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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizukami et al. (20200049168) hereinafter Mizukami.
Regarding claim 9, Mizukami discloses, an exterior body of an accumulator (Title, Abstract, paragraph [0074]: “accumulator 201” and Figure 7: 201), the exterior body (paragraph [0075]: “pressure vessel 210” and Figure 7: 210) comprising:
an exterior body including a bottom (paragraph [0074]: “second section 230” and Figure 7: 230),
a shell (paragraph [0076]: “external cylinder portion 221” and Figure 7: 221),
and a port (paragraph [0078]: “port 223” and Figure 7: 223);
a bellows (paragraph [0079]: “bellows 241” and Figure 7: 241) provided inside the exterior body (paragraph [0078]: “port 223” and Figure 7: 223);
and a cap (paragraph [0085]: “bellows cap 242” and Figure 7: 242) bellows assembly (paragraph [0085]: “bellows mechanism 240” and Figure: 240) configured to seal one end of the bellows (paragraph [0085]: explains how bellows mechanism 240 consisting different components seals one end of the bellows),
wherein a welded portion (paragraph [0075]: “weld line 214” and Figure 7: 214) formed by melting and solidifying a part of the bottom (paragraph [0074]: “second section 230” and Figure 7: 230) and the shell (paragraph [0076]: “external cylinder portion 221” and Figure 7: 221) is formed at a connection portion between the bottom and the shell (Figure 7: refer to 214 joining 221 and 236),
and a connection surface of the bottom (paragraph [0082]: mating portion 239 for fitting the first section 220 and Figure 9: 239) and a connection surface of the shell (paragraph [0084]: mating portion 229 at the other end of the external cylinder portion 221 and Figure 9: 229), which are continuous with the welded portion, are in a state of being in pressure contact with each other (paragraph [0075]: explains how pressure vessel 210 is formed by welding section 220 and section 230; Figure: 7).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizukami et al. (20200049168) hereinafter Mizukami in view of Yuda et al. (20040056530) hereinafter Yuda.
Regarding claim 5, Mizukami discloses a manufacturing method for manufacturing an exterior body (paragraph [0075]: “pressure vessel 210” and Figure 7: 210) of an accumulator (paragraph [0074]: “accumulator 201” and ”Figure 7: 201) including a bottom (paragraph [0074]: “second section 230” and Figure 7: 230), a shell (paragraph [0076]: “external cylinder portion 221” and Figure 7: 221), and a port (paragraph [0078]: “port 223” and Figure 7: 223), the method comprising:
melting and solidifying a region including a part of a connection portion (paragraph [0075]: “weld line 214” and Figure 7: 214) between the bottom and the shell (paragraph [0075]: explains how second section 230 and external cylinder portion 221 are welded for joining together).
Mizukami does not disclose press fitting the bottom into the shell.
Yuda teaches about forming accumulator chamber (Abstract, Figure 1: 8) by press-fitting (paragraph [0015]: explains components of accumulator chamber being connected by non-welding means such as press-fitting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Mizukami to add a press-fitting step taught by Yuda prior to welding to make the manufacturing process easier and to reduce debris resulting from a longer welding operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7
Regarding claim 6, Mizukami in view of Yuda discloses a manufacturing method according to claim 5 as set forth above.
Mizukami further discloses melting and solidifying (welding) a region including a connection portion between the port and the shell (paragraph [0078]: described port 223 being welded to bottom plate portion 222 of shell 220; Annotated figure 7: “weld line interface between shell and port”).
Mizukami does not disclose press-fitting the port into the shell.
Yuda teaches about forming accumulator chamber (Abstract, Figure 1: 8) by press-fitting [paragraph [0015]: explains components of accumulator chamber being connected by non-welding means such as press-fitting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Mizukami to add a press-fitting step taught by Yuda prior to welding to make the manufacturing process easier and to reduce debris resulting from a longer welding process.
Regarding claim 7, Mizukami in view of Yuda discloses a manufacturing method according to claim 5 as set forth above.
Mizukami in view of Yuda also discloses the bellows is in a compressed state in a state where the bottom is press-fitted into the shell (Figure 7: shows bellows 241 being in compressed state when second section 230 is fitted with the cylinder 210 and the bellows mechanism 240 expanded most and the volume ratio of the liquid chamber 216 is minimized).
Mizukami in view of Yuda does not explicitly disclose the bottom is press-fitted into the shell after a bellows is disposed in the shell. However, Mizukami discloses configurations where one end of bellows (Figures 7 – 10: 241) is connected to the bottom ([paragraph 0079]: describes bellows 241 being fixed to cover plate 236 which is a part of the bottom 230; Figure 7). The sequence of press-fitting the bottom to the shell after bellows is disposed within the shell is an obvious process step of manufacturing.
Mizukami in view of Yuda does not explicitly disclose natural length of the bellows being longer than a length of the shell in a longitudinal axis direction. Mizukami discloses configuration with length of bellows enough to cover the entire length of the shell (paragraph [0087], Figure 7). The applicant is silent about presenting criticality of the length of bellows being longer than the length of the shell to the design, manufacturing and function of the accumulator and in fact discloses options for natural length of bellows being shorter or equal the length of the shell (Instant application specification, paragraph 0018, line 7 -9). Regarding natural length of bellows being longer than the length of shell in a longitudinal direction, the courts have held that a where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Hence, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have expected the applicant’s invention to perform the same function equally well with the bellows having natural length disclosed by Mizukami in view of Yuda.
Regarding claim 8, Mizukami in view of Yuda discloses a manufacturing method according to claim 6 as set forth above.
Mizukami in view of Yuda also discloses the bellows is in a compressed state in a state where the bottom is press-fitted into the shell (Figure 7: shows bellows 241 being in compressed state when second section 230 is fitted with the cylinder 210 and the bellows mechanism 240 expanded most and the volume ratio of the liquid chamber 216 is minimized).
Mizukami in view of Yuda does not explicitly disclose the bottom is press-fitted into the shell after a bellows is disposed in the shell. However, Mizukami discloses configurations where one end of bellows (Figures 7 – 10: 241) is connected to the bottom ([paragraph 0079]: describes bellows 241 being fixed to cover plate 236 which is a part of the bottom 230; Figure 7). The sequence of press-fitting the bottom to the shell after bellows is disposed within the shell is an obvious process step of manufacturing.
Mizukami in view of Yuda does not explicitly disclose natural length of the bellows being longer than a length of the shell in a longitudinal axis direction. Mizukami discloses configuration with length of bellows enough to cover the entire length of the shell (paragraph [0087], Figure 7). The applicant is silent about presenting criticality of the length of bellows being longer than the length of the shell to the design, manufacturing and function of the accumulator and in fact discloses options for natural length of bellows being shorter or equal the length of the shell (Instant application specification, paragraph 0018, line 7 -9). Regarding natural length of bellows being longer than the length of shell in a longitudinal direction, the courts have held that a where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Hence, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have expected the applicant’s invention to perform the same function equally well with the bellows having natural length disclosed by Mizukami in view of Yuda.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20180245606A1 discloses an acc US20010037834A1 discloses an accumulator manufacturing process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm EST.
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 supervisors, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or 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.
/FAISAL AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights