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/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 2/14/25. Amended Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12 are pending.
Regarding the previous drawing objections, these have been remedied by the replacement drawing.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
214
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Examiner agrees the previous 112(b) rejections have been overcome by either claim amendments or the cancellation of claims.
Regarding the previous prior art rejections, applicant argues previously applied Peterson has been overcome (p. 8-12). Examiner agrees Peterson does not appear to anticipate the currently amended claim language. However, the current claim language cannot be relied upon for patentability given the outstanding issues identified below. Please see the below action for treatment of the amended claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim language of Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12 (please see 112 sections below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “30” has been used to designate “control valve” (ex. [0055]), “predetermined control valve(s)” ([0092]), “standard control valve is a control valve 30 that is a central-flow-rate control valve” ([0092]), “a plurality of control valves 30” ([0093]), “maximum-flow-rate control valve” ([0107]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12 are 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.
In the reply filed 2/14/25, applicant amended the claims. Applicant’s accompanying remarks included the following citations (p. 10, begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image2.png
174
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Examiner has reviewed the cited locations. [0055] does not mention a “maximum-flow-rate control valve”. None of the cited paragraphs particularly reference Fig. 2, where the system is depicted. Figs. 9 and 10 do not show valves, though they do show values related to valves. Claims 2 and 3 were rejected (office action mailed 10/24/24) for being indefinite; these also lack correspondence to the amended claim language. None of these citations show or firmly establish the locations and functioning of the claimed “plurality of control valves including a standard control valve and a maximum-flow-rate control valve” and the associated controller language (please see also 112(b) section below). Accordingly, applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation (Claim 1) ‘the control valve is one of a plurality of control valves including a standard control valve and a maximum-flow-rate control valve; the maximum-flow-rate control valve is operable to supply hydraulic fluid at a higher flow rate than the standard control valve when a current value of control current outputted to the maximum-flow-rate control valve and a current value of control current outputted to the standard control valve are equal; and the limit flow rates are defined to be less than the maximum delivery flow rates corresponding to the respective rotation speeds of the prime mover, by converting the maximum delivery flow rates based on (i) a standard flow rate characteristic graph representing a relationship between current values of control current outputted to the standard control valve and flow rates of hydraulic fluid from the standard control valve and (ii) a maximum flow rate characteristic graph representing a relationship between current values of control current outputted to the maximum-flow-rate control valve and flow rates of hydraulic fluid from the maximum-flow-rate control valve, the maximum flow rate characteristic graph being higher in a flow rate of hydraulic fluid than the standard flow rate characteristic graph.’ in the application as filed (MPEP 2163.04 I). Claim 12 is likewise without support for the same reasons.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12 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.
Claim 1 recites in part “a control valve to control a flow rate of hydraulic fluid to actuate the hydraulic actuator” and “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to... control the control valve to limit a maximum flow rate of hydraulic fluid supplied from the control valve to the hydraulic actuator” and “the control valve is one of a plurality of control valves including a standard control valve and a maximum-flow-rate control valve; the maximum-flow-rate control valve is operable to supply hydraulic fluid at a higher flow rate than the standard control valve”. This is indefinite. Applicant’s specification discloses a “first control valve 30a” as the control valve that supplies hydraulic fluid to the actuator (ex. [0056-0057, 0059]). This is shown in Fig. 2 for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
732
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
There is only one “first control valve 30a”. The claim recites “the control valve is one of a plurality of control valves including a standard control valve and a maximum-flow-rate control valve”. It is unclear what this limitation is referencing. If this is intended to also reference second control valve 30b, then the earlier “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to... control the control valve to limit a maximum flow rate of hydraulic fluid supplied from the control valve to the hydraulic actuator” (emphasis examiner’s) is indefinite; it is likewise indefinite which valve 30a or 30b would be considered either “standard control valve” or “maximum-flow-rate control valve” or if one or neither are such valves. The claim term “maximum-flow-rate control valve” appears in [0107] as referencing “a maximum-flow-rate control valve 30”. “30” appears to sometimes designate two valves, 30a and 30b (ex. [0056]), which is somewhat imprecise given 30a and 30b are two separate valves. Plural “30”s would then be plural pairs of valve 30a and valve 30b, something that is neither shown nor understood. Alternatively, given the description at [0108], these limitations may be referencing something like a calibration regarding a plurality of valves, not all of which are installed in the system (“The maximum flow rate characteristics UC may be acquired by performing arithmetic processing such as averaging or standardization on the measured data of flow rate characteristics measured regarding a plurality of control valves 30. That is, the maximum flow rate characteristics UC may be based on a plurality of pieces of measured data.”). But that potential interpretation is contradicted by the limitation that “the maximum-flow-rate control valve is operable to supply hydraulic fluid at a higher flow rate than the standard control valve”. How many claimed valve(s) is/are present, their location(s), and their characteristic(s) are not understood. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite. Claim 12 has the same issues.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Conclusion
In view of the above noted 112 rejections and the nature of these rejections, a determination of applicability of prior art to the remainder of the claims could not be determined at this time. The absence of an art rejection is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang on the 892 teaches calibrating valves for determining current values associated with flow rates (ex. step 310, Col. 8, lines 11-44).
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 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
Prosecution Insights