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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology therein (“comprising”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14 should read “leakage of the one or more subsystems”
Claim 1, line 25 should read “the efficiency of the at least one hydraulic pump”
Claim 1, line 26 should read “by a volume flow QactualPump”
Claim 1, line 29 should read “in relation to a volume flow Qtarget”
Claim 1, line 31 should read “efficiency of the one or more consumers”
Claim 1, line 32 should read “by a volume flow QConsumer”
Claim 1, line 36 should read “conveyed by the at least one hydraulic pump”
Claim 1, line 40 should read “delivered by the at least one hydraulic pump”
Claim 1, line 42 should read “leakage of the at least one hydraulic pump”
Claim 5, line 6 should read “
Claim 6, line 5 should read “and the one or more hydraulic consumers”
Claim 6, line 6 should read “and
Claim 7, line 2 should read “and the one or more valves remains”
Claim 10, line 5 should read “
Claim 11, line 5 should read “the one or more consumers”
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 1-11 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 1, line 9 recites “the pressure”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what this refers to. In other words, it is not clear if this refers to a particular pressure of the at least one hydraulic pump, a pressure within the hydraulic system, a pressure at the source of hydraulic fluid, a pressure experienced at the one or more hydraulic consumers, or some other pressure altogether. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that there is no clear antecedent basis for any “pressure” within the claim, rendering it impossible to know what particular variable is being defined by this language. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted “the pressure” as “the discharge pressure of the at least one hydraulic pump”.
Claim 1, lines 11-12 recite “Operation of one or more, hydraulic subsystems of the hydraulic system which can be shut off from one another”; this renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. At the outset, it is not clear whether the recited one or more hydraulic subsystems 1) include the previously recited “components” listed in the preamble of the claim or 2) are introducing different elements altogether. Applicant’s specification (and drawings) appear to imply that each “subsystem” comprises one or more of the listed hydraulic components of the hydraulic system. However, the claim language recites them as separate and distinct elements and there is no clear link between them. This conflict in scope renders the required structural arrangement of the invention unclear, and thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has applied the first interpretation noted above. Secondly, the phrasing “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether or not the limitations construed with this phrasing are actually present in the invention or not. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted “can be” as “configured to”. Thirdly, while the first half of this limitation recites “one or more” subsystems, the second half of this limitation implies the existence of multiple subsystems that “can be shut off from one another”. This conflict in scope makes it impossible to know how many subsystems (i.e. one or more, or conversely, a plurality) are actually required in the invention. Finally, if Applicant truly intends for “one or more” to define the subsystems, it is wholly unclear how a singular subsystem could be shut off from itself, as recited in the claim. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted the claim using the “one or more” claim scope. For all of these reasons, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1, lines 13-14 recite “the present leakage”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. At the outset, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Secondly, it is not clear how (or if) the phrase “present leakage” differs from simply “leakage” (as recited earlier in the claim). The claim language alone appears to be indicating a difference between these terms, but the meaning of this difference is not clear. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “the present leakage” as simply “the leakage”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operating state" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear what element is being defined by “the operating state” (i.e. the hydraulic system’s state, the subsystems’ state, or some other element’s state). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “the operating state” to be defining an operating state of the hydraulic system.
Claim 1, line 15 recite the limitation “a subsystem”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) forms a part of the “subsystems” recited earlier in the claim or 2) introduces another subsystem altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 1, line 16 recite the limitation “a consumer”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) forms a part of the “one or more hydraulic consumers” recited earlier in the claim or 2) introduces another consumer altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 1, lines 16-17 recite “Determining the leakage of the consumers of the subsystems operated according to step (b) by formation of the difference value between the leakage of the at least one hydraulic pump of step (a) and the leakage of the subsystem of step (b) which has the above-mentioned consumer”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is not clear how (or if) the phrase “leakage of the consumers” differs from the previously recited “the present leakage of these subsystems” (as recited earlier in the claim). The claim language alone appears to be indicating a difference between these terms, but the meaning of this difference is not clear. However, because the consumers form the subsystems, it appears that both leakages refer to the same variable. However, the Examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent here. Second, the phrases “the consumers” (i.e. plural consumers) and “the subsystems” (i.e. plural subsystems) lacks antecedent basis because the claim merely provides basis for “one or more hydraulic consumers” and “one or more hydraulic subsystems”. Thirdly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the difference value” in the claim. Fourthly, the phrase “the leakage of the subsystem of step (b)” (i.e. leakage of singular subsystem) is indefinite because it is not clear which of the multiple “subsystems” previously recited is being referred back to by this language. Finally, the phrase “the above-mentioned consumer” is indefinite because it is not clear which of the previously mentioned consumers is being referred back to by this language. For all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted each limitation as best understood, when read in light of the originally filed specification.
