valve secured within the opening by a connection between the inner hydraulic cylinder and the hydraulic pump/end cap, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that the valve (46) is not secured within opening (61) by a connection between (35) and (57). As depicted, (46) is secured/connected to both (35) and (57). The connection to (35) is a sliding type connecting/contact and limits the movement thereof in a radial direction. The connection to (57) is a translational connection/contact and limits the movement thereof in the leftwards axial direction by (58), in the rightwards axial direction (62/57), and in the radial direction by direct contact with (57) approximate (44). The applicant further argues that (58) is not (57) and therefore no connection to (57) exists. However, as stated above, there is at least a single connection to (57) as (57) limits movement of (46) in the rightwards direction and (57) limits movement of (46) in the radial direction by contact therewith. Therefore, Koponen discloses a sequence valve secured within the opening by a connection between the inner hydraulic cylinder and the hydraulic pump/end cap.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the modification of Koponen via Afshari is improper, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that the motivation (compact construction) to modify Koponen is invalid. The applicant further states that the actuator of Koponen is already compact and it is impossible to make it any more compact than it already is, especially by adding addition components thereto. In response, the device require compaction is the ‘hydraulic cylinder system’ which requires a pump. The device of Koponen requires an external pump, located at some distance from the cylinder. Therefore, by placing the external pump within the end cap of Koponen, the system of Koponen is made more compact. The applicant further argues the modification would require substantial redesign of actuator. This argument is moot, as Afshari depicts/teaches the structure (lines, passages…) required for the modification. Therefore, the modification of Koponen via Afshari is not improper.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 27 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koponen, in view of Afshari have been fully considered and but are not persuasive.
The applicant made similar arguments for claims 27 and 31 and the above responses are also applicable thereto.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding Koponen failing to disclose a sequence valve secured within the opening by a connection between the inner hydraulic cylinder and the hydraulic pump/end cap, the examiner agrees. The applicant argues that Koponen fails to disclose a cylinder defining an internal seat whereby a poppet in a second position is disengaged from the internal seat. As stated, (49) in its second position (depicted in Fig. 4c) remains engaged with the internal seat (67.2). Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the drawing objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a). have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the applicant has argued that what appears to be an end cap is labeled (104) and disclosed throughout the specification as a pump. The applicant further argues that no details of the pump are necessary other than its claimed interface. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn. Any further claim interpretation will likewise be limited such that no details of the pump are necessary other than its claimed interface.
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 1, 5, 7, 9, 11-12, 21-22 and 27-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koponen, in view of Afshari. 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 (fluid linear actuators); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (linear actuator construction). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) a hydraulic cylinder system comprising:
an inner hydraulic cylinder (35) inside an outer hydraulic cylinder (17.1);
a hydraulic cylinder end cap (57, as stated above, and in concordance with the applicant’s specification is a structure similar to a fluid actuator end cap) to provide a fluid (via conduit (19)) into the inner hydraulic cylinder and the outer hydraulic cylinder [0037];
a hydraulic ram (13) to extend out of the outer hydraulic cylinder in response to the fluid being provided to the inner hydraulic cylinder and the outer hydraulic cylinder [0034]; and
a sequence valve (46) positioned in an opening (61) defined in the cylinder end cap and secured within the opening by a connection between the inner hydraulic cylinder and the cylinder end cap [0057], the sequence valve controlling extension of the hydraulic ram to extend according to a first phase (Fig. 4a), a transition phase (Fig. 4b), and a second phase (Fig. 4c) [0094-0098].
Koponen fails to explicitly state that the hydraulic cylinder system comprising a hydraulic pump within the cylinder end cap.
Afshari discloses (Fig. 1a, 2) a hydraulic cylinder system comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder (4);
a cylinder end cap (2) comprising a hydraulic pump (10) to provide a fluid into the hydraulic cylinder [0042]; and
a hydraulic ram (6) to extend out of the outer hydraulic cylinder in response to the fluid being provided to the inner hydraulic cylinder and the outer hydraulic cylinder [0039].
Afshari further discloses providing the pump within the cylinder end cap enables the hydraulic cylinder system to be more compact [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Koponen, by providing a hydraulic pump in the cylinder end cap, as taught by Afshari, for the purpose of enabling the hydraulic cylinder system to be more compact.
Regarding claim 5, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the hydraulic ram (13) defines an inner bore (the depicted bore(s) in (13) through which (35) passes) having an inner bore area (the depicted cross-sectional area therein), the inner bore receiving the inner hydraulic cylinder (35).
Regarding claim 7, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence valve (46) comprises a sequence cap (58) positioned between the inner hydraulic cylinder and (35) the hydraulic pump (57).
Regarding claim 9, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence valve (46) comprises a sequence poppet (49) that is moveable relative to the sequence cap between a first position (Fig. 4a) where the sequence poppet is engaged with a seat (67.2, [0094]) defined by the inner hydraulic cylinder ((67.2) depicted as a part of (35)) and a second position (Fig. 4c) where the sequence poppet is disengaged from the seat [0096].
Regarding claim 11, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence valve (46) comprises a sequence spring (62, [0067]) that biases the sequence poppet into the first position (Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 12, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence spring provides a spring force (depicted as leftwards) that opposes force on the sequence poppet applied by the fluid in the inner hydraulic cylinder acting on the sequence poppet (depicted as rightwards, opposite the spring force).
Regarding claim 21, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence spring (62) is in contact with the hydraulic pump (57, contact depicted at the right end of (62)).
Regarding claim 22, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence poppet (49) is positioned inside the inner hydraulic cylinder (35, (49) is depicted as in (35)).
