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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4 set forth a desired result but fail to explain how that result is achieved. Specifically, claim 1 discloses a hopeite amount on the bonding surface is 4.8% or less, but the specification does not disclose how the hopeite amount is adjusted or limited to the claimed 4.8% or less. Claims 2,3,5-7 depend on claims 1 or 4, and are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1,2,4,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (US 20050061379 A1), hereafter known as Mori.
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a cap bellows assembly (figs 1 and 2, para 0056, cap assembly 6 , Mori) for sealing one end of a bellows provided inside an exterior body of an accumulator (fig 1, cap assembly 6 seals one end of bellows 3 which is inside accumulator 1, Mori), the accumulator including a bottom, a shell, and a port (fig 1, accumulator 1 has bottom 7, shell 8, port 9 together with 5, Mori), the cap bellows assembly comprising:
a cap body configured to cover an opening of the bellows (fig 1, cap body 21, Mori);
and a cap elastic portion provided between the cap body and the port and fixed to the cap body (figs 1 and 2, elastic portion, elastic portion 23 is between cap body 21 and port 9 and 5, and is fixed cap body 21, Mori)
wherein a bonding surface of the cap body, to which the cap elastic portion is bonded, is subjected to a zinc calcium phosphate treatment, and a hopeite amount on the bonding surface is 4.8% or less (para 0015,0016, para 0103, fig 6, cap body 21 has a zinc calcium phosphate treatment coating, with no disclosure of containing hopeite, Mori).
Regarding claim 2, Mori discloses the cap bellows assembly according to claim 1, wherein the hopeite amount on the bonding surface is 3% or less (para 0015,0016, para 0103, fig 6, the zinc calcium phosphate treatment is not disclosed to contain hopeite, Mori).
Regarding claim 4, Mori discloses an accumulator (fig 1, accumulator 1, Mori) comprising:
an exterior body including a bottom, a shell, and a port (fig 1, accumulator 1 has bottom 7, shell 8, port 9 together with 5, Mori);
a bellows provided inside the exterior body (fig 1, bellows 3, Mori);
and a cap bellows assembly configured to seal one end of the bellows (fig 1, cap assembly 6 seals one end of bellows 3, Mori),
wherein the cap bellows assembly includes:
a cap body configured to cover an opening of the bellows (fig 1, cap body 21 covers opening of bellows 3, Mori);
and a cap elastic portion provided between the cap body and the port and fixed to the cap body (figs 1 and 2, elastic portion, elastic portion 23 is between cap body 21 and port 9 and 5, and is fixed cap body 21, Mori),
and a bonding surface of the cap body, to which the cap elastic portion is bonded (fig 2, cap body 21 has a surface that is bonded to elastic portion 23, Mori), is subjected to a zinc calcium phosphate treatment, and a hopeite amount on the bonding surface is 4.8% or less (para 0015,0016, para 0103, fig 6, cap body 21 has a zinc calcium phosphate treatment coating, with no disclose of containing hopeite, Mori).
Regarding claim 5, Mori discloses the accumulator according to claim 4, wherein the hopeite amount on the bonding surface is 3% or less (para 0015,0016, para 0103, fig 6, the zinc calcium phosphate treatment is not disclosed to contain hopeite, Mori).
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Okada (US 20050098244 A1), hereafter known as Okada.
Regarding claim 3, Mori discloses the cap bellows assembly according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a number of times of durability against peeling of the cap elastic portion from the cap body in a durability test in which pressure is repeatedly applied while the pressure is varied in a range of 0 to 21 MPa is 10 million times or more, although the elastic portion is bonded to the metal portion in the same manner disclosed in the claimed invention.
However, Okada teaches a bellows accumulator capable of 10 million repetition test at 700 MPa (table 2, Okada). Okada describes a bellows accumulator, a field closely related to Mori 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 Okada into Mori and made the accumulator of Mori, which includes the cap and elastic portion, to be able to withstand the repetition test of Okada. The 10 million cycle test is a known standard in the art to determine the fatigue limit of a device, and the accumulator of Mori in view of Okada can be made more reliable as well.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Beck (EP 0980981 A1), hereafter known as Beck.
Regarding claim 6, Mori discloses the accumulator according to claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the port includes a protrusion protruding toward the cap body, and a distance between the protrusion and the cap body is set according to an allowable deflection amount of the cap elastic portion.
However, Beck teaches an accumulator with a port that includes a protrusion towards the cap body (fig 1, Beck, protrusion 13 is part of port 5 and extends towards cap body 15), and the distance between the protrusion and the cap body is set according to an allowable deflection amount of the cap elastic portion (fig 1, Beck, the protrusion distance of 13 is set and prevents over compression of cap elastic portion 10). Beck describes a bellows accumulator for fluids, a field closely related to Mori 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 Beck into Mori and added the protrusions 13 of Beck onto the port portion 5a of Mori. The protrusion of Beck limits the compression of the valve portion, improving its effectiveness (page 4, paragraph 2, Beck).
Regarding claim 7, Mori discloses the accumulator according to claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the port includes a protrusion protruding toward the cap body, and a distance between the protrusion and the cap body is set according to an allowable deflection amount of the cap elastic portion.
However, Beck teaches an accumulator with a port that includes a protrusion towards the cap body (fig 1, Beck, protrusion 13 is part of port 5 and extends towards cap body 15), and the distance between the protrusion and the cap body is set according to an allowable deflection amount of the cap elastic portion (fig 1, Beck, the protrusion distance of 13 is set and prevents over compression of cap elastic portion 10). Beck describes a bellows accumulator for fluids, a field closely related to Mori 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 Beck into Mori and added the protrusions 13 of Beck onto the port portion 5a of Mori. The protrusion of Beck limits the compression of the valve portion, improving its effectiveness (page 4, paragraph 2, Beck).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shiraishi (JP H07197902 A), Herold (DE 19908089 A1), and Kitahara (JP 2003074503 A) teaches a accumulator with port protrusions.
Okada (JP H07174234 A) and Umetsu (JP H05312201 A) discloses bellow accumulators with 10 and 20 million fatigue limits, respectfully.
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