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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 14, & 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, Lines 1-2, “the pivot angle” should be --a pivot angle--;
Claim 5, Line 2, “consumer,.” should be --consumer.--;
Claim 6, Line 2, “the volume change” should be --a volume change--;
Claim 14, Line 1, “machine, , which” should be --machine, which--;
Claim 18, Line 1, “machine is a a” should be --machine is a--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 14 & 18 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 limitation “means for carrying out a method according to claim 1” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure lacks any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11-13, & 16-17, as far as they are definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kollmann et al (9545901).
Kollmann et al disclose a method for determining or adapting a characteristic curve of a hydraulic component or mobile working machine having the following steps: determining a volume flow; determining a pressure drop; determining a replacement parameter of the component from the volume flow and the pressure drop; determining or adapting the characteristic curve using the replacement parameter (e.g. Col. 4, Ln. 4-40, Col. 5, Ln. 1-12).
Wherein the characteristic curve is stored and/or adapted on a machine control unit (e.g. Col. 7, Ln. 10-27); the component is or comprises a valve and/or in that the replacement parameter is a replacement cross-section of the valve (e.g. Col. 4, Ln. 19-22); the characteristic curve is determined or adapted during operation of the working machine (e.g. Col. 4, Ln. 29-31); the pump is a hydraulic pump (e.g. Col. 1, Ln. 15-20); and the consumer is a hydraulic cylinder or hydraulic motor (e.g. brake cylinder). The method is capable of being performed by a mobile working machine in the form of a hydraulic excavator (e.g. Col. 4, Ln. 19-22).
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.
Claims 2-10 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollmann et al (9545901).
Kollmann et al disclose a method for determining or adapting a characteristic curve of a hydraulic component or mobile working machine, as described above, further including the system parameter comprising an orifice coefficient, a cross-sectional area and/or a density of a hydraulic fluid, but do not explicitly teach that the volume flow is determined by measuring the volume flow; the volume flow is determined from a rotational speed and a displacement volume of a pump; the displacement volume is determined from the pivot angle of the pump and/or from an electric control of the pump; the volume flow is determined from a movement of a consumer; the movement of the consumer comprises a speed and/or rotational speed and/or in that the volume change is determined from an area, cubature and/or the movement of the consumer; the pressure drop is determined by one, two or more than two pressure sensors; the characteristic curve is determined or adapted by a Gaussian adjustment calculation; or the replacement parameter is determined from a division of the volume flow by the product of a system parameter and the square root of the difference of a first pressure drop in a first position of the component and of a second pressure drop in a second position of the component.
It is common practice in the art of hydraulic circuit instrumentation and control to employ known methods including having the volume flow is determined by measuring the volume flow; the volume flow is determined from a rotational speed and a displacement volume of a pump; the displacement volume is determined from the pivot angle of the pump and/or from an electric control of the pump; the volume flow is determined from a movement of a consumer; the movement of the consumer comprises a speed and/or rotational speed and/or in that the volume change is determined from an area, cubature and/or the movement of the consumer; the pressure drop is determined by one, two or more than two pressure sensors; the characteristic curve is determined or adapted by a Gaussian adjustment calculation; and the replacement parameter is determined from a division of the volume flow by the product of a system parameter and the square root of the difference of a first pressure drop in a first position of the component and of a second pressure drop in a second position of the component in order to gather manipulate and apply system data for optimized control and operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kollmann et al such that the volume flow is determined by measuring the volume flow; the volume flow is determined from a rotational speed and a displacement volume of a pump; the displacement volume is determined from the pivot angle of the pump and/or from an electric control of the pump; the volume flow is determined from a movement of a consumer; the movement of the consumer comprises a speed and/or rotational speed and/or in that the volume change is determined from an area, cubature and/or the movement of the consumer; the pressure drop is determined by one, two or more than two pressure sensors; the characteristic curve is determined or adapted by a Gaussian adjustment calculation; and the replacement parameter is determined from a division of the volume flow by the product of a system parameter and the square root of the difference of a first pressure drop in a first position of the component and of a second pressure drop in a second position of the component, as an engineering expedient for the purpose of optimizing operation of a hydraulic circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LESLIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 am - 4-30pm.
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 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 LESLIE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
December 23, 2025
Prosecution Insights