Regarding claim 27, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d)a power tool comprising:
a cylinder end cap (57, as stated above, and in concordance with the applicant’s specification is a structure similar to a fluid actuator end cap) to supply a pressurized fluid (via conduit (19)) [0057], the cylinder end cap defining an opening (61) in communication with a supply passage (63) [0041;
a sequence valve (46) positioned in the opening (depicted as located in (61));
a first cylinder (35) coupled to the cylinder end cap (coupled at its right end) and securing the sequence valve in the opening [0057];
a second cylinder (17.1) coupled to the cylinder end cap (coupled at its right end); and
a ram (13) moveable within the second cylinder and defining a ram bore (depicted bore in (13) through which (35) passes) that receive the first cylinder.
Koponen fails to explicitly state that the hydraulic cylinder system comprising a hydraulic pump within the cylinder end cap.
Afshari discloses (Fig. 1a, 2) a hydraulic cylinder system comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder (4);
a cylinder end cap (2) comprising a hydraulic pump (10) to provide a fluid into the hydraulic cylinder [0042]; and
a hydraulic ram (6) to extend out of the outer hydraulic cylinder in response to the fluid being provided to the inner hydraulic cylinder and the outer hydraulic cylinder [0039].
Afshari further discloses providing the pump within the cylinder end cap enables the hydraulic cylinder system to be more compact [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Koponen, by providing a hydraulic pump in the cylinder end cap, as taught by Afshari, for the purpose of enabling the hydraulic cylinder system to be more compact.
Regarding claim 28, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence valve (46) includes a poppet (49) that is moveable between a first position (Fig. 4a) where the poppet is engaged with a seat (59.1, [0094]) of the first cylinder and a second position (Fig. 4c) where the poppet is disengaged from the seat to allow fluid to flow from the first cylinder and into the second cylinder [0096].
Regarding claim 29, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the poppet (49) is biased into the first position by a biasing member (62, [0067]).
Regarding claim 30, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the first cylinder (35) is coupled to the pump at a first end (depicted right end thereof) of the first cylinder and defines an orifice (depicted orifice approximate (26.1)) between the first end and the seat (59.1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 23-25 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 31-33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Koponen/Afshari discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 11. Koponen further discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) the sequence valve (46) comprises a sequence spring retainer (depicted right portion of (49)) to hold and align the sequence spring with the sequence valve.
Koponen fails to explicitly state that the sequence spring retainer [is] positioned between the sequence spring and the sequence poppet. Instead, Koponen discloses the sequence poppet is the spring retainer.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the spring retainer, sequence spring and sequence poppet. Although Koponen discloses a spring retainer, sequence spring and sequence poppet, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Koponen to incorporate the details of the sequence spring retainer positioned between the sequence spring and the sequence poppet, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic cylinder system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Koponen/Afshari discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 22 except fails to explicitly state that the fluid flows out of the inner hydraulic cylinder and into the outer hydraulic cylinder when the sequence poppet is in the second position. Instead, as depicted in Fig. 4c, fluid is prevented from flowing out of the inner hydraulic cylinder and into the outer hydraulic cylinder when the sequence poppet is in the second position.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the inner hydraulic cylinder, outer hydraulic cylinder and sequence poppet. Although Koponen discloses an inner hydraulic cylinder, outer hydraulic cylinder and sequence poppet, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Koponen to incorporate the details of the fluid flows out of the inner hydraulic cylinder and into the outer hydraulic cylinder when the sequence poppet is in the second position, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic cylinder system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 24 and 25 are dependent upon claim 23.
Regarding claim 26, the modified device of Koponen/Afshari discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 7, but fails to explicitly state that the inner hydraulic cylinder is coupled to the hydraulic pump by a threaded connection. Instead, the inner hydraulic cylinder (35) is coupled to the hydraulic pump (57) via a sliding connection with poppet (49).
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the inner hydraulic cylinder and the hydraulic pump. Although Koponen discloses an inner hydraulic cylinder and a pump, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Koponen to incorporate the details of the inner hydraulic cylinder is coupled to the hydraulic pump by a threaded connection, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic cylinder system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 31, Koponen discloses (Fig. 2-3d, 4a-4d) a power tool (preamble interpreted as intended use) comprising:
a cylinder end cap (57, as stated above, and in concordance with the applicant’s specification is a structure similar to a fluid actuator end cap) to supply a fluid (via conduit (19)) [0057];
a cylinder (35) extending from the cylinder end cap (depicted as extending leftwards from (57)) and defining an internal seat (67.2); and
a poppet (49) moveable within the cylinder between a first position (Fig. 4a) where the poppet is engaged with the internal seat [0094] and a second position (Fig. 4c) [0094] .
Koponen fails to explicitly state that the hydraulic cylinder system comprises a hydraulic pump within the cylinder end cap.
Afshari discloses (Fig. 1a, 2) a hydraulic cylinder system comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder (4);
a cylinder end cap (2) comprising a hydraulic pump (10) to provide a fluid into the hydraulic cylinder [0042]; and
a hydraulic ram (6) to extend out of the outer hydraulic cylinder in response to the fluid being provided to the inner hydraulic cylinder and the outer hydraulic cylinder [0039].
Afshari further discloses providing the pump within the cylinder end cap enables the hydraulic cylinder system to be more compact [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Koponen, by providing a hydraulic pump in the cylinder end cap, as taught by Afshari, for the purpose of enabling the hydraulic cylinder system to be more compact.
Koponen further fails to explicitly state that the poppet, in the second position is disengaged from the internal seat.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the poppet and the internal seat in the second position. Although Koponen discloses a poppet having a second position and internal seat, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Koponen to incorporate the details of the poppet, in the second position is disengaged from the internal seat, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic cylinder system. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 32 and 33 depend from claim 31.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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