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 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 5 should read “execute the program instructions to:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0025874 to Lehmann et al. in view of US 2023/0332585 to Drube.
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
1544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 11, and with particular reference to Figures 1-7 (Fig. 1 annotated by the Examiner immediately above), Lehmann et al. (Lehmann) discloses:
1. A hydrogen fueling station including a cryogenic pump hydraulic system (4; Fig. 1) (Lehmann discloses a concrete pump hydraulic system 4 (paras. 2, 44), but does not disclose use in a hydrogen fueling station or that his pump is for cryogenics; however, these two limitations in the preamble are merely intended use for the pump hydraulic system and do not distinctly define the structure of any of the claim limitations; as such, they are not interpreted as further limiting the structure of the recited invention; refer to MPEP 2111.02, which states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”), the cryogenic pump hydraulic system comprising: a first hydraulic cylinder (2) including a first hydraulic piston (7), the first hydraulic piston separating a first low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston from a first high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston; a second hydraulic cylinder (3) including a second hydraulic piston (8), the second hydraulic piston separating a second low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder above the second piston from a second high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder beneath the second piston; at least one first hydraulic volume source (5) configured to selectively communicate fluid between the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion (via valves 12, 13, 23, 24; para. 44); a first controllable valve (26) configured to selectively place the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion in fluid communication with at least one low-pressure line (Fig. 1 above; para. 44); a second controllable valve (17) configured to selectively place at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion (via check valve 10; para. 44); and a third controllable valve (18) configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the second high pressure portion (via check valve 11; para. 44).
11. A pump hydraulic system (4; Fig. 1) comprising: a first hydraulic cylinder (2) including a first hydraulic piston (7), the first hydraulic piston separating a first low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston from a first high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston; a second hydraulic cylinder (8) including a second hydraulic piston (3), the second hydraulic piston separating a second low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder above the second piston from a second high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder beneath the second piston; at least one connecting line (22) configured to place at least one first hydraulic volume source (5) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion (via valves 12, 13, 23, 24; para. 44); a first controllable valve (26) configured to selectively place the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion in fluid communication with at least one low-pressure line (Fig. 1 above; para. 44); a second controllable valve (17) configured to selectively place at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion (via check valve 10; para. 44); and a third controllable valve (18) configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the second high pressure portion (via check valve 10; para. 44).
While Lehmann discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not specifically disclose that the first and second pistons respectively include first and second piston seals separating the high/low pressure portions, as claimed.
However, providing a seal on a hydraulic piston of a pump hydraulic system in order to separate high/low pressure portions within a cylinder is vastly well known in the art, as shown by Drube. In particular, Drube discloses another pump hydraulic system (Fig. 1) comprising: a first hydraulic cylinder (32) including a first hydraulic piston (34), the first hydraulic piston including a first piston seal (36, 38) separating a first low pressure portion (62) of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston seal from a first high pressure portion (54) of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston seal; a second hydraulic cylinder (42) including a second hydraulic piston (44), the second hydraulic piston separating a second low pressure portion (132) of the second hydraulic cylinder above the second piston seal from a second high pressure portion (54) of the second hydraulic cylinder beneath the second piston seal; at least one connecting line (i.e. the line exiting pump 92; Fig. 1) configured to place at least one first hydraulic volume source (92) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion (via valves 94a,b, 96a, b, & 112; paras. 33-36). Drube makes clear that through use of appropriate piston seals, the drive fluid remains separated from the pumped fluid, thereby avoiding damaging fluid contamination (paras. 40-41). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydraulic drive system that minimizes drive/pump fluid contamination, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Drube in combination with those seen in Lehmann in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehmann’s pistons (7, 8) with the piston seals of Drube in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a pump hydraulic system that reduces the chances of fluid contamination between the drive fluid and pumped fluid, thereby enhancing system reliability.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann-Drube as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0208793 to Kroeger et al.
In regards to Claim 2, Lehmann-Drube discloses the invention of Claim 1, but does not further disclose a memory and controller, as claimed.
However, Kroeger discloses another pump hydraulic system (Fig. 3) having a memory (Fig. 6; 202) including program instructions stored therein (paras. 32-34); and a controller (200) operably connected to the memory (Fig. 6; para. 32), a first controllable valve (208), a second controllable valve (210), and the third controllable valve (212) (Fig. 6), the controller configured to execute the program instructions to control the three valves based on fuel requirements of an engine 104 (paras. 32-34). As such, to one of ordinary skill desiring a pump hydraulic system that precisely regulates operation of Lehmann’s three controllable valves via electronic programmable control, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kroeger in combination with those seen in Lehmann-Drube in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehmann’s system with the controller and memory of Kroeger in order to obtain predictable results; those results being precise control of the first, second, and third controllable valves based on need. Via this combination, Lehmann’s controller/memory would clearly be arranged to execute the control instructions to: control the first controllable valve (26) to selectively place the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line (para. 44), and control the second controllable valves (17, 18) to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion to extend the first hydraulic piston, and/or to control the third controllable valve to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the second high pressure portion to extend the second hydraulic piston (para. 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 & 12-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose the limitation of Claim 3, including a fourth controllable valve configured to selectively place the first high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line; and a fifth controllable valve configured to selectively place the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line, wherein the first controllable valve is further configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion, the controller is further operably connected to the fourth controllable valve and the fifth controllable valve, and the controller is further configured to execute the program instructions to: (i) control the first controllable valve to selectively place the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one second hydraulic volume source, and (ii) control the fourth controllable valve to selectively place the first high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line to withdraw the first hydraulic piston, and/or control the fifth controllable valve to selectively place the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low- pressure line to withdraw the second hydraulic piston.
Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose the limitations of Claim 12, including a fourth controllable valve configured to selectively place the first high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line; and a fifth controllable valve configured to selectively place the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line, wherein the first controllable valve is further configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion.
Applicant’s specification makes clear that through use of the fourth and fifth valves (i.e. standby port valves), selective retraction of the hydraulic pistons is possible. Furthermore, these additional valves can be controlled during operation of the system to provide additional flushing as needed. The prior art fails to disclose as much.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also WO 2024/061722 to Gerngross, DE 19736337 to Tonskotter, & SU 1087685 to Ivanov (see attached translations), each of which discloses a pump hydraulic system similar to Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC