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 11-24 objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 11, lines 3 and 4, “which” should read --the-- or --said--; and in line 9, “one” should be deleted;.
In claim 13, line 3, “one” should be deleted.
In claim 16, line 5, “this fluid path” should read --the further fluid path--.
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 15-18, 20 and 22 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 15 recites the limitations "the further fluid chamber" and “the operating fluid” in lines 4 and 5 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the entire free cross-section" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15, 19, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Box (GB755342).
With regard to claim 11, Box discloses a piston accumulator having an accumulator housing 1 in which a separating piston 5 is guided so as to be longitudinally movable, the separating piston separates two fluid chambers (6 and 7) from each other (see the figure) and the separating piston has a damping device 10, wherein, in addition to the damping device there is an inflow device (14, 22, 24, 25) which cooperates with the damping device for damping a fluid flow out of the accumulator housing by forming a throttle ( as a result of valve plate 16, spring 24, pressure member 25 and ball valve 22) along a fluid path 21, and which releases a further fluid path (path between outer surface of 14 and inner surface of 3) by bypassing the fluid path that has the throttle in order for fluid to flow into the accumulator housing.
Regarding claim 12, see damping piston 11 and inflow piston 14.
Regarding claim 15, see housing cover 3 and the figure.
Claim 17, see the figure.
Regarding claim 19, see the figure.
Regarding claim 21, see page 1, lines 10-22 and page 2, lines 38-41.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant should note that the type fluid does not lend any patentable weight to the piston accumulator being claimed. Further, hydraulic oil is capable of being used with the piston accumulator of Box.
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.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Box.
Box discloses a piston accumulator as shown above. Although Box does not disclose the damping piston comprising an at least partially conical end part however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that forming the damping piston with an at least partially conical end part is a obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the damping piston with an at least partially conical end part versus any other suitable shape. Further, it is within the general skill level to form such a damping piston with an appropriately shaped end part.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim13, 14, 19 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.
Claims 16, 19, 20 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights