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
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, the valve disk is held open by the valve spring, which is referred to as a further energy accumulator, thus the action of the further energy accumulator allows liquid through, so “counter to” in claim 11 should be “due to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13,14,15,16,18,23,24,25,26,29 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 13 (and dependents 14,15,29,24) recites the limitation "the further energy accumulator ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 10 does not disclose a further energy accumulator. For purposes of compact prosecution “the further energy accumulator” would be read to refer to the further energy accumulator of claim 11; thus making claim 13 as well as its dependents 14,15,29,24 dependent on claim 11 as well. If that is the case, claim 22 seems to be a repeat of claim 13.
Likewise, claim 23 recites the limitation "the further energy accumulator " in line two of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 10 does not disclose a further energy accumulator. For purposes of compact prosecution “the further energy accumulator” will be read as “a further energy accumulator”.
Regarding claims 16, 25,26, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of compact prosecution, the phrase will be omitted.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “ring-like” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what characteristics of a ring are required to qualify under “ring-like”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the phrase will be read as “ring-shaped”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
1402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Valve)][AltContent: textbox (Accumulator housing)][AltContent: textbox (Bellows)][AltContent: textbox (Closure body body)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Connection
body)][AltContent: textbox (Spring)][AltContent: textbox (Gas valve)]Claims 10,12,17,19,20,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gray (US 20030111124 A1), hereafter known as Gray. A labeled version of fig 4b of Gray in included below.
Regarding claim 10, Gray discloses a bellows accumulator (figs 4a and 4b, Gray), in which a bellows (fig 4a, bellows 41, Gray) which serves as a movable separating element between a first media side and a second media side (fig 4b, bellows 41 is a movable separating element between first media side on the bottom near 42 and second media side 43 and second media side, Gray), has, at a bellows end which can move in an axial direction in an accumulator housing during expansion and contraction (figs 4a and 4b, bellows 41 can expand and contract axially, Gray), a closure body which closes off an interior of the bellows in a media-tight manner (figs 4a and 4b, closure body attached to spring 46, Gray) and, at an other bellows end, is immovably fixed with respect to the accumulator housing (figs 4a and 4b, the bottom (left) end of bellows 41 is fixed to housing 47, Gray)
and having a valve device which, when the pressure on the second media side drops, moves to a closed position, thereby preventing liquid from continuing to flow out of the accumulator housing (figs 4a and 4b, valve 45 prevents liquid from flowing out of the housing, Gray),
wherein the closing process for the valve device is controlled using at least one energy accumulator (figs 4a and 4b, energy accumulator in the form of spring 46, Gray) which is arranged between the valve device and the closure body of the bellows, in such a way that a predefinable quantity of liquid remains in the accumulator housing in any case, said quantity of liquid supporting the bellows in its expanded position (fig 4a, para 0034, spring 46 and valve 45 prevent the bellows 41 from fully exhausting the hydraulic fluid in space 43, Gray).
Regarding claim 12, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 10, wherein the valve device has a common connection for the supply and discharge of liquid (fig 4a, the liquid is supplied and discharged through fixture 44, Gray), which is at least partially penetrated by the valve device (fig 4a and 4b, fixture 44 is penetrated by valve 45, Gray).
Regarding claim 17, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 10, wherein the closure body is configured in the manner of a hemispherical shell (fig 4a and 4b, Gray, closure body is hemispherical) which, in the fully expanded state of the bellows, bounds a defined chamber volume for receiving liquid (fig 4a, Gray, bellows 41 are fully expanded, and together with the closure body, bound a defined volume 43 for receiving liquid.)
Regarding claim 19, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 10, wherein the first media side is a gas side (fig 4a, para 0034, first media side near 42 is the gas side, Gray)
Regarding claim 20, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 10, wherein the second media side is a liquid side (fig 4a, para 0034, second media side 43 is the hydraulic fluid side, which is liquid, Gray)
Regarding claim 28, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 12, wherein the closure body is configured in the manner of a hemispherical shell (fig 4a and 4b, Gray, closure body is hemispherical) which, in the fully expanded state of the bellows, bounds a defined chamber volume for receiving liquid (fig 4a, Gray, bellows 41 are fully expanded, and together with the closure body, bound a defined volume 43 for receiving liquid.)
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.
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.
Claims 11,13-16,21-27,29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Steprath (DE 3901261 A1), hereafter known as Steprath.
Regarding claim 11, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 10, wherein the valve device has a poppet valve (fig 4a, valve 45 is a poppet valve, Gray), a valve disc of which is held in its open position, allowing liquid through (fig 4b, the valve disk of 45 is held open allowing liquid through, Gray), counter to the action of a further energy accumulator (not disclosed) and, when actuated, moves into its closed position, blocking the passage of liquid (fig 4a, when valve is actuated, it moves into its closed position to block fluid flow, Gray).
Gray does not disclose a further energy accumulator that keeps the poppet valve disk open. However, Steprath teaches an energy accumulator in the form of a spring that keeps the poppet valve disk open (fig 1, spring 30, Steprath). Steprath describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Steprath into Gray and added the spring, as well as guide disk 22 of Steprath to the valve of Gray. Valves with guides and springs are well known in the art, and the guide and springs of Steprath would prevent the valve of Gray from detaching and falling into the housing during operation, as the valve of Gray is floating without support.
Regarding claim 13, Gray in view of Steprath, as applied to in claim 11, discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 11, wherein the one and the further energy accumulator are each formed of a compression spring (fig 4a Gray, spring 46 is compression spring, fig 1, Steprath, spring 30 is compression spring), but does not disclose wherein the spring stiffness of the one compression spring is greater than the spring stiffness of the other compression spring.
However, Steprath teaches a compression spring of greater stiffness than another compression spring (fig 1, page 3, paragraph 2, Steprath, top spring 26 is stiffer than valve spring 30, Steprath). Steprath describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Steprath into Gray in view of Steprath and made spring 46 of Gray to be more stiff than valve spring 30 of Steprath. Using springs of different stiffnesses is well known in the art, and the modification would make sure spring 46 is not completely compressed when the valve is closed so liquid remains in volume 43, as shown in fig 4a of Gray, this results in a soft closing and opening of the valve (para 0034, Gray), which reduces wear on the components.
Regarding claim 14, Gray in view of Steprath discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 13, wherein the one compression spring is arranged on the closure body of the bellows (figs 4a and 4b, Gray, spring 46 is on the bellows closure body) and the other compression spring is part of the valve device (fig 1, Steprath, spring 30 is on the valve device).
Regarding claim 15, Gray in view of Steprath discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 13, wherein, in the operating position, the one compression spring is supported with its one end on the upper side of the poppet valve and with its other end on the underside of the closure body of the bellows (fig 4a, Gray, compression spring 46 has one end on the upper side of poppet valve and the other end on the underside of the bellows closure body) and the other compression spring is supported with its one end on the underside of the valve disc and with its other end on a holder for guiding the valve tappet of the poppet valve (fig 1, Steprath, compression spring 30 has one end on the underside of valve disk 25, which after modification becomes the underside of valve disk 45 of Gray, and the other end of spring 30 is on guiding disk 22 of Steprath).
Regarding claim 16, Gray in view of Steprath, as applied to in claim 11, discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the valve disc, in the closed position, is in contact with a sealing device, in the form of an annular soft seal, which is accommodated in a connection body of the accumulator housing, which connection body contains the valve device.
However, Steprath teaches a annular soft sealing device on contact with the valve disk (fig 1, valve seal 32, which is annular, and is soft as valve body 24 can be pressed into it, para 0007, Steprath), the soft seal being accommodated in a connection body of the accumulator housing, which connection body contains the valve device (fig 1, Steprath, seal 32 is accommodated in connection body 16 of housing 12, and connection body 16 contains valve 23). Steprath describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Steprath into Gray in view of Steprath as applied to in claim 11 and install seal 32 of Steprath onto the inner rim of connection body 44 that contains valve 45. The seal of Steprath seals and supports valve 45 of Gray, and allows the metal bellows to continue to rest on the liquid, reducing wear (page 3, paragraph 3, Steprath).