Claim 1, line 34 recites the limitation “a particular consumer”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) forms a part of the “one or more hydraulic consumers” recited earlier in the claim or 2) introduces another consumer altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 1, lines 37 & 41 both recite the limitation “this consumer”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which consumer previously recited in the claim is being referred back to by this language. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “this consumer” as “the particular consumer”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the volume flow effective at the consumer in the operating state results from the leakages from steps (a) and (c) and the volume flow actually delivered by the pump in the operating state to this consumer results taking into consideration the leakage of the pump from step (a)”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is incoherent. In this case, the limitation appears to be missing words, resulting in an apparent run-on limitation that loses its meaning. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted as “wherein the volume flow effective at the consumer in the operating state results from the leakages from steps (a) and (c) and the volume flow actually delivered by the pump in the operating state to this consumer
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the step (a) (learning phase or respectively automated reference formation) is carried out repeatedly”; this limitation lacks antecedent basis. In this case, there is no basis for the portion in parentheses. This results in ambiguity as to whether the limitation in Claim 2 is 1) attempting to refer back to the step (a) in Claim 1 or 2) introducing a modified version of step (a). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a hydraulic system”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the hydraulic system recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing another hydraulic system altogether . As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a hydraulic system”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the hydraulic system recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing another hydraulic system altogether . As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a first subsystem” and “a second subsystem”; these limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether these limitations 1) form part of the subsystems recited in Claim 1 or 2) are introducing additional subsystems altogether . As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the two subsystems”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) referring back to the first and second subsystems recited earlier in the claim or 2) referring back to the subsystems recited earlier in Claim 1. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “one or more subsystems”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) forms part of the subsystems recited in Claim 1 or 2) is introducing additional subsystems altogether . As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the consumer”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which of the previously recited consumers is being referred back to by this language. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “the consumer” as “the one or more consumers”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a subsystem”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) forms part of the subsystems recited in Claim 1 or 2) is introducing another subsystem altogether . As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the determining of the efficiency of one or more of the examined subsystems is carried out in the hydraulic system, by the actually effective volume flow of a subsystem Qconsumer being set in relation to the requested volume flow Qtarget in this subsystem”; this renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, the limitation “the determining of the efficiency of one or more of the examined subsystems” lacks antecedent basis because 1) there is no previous recitation of such a determination and 2) there is no previously recited “examined subsystems”. Second, the phrase “the actually effective volume flow of a subsystem Qconsumer” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if (or how) this variable differs from the previously recited “volume flow QConsumer” recited in Claim 1. Since they are listed in an identical manner, it appears that they refer to the same variable. However, the phrasing of the claim language itself appears to imply the opposite. However, the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent. Finally, the phrase “the requested volume flow Qtarget in this subsystem” lacks antecedent basis, as there is no previously denoted specific variable in Claims 8 or 1. This is primarily because it is not clear how (or if) the phrase “this subsystem” is defining (i.e. differentiating) the requested volume flow in Claim 8 from that recited earlier in Claim 1. For all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “the consumer” as “the one or more consumers”.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the average efficiency", “the efficiencies of the subsystems”, “the proportional durations”, and “the individual process phases” in lines 4-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted these limitations as “an average efficiency”, “efficiencies of the subsystems”, “proportional durations”, and “individual process phases”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “a calculation of the average efficiency of the total hydraulic system is carried out, but the efficiencies of the subsystems being weighted with the proportional durations of the individual process phases”, and the claim also recites “namely according to a particular equation”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9, line 9 recites the limitation “a subsystem”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) forms part of the subsystems recited in Claim 1 or 2) is introducing another subsystem altogether . As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 9, line 9 recites the limitation “the subsystem”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) refers to the subsystem recited earlier in Claim 9 or 2) is refers to one of the subsystems recited earlier in Claim 1. If the latter is desired, it becomes unclear which particular subsystem is being referred back to. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 10, line 3 recites the limitation “a hydraulic system”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the hydraulic system recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing another hydraulic system altogether . As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 11, line 5 recites the phrasing “can be” to describe movement of the “consumers” within the claim. However, the phrasing “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether or not the limitations construed with this phrasing are actually present in the invention or not. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. As such, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite
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 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 isolates 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, overall 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
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