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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6 & 8-19 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4 & 7 are cancelled.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass
No new matter should be entered.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they fail to comply with the following §1.84 sections.
New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(m) are required in this application because the shading, in each of the figures, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention.
New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(l) are required in this application because the line and text quality, in each of the figures, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention and prevents satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 & 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 5 should read --The axial piston hydraulic machine of claim 1, wherein the first fluid port and second fluid port are provided in a distributor of the axial piston hydraulic machine.—
Claim 16 should read --The axial piston hydraulic machine of claim 13, wherein the control arrangement comprises at least one linearly displaceable piston that is movable as a function of a fluidic pressure applied to thepiston.--
Claim 17 should read --The axial piston hydraulic machine of claim 16, wherein the
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6 & 8-19 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.
As to Claim 1, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a distributer plate comprises a distribution arc of a plurality of distribution arcs that forms a fluidic bypass by fluidically connecting the first fluid port with the second fluid port when a spring is compressed” and “a tilt angle of the swash plate is self-adjustable as a function of a flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass, wherein an angular position of the distributor plate is variable to vary the flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how the distributor plate forms a fluidic bypass, how the tilt angle of the swash plate is able to adjust based on the cross-section of the fluidic bypass, or how the fluidic bypass cross-section is capable of being variable.
Sufficient structural description of the fluidic bypass has not been provided in the original disclosure, and the fluidic bypass is only shown diagrammatically in the figures. As such, based on the disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine how the fluidic bypass is formed, the boundaries, or the shape of the fluidic bypass which allows the cross-section of the fluidic bypass to be adjusted.
As to Claim 9, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is increasable at an increasing pressure of the fluid received by one of the first fluid port and second fluid port.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the flow cross-section is able to increase with an increasing pressure of the fluid in either of the fluid ports.
As described in the 112(a) rejection for Claim 1 above, sufficient written description is not provided for the structure of the fluidic bypass, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining how the fluidic bypass is formed, the boundaries, or the shape of the fluidic bypass which allows the cross-section of the fluidic bypass to be adjusted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also not be able to determine how the flow cross-section is capable of being increased by increasing the pressure in one of the claimed fluid ports.
As to Claim 10, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the tilt angle of the swash plate is, at an increasing pressure of the fluid received by one of the first fluid port and second fluid port and/or at an increasing flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass, self-adjustable such as to decrease a fluid displacement by the axial piston hydraulic machine.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the tilt angle of the swash plate is able to adjust based pressure in the fluid ports and/or on the cross-section of the fluidic bypass, or how the opening cross-section is capable of being variable.
As described in the 112(a) rejection for Claim 1 above, sufficient written description is not provided for the structure of the fluidic bypass, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining how the fluidic bypass is formed, the boundaries, or the shape of the fluidic bypass which allows the cross-section of the fluidic bypass to be adjusted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also not be able to determine how the flow cross-section is capable of being increased by increasing the pressure in one of the claimed fluid ports; or how the flow cross-section is self-adjustable.
As to Claim 11, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is self-adjustable.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the fluidic bypass cross-section is capable of being variable.
As described in the 112(a) rejection for Claim 1 above, sufficient written description is not provided for the structure of the fluidic bypass, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining how the fluidic bypass is formed, the boundaries, or the shape of the fluidic bypass which allows the cross-section of the fluidic bypass to be adjusted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also not be able to determine how the flow cross-section is self-adjustable.
As to Claim 12, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is self-adjustable as function of a fluidic pressure in at least one of the first fluid port and second fluid port.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the cross-section is capable of being adjusted regardless of the pressure in the respective fluid ports, or how the fluidic bypass cross-section is capable of being variable.
As described in the 112(a) rejection for Claim 1 above, sufficient written description is not provided for the structure of the fluidic bypass, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining how the fluidic bypass is formed, the boundaries, or the shape of the fluidic bypass which allows the cross-section of the fluidic bypass to be adjusted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also not be able to determine how the flow cross-section is capable of being increased by increasing the pressure in one of the claimed fluid ports; or how the flow cross-section is self-adjustable.
As to Claim 13, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the axial piston hydraulic machine comprises a control arrangement for setting the fluidic bypass, the control arrangement being pressure driven.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the fluidic bypass is capable of being set by the control arrangement.
As described in the 112(a) rejection for Claim 1 above, sufficient written description is not provided for the structure of the fluidic bypass, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining how the fluidic bypass is formed, the boundaries, or the shape of the fluidic bypass which allows the cross-section of the fluidic bypass to be adjusted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also not be able to determine how the fluidic bypass is capable of being controlled at all.
As to Claim 18, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is reduced to zero.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the fluidic bypass cross-section is capable of being variable.
As described in the 112(a) rejection for Claim 1 above, sufficient written description is not provided for the structure of the fluidic bypass, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining how the fluidic bypass is formed, the boundaries, or the shape of the fluidic bypass which allows the cross-section of the fluidic bypass to be adjusted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also not be able to determine how the flow cross-section is capable of being varied.