Regarding claim 21, Gray in view of Steprath discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 11, wherein the valve device has a common connection for the supply and discharge of liquid (fig 4a, the liquid is supplied and discharged through fixture 44, Gray), which is at least partially penetrated by the valve device (fig 4a and 4b, fixture 44 is penetrated by valve 45, Gray).
Regarding claim 22, Gray in view of Steprath, as applied to in claim 11, discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 11, wherein the one and the further energy accumulator are each formed of a compression spring (fig 4a Gray, spring 46 is compression spring, fig 1, Steprath, spring 30 is compression spring), but does not disclose wherein the spring stiffness of the one compression spring is greater than the spring stiffness of the other compression spring.
However, Steprath teaches a compression spring of greater stiffness than another compression spring (fig 1, page 3, paragraph 2, Steprath, top spring 26 is stiffer than valve spring 30, Steprath). Steprath describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Steprath into Gray in view of Steprath and made spring 46 of Gray to be more stiff than valve spring 30 of Steprath. Using springs of different stiffnesses is well known in the art, and the modification would make sure spring 46 is not completely compressed when the valve is closed so liquid remains in volume 43, as shown in fig 4a of Gray, this results in a soft closing and opening of the valve (para 0034, Gray), which reduces wear on the components.
Regarding claim 23, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 12, wherein the one and the further energy accumulator are each formed of a compression spring (fig 4a Gray, spring 46 is compression spring, but further energy accumulator not disclosed), and wherein the spring stiffness of the one compression spring is greater than the spring stiffness of the other compression spring (not disclosed).
Gray does not disclose a further energy accumulator spring, or the stiffness differences between the two. However, Steprath teaches an energy accumulator in the form of a compression spring that keeps the poppet valve disk open (fig 1, spring 30, Steprath), as well as a compression spring of greater stiffness than another compression spring (fig 1, page 3, paragraph 2, Steprath, top spring 26 is stiffer than valve spring 30, Steprath). Steprath describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Steprath into Gray and added the spring and guide disk 22 of Steprath to the valve of Gray as well as made spring 46 of Gray to be more stiff than valve spring 30 of Steprath. Valves with guides and springs, as well as using springs of different stiffnesses, are well known in the art. The guide and springs of Steprath would prevent the valve of Gray from detaching and falling into the housing during operation, as the valve of Gray is floating without support, and the different stiffnesses would make sure spring 46 is not completely compressed when the valve is closed so liquid remains in volume 43, as shown in fig 4a of Gray, this results in a soft closing and opening of the valve (para 0034, Gray), which reduces wear on the components.
Regarding claim 24, Gray in view of Steprath discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 14, wherein, in the operating position, the one compression spring is supported with its one end on the upper side of the poppet valve and with its other end on the underside of the closure body of the bellows (fig 4a, Gray, compression spring 46 has one end on the upper side of poppet valve and the other end on the underside of the bellows closure body) and the other compression spring is supported with its one end on the underside of the valve disc and with its other end on a holder for guiding the valve tappet of the poppet valve (fig 1, Steprath, compression spring 30 has one end on the underside of valve disk 25, which after modification becomes the underside of valve disk 45 of Gray, and the other end of spring 30 is on guiding disk 22 of Steprath).
Regarding claim 25, Gray in view of Steprath, as applied to in claim 21, discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the valve disc, in the closed position, is in contact with a sealing device, in the form of an annular soft seal, which is accommodated in a connection body of the accumulator housing, which connection body contains the valve device.
However, Steprath teaches a annular soft sealing device on contact with the valve disk (fig 1, valve seal 32, which is annular, and is soft as valve body 24 can be pressed into it, para 0007, Steprath), the soft seal being accommodated in a connection body of the accumulator housing, which connection body contains the valve device (fig 1, Steprath, seal 32 is accommodated in connection body 16 of housing 12, and connection body 16 contains valve 23). Steprath describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Steprath into Gray in view of Steprath as applied to in claim 11 and install seal 32 of Steprath onto the inner rim of connection body 44 that contains valve 45. The seal of Steprath seals and supports valve 45 of Gray, and allows the metal bellows to continue to rest on the liquid, reducing wear (page 3, paragraph 3, Steprath).
