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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on May 7th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 3rd, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-11 have been amended and Claims 12-13 have been newly-added. Consequently, Claims 1-13 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure was objected to for having legal phraseology therein (“comprising”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure has been provided by Applicant, rendering this objection moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have rendered these objections moot.
Claims 1-13 are now objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 should read “hydraulic components, the several hydraulic components comprising”
Claim 1, line 3 should read “hydraulic consumers, all of which are flowed through”
Claim 7, line 4 should read “the proportion of the one or more valves”
Claim 9, line 4 should read “by weighting efficiencies”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 were 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. Applicant’s amendments have rendered these 112(b) rejections moot.
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 1-13 are now 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, lines 5-6 recite “each hydraulic subsystem of the two of more hydraulic subsystems comprising the at least one hydraulic pump and one hydraulic consumer of the one or more hydraulic consumers”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. As written, the two or more hydraulic subsystems each comprise “the at least one hydraulic pump” and “one hydraulic consumer of the one or more hydraulic consumers”. This is ambiguous because it appears to require the same pump(s) and the same consumer to be arranged in both subsystems, which appears to be in conflict with applicant’s specification and figures. In other words, it is not clear whether this limitation is requiring 1) the same pump(s) and same consumer to be in both subsystems or 2) respective pumps of the at least one pump and respective hydraulic consumers of the one or more hydraulic consumers to be arranged in each respective subsystem. As far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears most likely that Applicant intends for the second interpretation, but the examiner can only guess at applicant’s true intent. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the second interpretation.
Claim 1, line 17 recites “the one hydraulic consumer of the at least one hydraulic subsystem of step (b)”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear which particular hydraulic consumer is being referred back to. In this instance, step (b) refers to at least one hydraulic subsystem, each having its own hydraulic consumer. In other words, the scope of step (b) is such that it encompasses multiple subsystems, and thus, multiple consumers. Thus, when line 17 refers simply to “the one hydraulic consume of the at least one hydraulic subsystem of step (b)”, ambiguity arises as to which particular consumer is being further limited. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as referring to any one of the hydraulic consumers of the at least one hydraulic subsystem of step (b).
Claim 7, line 4 recites “the proportion of these one or more valves remains unconsidered or is disregarded in the determining of the leakage of the one hydraulic consumer of the at least one hydraulic subsystem”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by this phrasing. In particular, it is wholly unclear what is being referred to by “the proportion of these one or more valves”. As far as the examiner understands, this phrasing could mean simply refer to the one or more valves. However, when the claim recites “the proportion”, it becomes unclear whether Applicant is intending to refer to only one of the valves or not. Since the term “proportion” refers to a share of a set of elements, the claim scope becomes vague and indefinite. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as referring to all of the valves of the one or more valves.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are found to be provisionally allowed, pending Applicant overcoming the objections and rejections noted above. Applicant should note that no claim(s) can be properly allowed until each and every issue noted above has been fully overcome by Applicant.
As best understood by the examiner given the indefinite claim scope in light of the many issues noted above, the best available prior art fails to disclose a method for monitoring a hydraulic system as recited in Claim 1. The Examiner notes that depending on how Applicant remedies the issues noted above, the claim scope can potentially change extensively, even to the point that withdrawing this indication of allowability may become necessary.
As best understood by the Examiner, the best available prior art references, as it relates to Claim 1, are as follows:
DE 102015206403 to Guender
DE 2019117820 to Pichler
JP 2020076223 to Ono
DE 102011115650 to Hast
US 6,557,344 to Puschel
Guender is considered to be the most relevant prior art document, and discloses a method of monitoring a hydraulic system (1; Fig. 6) including at least one hydraulic pump 2, a source of hydraulic fluid 24, and one or more consumers 62, wherein the method comprises determining the leakage of the at least one hydraulic pump as a function of the pressure via predeterminable values of the pressure (paras. 1-2, 5-9, 21-23, 26-29, 31, 45-46), and furthermore, discloses operation of one or more, hydraulic subsystems (2/60/72/76) of the hydraulic system which can be shut off from one another (consumer 72 can be shut off from consumer 74 via valve 60), and determining of the present leakage of these subsystems in the operating state (paras. 39, 60 disclose determining the leakage of the pump in the subsystem), wherein a subsystem of the at least one hydraulic pump of step (a) and a consumer is formed (as clearly seen in Fig. 6). However, Guender is concerned only with leakage from the hydraulic pump, and thus, does not determine leakage of the consumers themselves nor determine efficiency (or average efficiency) of any components based on the claimed volume flow-to-leakage values. As such, Guender fails to disclose steps c, d, d1, and d2 as recited in Claim 1, and therefore, Guender falls far short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention.
Pichler is a similarly relevant prior art document, and discloses a method of monitoring an injection molding hydraulic machine/system (1; Fig. 1) including at least one hydraulic pump 2, a source of hydraulic fluid 7, and one or more consumers 9, wherein the method comprises determining the leakage of the at least one hydraulic pump as a function of the pressure via predeterminable values of the pressure (paras. 16-22). However, Pichler is concerned only with leakage from the hydraulic pump, and because of this, operates to isolate the hydraulic pump from the other components in the system in order to determine pump leakage accurately. Pichler does not determine leakage of any subsystems or individual consumers, nor does Pichler determine efficiency of any components. As such, Pichler fails to disclose steps b, c, d, d1, and d2 as recited in Claim 1, and therefore, Pichler falls far short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention.
Ono is a similarly relevant prior art document, and discloses a method of monitoring a hydraulic system (1; Fig. 2) including at least one hydraulic pump 51, a source of hydraulic fluid (“oil tank”), and one or more consumers (30a-30c, 22b, 44), wherein the method comprises generally determining the efficiency of the pump in the subsystems in the operating state, by the volume flow actually conveyed by the pump being set in relation to the volume flow requested in the subsystem by the consumer (para. 42). However, Ono does not calculate this pump efficiency based on any determined leakage value, and thus, does not even fully disclose step d1. Furthermore, Ono is not concerned with (and thus, does not determine) leakage from the hydraulic pump, the subsystems thereof, or the consumers themselves, nor does Ono determine efficiency of any of the consumers based on the claimed leakage values determined in claimed steps a-c. As such, Ono fails to disclose steps a, b, c, d1, or d2 as recited in Claim 1, and therefore, Ono falls far short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention.
Hast discloses yet another method of monitoring a hydraulic system (101; Fig. 2) that is similar in structure and operation to Guender (as noted above), but Hast fails to overcome or remedy any of the deficiencies of Guender, Pichler, or Ono.
Finally, Puschel discloses a well-known arrangement of an injection molding machine hydraulic system (see figure) that includes at least one hydraulic pump (25, 26), a source of hydraulic fluid (30), and one or more consumers (10, 40-43), one of which provides linear movement while another provides rotary movement. However, like Hast above, Puschel fails to overcome or remedy any of the deficiencies of Guender, Pichler, or Ono.
Applicant’s recited invention differs from the best available prior art in that not only is the at least one hydraulic pump leakage determined, but in addition to this determination, subsystem leakage as well as individual consumer leakage are also both determined individually, and from these respectively determined leakages, respective efficiencies of the at least one hydraulic pump and the one or more consumers are determined through calculating an actual volume flow that takes into account the previously detected leakages. Such a particular method of monitoring/determining leakage and efficiency of a hydraulic system and its individual components, as claimed, is not found in the best available prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments have 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 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
Prosecution Insights