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, 5-6 & 8-19 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “a distributor plate comprises a distribution arc of a plurality of distribution arcs that forms a fluidic bypass by fluidically connecting the first fluid port with the second fluid port when a spring is compressed”, in Lines 3-5, is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass. As such, it is not clear how the distributor plate is capable of forming the claimed fluidic bypass, in light of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite.
The limitation “a tilt angle of the swash plate is self-adjustable as a function of a flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass, wherein an angular position of the distributor plate is variable to vary the flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass”, in Lines 8-11, is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass, the structural shape or boundaries of the fluidic bypass, the flow cross-section, nor how the flow cross-section may be adjusted. As such, it is not clear how any of these features are formed, controlled, or adjusted during operation of the claimed hydraulic machine, rendering the limitation indefinite in light of the specification.
As to Claim 9, the limitation “a flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is increasable at an increasing pressure of the fluid received by one of the first fluid port and second fluid port” is indefinite. A cross-section of the fluidic bypass was defined in Claim 1. As such, it is not clear if the cross-section in Claim 9 is the same cross-section of Claim 1, or if the respective cross-sections are different structures. For the purpose of examination, the cross-section in Claim 9 will be interpreted as the cross-section in Claim 1.
Additionally, as described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass. As such, it is not clear how the cross-section is capable of being varied regardless of the fluid pressure, in light of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite.
As to Claim 10, the limitation “the tilt angle of the swash plate is, at an increasing pressure of the fluid received by one of the first fluid port and second fluid port and/or at an increasing flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass, self-adjustable such as to decrease a fluid displacement by the axial piston hydraulic machine” is indefinite. A cross-section of the fluidic bypass was defined in Claim 1. As such, it is not clear if the cross-section in Claim 10 is the same cross-section of Claim 1, or if the respective cross-sections are different structures. For the purpose of examination, the cross-section in Claim 10 will be interpreted as the cross-section in Claim 1.
Additionally, as described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass. As such, it is not clear how the cross-section is capable of being varied or self-adjustable regardless of the fluid pressure, in light of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite.
As to Claim 11, the limitation “a flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is self-adjustable” is indefinite. A cross-section of the fluidic bypass was defined in Claim 1. As such, it is not clear if the cross-section in Claim 11 is the same cross-section of Claim 1, or if the respective cross-sections are different structures. For the purpose of examination, the cross-section in Claim 11 will be interpreted as the cross-section in Claim 1.
Additionally, as described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass. As such, it is not clear how the cross-section is capable of being varied or self-adjustable by any means, in light of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite.
As to Claim 12, the limitation “the flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is self-adjustable as function of a fluidic pressure in at least one of the first fluid port and second fluid port” is indefinite.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass. As such, it is not clear how the cross-section is capable of being varied or self-adjustable regardless of the fluid pressure, in light of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite.
As to Claim 13, the limitation “the axial piston hydraulic machine comprises a control arrangement for setting the fluidic bypass, the control arrangement being pressure driven” is indefinite in light of the specification.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass. As such, it is not clear how the fluidic bypass is capable of being set by the control arrangement, in light of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite.
As to Claim 18, the limitation “the flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass is reduced to zero” is indefinite.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient written description has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the distributor plate forms the fluidic bypass. As such, it is not clear how the cross-section is capable of being varied or self-adjustable by any means, in light of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Drawing Objections, a new drawing objection is required due to amendments to the claims.
Additionally, it does not appear Applicant addressed the objections referring to the quality of the submitted figures.
Regarding the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections for Claim 1, the amendments to the claim does not overcome the rejections.
Applicant argues support for the claimed material is found in instant application Figures 4/6, and provided annotated figures showing how Applicant believes the claimed fluidic bypass to work. These arguments do not overcome the rejections, and Examiner believes Applicant’s annotated figures only support Examiner’s rejections that the original disclosure does not provide sufficient description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the claimed invention works.
Although the claimed invention may function as described by Applicant in the 03/02/2026 Arguments, based on the original disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have come to the same conclusion. For example, Claim 1 claims “a distributer plate comprises a distribution arc of a plurality of distribution arcs that forms a fluidic bypass by fluidically connecting the first fluid port with the second fluid port when a spring is compressed”. This limitation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude the distributor plate forms a fluidic bypass in addition to the claimed distribution arcs, not that the distribution arcs form the fluidic bypass, as Applicant argues. Since the only way to clarify how the fluidic bypass is defined is by submitting annotated figures, it is clear the original disclosure did not provide enough written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the structure of the claimed fluidic bypass, or how the claimed fluidic bypass operates during use.
Additionally, Applicant still has not defined what constitutes the claimed fluidic bypass or what defines the flow cross-section of the fluidic bypass. For example, it is not clear if an entire distribution arc of the plurality of distribution arcs defines the fluidic bypass as a whole, if the fluid bypass also includes the fluid channel openings, if only part of a distribution arc forms the fluidic bypass, or some other combination which was not disclosed forms the fluidic bypass.
Unfortunately, it appears to Examiner the only way to overcome these rejections is to include figures such as the annotated figures in the 03/02/2026 Arguments. However, this would require introducing new matter, so Examiner does not have any suggestions for overcoming the rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783