Regarding claim 26, Gray in view of Steprath, as applied to in claim 22, discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 22, but does not disclose wherein the valve disc, in the closed position, is in contact with a sealing device, in the form of an annular soft seal, which is accommodated in a connection body of the accumulator housing, which connection body contains the valve device.
However, Steprath teaches a annular soft sealing device on contact with the valve disk (fig 1, valve seal 32, which is annular, and is soft as valve body 24 can be pressed into it, para 0007, Steprath), the soft seal being accommodated in a connection body of the accumulator housing, which connection body contains the valve device (fig 1, Steprath, seal 32 is accommodated in connection body 16 of housing 12, and connection body 16 contains valve 23). Steprath describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Steprath into Gray in view of Steprath as applied to in claim 11 and install seal 32 of Steprath onto the inner rim of connection body 44 that contains valve 45. The seal of Steprath seals and supports valve 45 of Gray, and allows the metal bellows to continue to rest on the liquid, reducing wear (page 3, paragraph 3, Steprath).
Regarding claim 27, Gray in view of Steprath discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 11, wherein the closure body is configured in the manner of a hemispherical shell (fig 4a and 4b, Gray, closure body is hemispherical) which, in the fully expanded state of the bellows, bounds a defined chamber volume for receiving liquid (fig 4a, Gray, bellows 41 are fully expanded, and together with the closure body, bound a defined volume 43 for receiving liquid.)
Regarding claim 29, Gray in view of Steprath discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 13, wherein the closure body is configured in the manner of a hemispherical shell (fig 4a and 4b, Gray, closure body is hemispherical) which, in the fully expanded state of the bellows, bounds a defined chamber volume for receiving liquid (fig 4a, Gray, bellows 41 are fully expanded, and together with the closure body, bound a defined volume 43 for receiving liquid.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Suzuki (JP 2002242902 A), hereafter known as Suzuki.
Regarding claim 18, Gray discloses the bellows accumulator of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the lower bellows end is guided inside the accumulator housing by means of a ring-shaped guide body which, provided with fluid passages, establishes a permanent fluid connection between the chamber volume in the region of the valve device and a further chamber volume which is substantially bounded by the inside of the accumulator housing and the outside of the bellows folds of the bellows.
However, Suzuki teaches a bellows accumulator wherein the lower bellows end is guided inside the accumulator by means of a ring-shaped guide body (figs 1,2,4, Suzuki, bellows 14 are guided by ring shaped guide body 18) which, provided with fluid passages (fig 4, guide body 18 has fluid passages in the form of recesses 18c, Suzuki) establishes a permanent fluid connection between the chamber volume in the region of the valve device and a further chamber volume which is substantially bounded by the inside of the accumulator housing and the outside of the bellows folds of the bellows (figs 1,2, page 5, para 8, the recesses 18c establish a liquid passage between the chamber volume around the valve 16 and between the bellows and outer accumulator shell, Suzuki). Suzuki describes a bellow fluid accumulator, a field closely related to Gray and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Suzuki into Gray and use the guide ring of Suzuki to guide the bellows of Gray, the modification would also form a liquid connection between the two claimed volumes, as the bellows of Gray would be set further inward to not contact the wall of the accumulator. Bellows guides are known in the art, and the guide of Suzuki would prevent wear between the bellows and the accumulator wall, increasing the lifespan of the bellows.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (JP 2539905 B2), Tate (JP H11117901 A), Shimbori (US 20010037834 A1), Drumm (US 6478051 B1) discloses bellows accumulator with guide rings that have passageways.
Ruffer (US 6189572 B1), Hummelt (US 20100084033 A1) discloses bellows accumulator with a spring on the bellows closure body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights