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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that the cited references do not disclose the limitations of the amended independent claims. This argument is not persuasive as the combination of references previously recited Reibold (JP 2017062043) in view of Nienhoff (US 2015/0153244) does disclose the amended limitations. Specifically, Reibold [Abstract] discloses measuring pressure in a tube for the purposes of determining whether air exists within said tube whilst Nienhoff discloses identifying the pressure within a vessel based on the current being measured by the motor compressing the medium within the tube. The result of this combination is a system in which a current measurement is being used, as a direct representation of pressure, to determine whether bleeding air from a hydraulic system is required.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reibold (JP 2017062043) in view of Nienhoff (US 2015/0153244).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reibold in view of Nienhoff in view of Gu (US 2013/0197721).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reibold (JP 2017062043) in view of Nienhoff (US 2015/0153244).
As per Claim 1:
Reibold discloses the following limitations:
“A method of bleeding air trapped in a hydraulic clutch, the method comprising:… performing air bleeding….”
Reibold [Abstract] discloses determining whether the pressure within a hydraulic piston is appropriate or not to determine whether air exists in the piston for the purposes of bleeding said air.
Reibold does not disclose the following limitations that Reibold in view of Nienhoff does disclose:
“checking a current value profile, for actuating a piston in the hydraulic clutch, obtained while the piston is driven for a predetermined stroke; and…based on the current value profile”
Reibold [Abstract] discloses measuring pressure in a tube for the purposes of determining whether air exists within said tube, Nienhoff discloses identifying the pressure within a vessel based on current being measured by the motor compressing the medium within the tube. Figure 2 represents measuring current for a predetermined stroke in the periods between t1 and t2 and t4 and t5. The invention disclosed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the measuring of current disclosed in the instant application is a direct representation of the changing pressure within the system (i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the increasing and decreasing current loads measured throughout a stroke is representative of the increasing and decreasing pressure within the system throughout a stroke).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Reibold with the pressure reading disclosed by Nienhoff. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by utilizing measurable parameters to make determinations.
With regards to Claim 2, Reibold in view of Nienhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the performing air bleeding comprises checking a result value of the checking the current value profile, and performing air bleeding according to the result value.”
Reibold [Abstract] discloses measuring pressure in a tube for the purposes of determining whether air exists within said tube, Nienhoff discloses identifying the pressure within a vessel based on current being measured by the motor compressing the medium within the tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Reibold with the pressure reading disclosed by Nienhoff. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by utilizing measurable parameters to make determinations.
With regards to Claim 3, Reibold in view of Nienhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the checking the result value comprises comparing the current value profile and a normal current value profile obtained under a normal condition, and determining that air is present if a maximum current value in the current value profile is less than a maximum current value in the normal current value profile.”
Nienhoff Paragraph [0055] discloses comparing electric current for a normal operation to a specific operation to determine the pressure within a vessel. Reibold discloses comparing normal operating pressure to specific operation pressure of a vessel to determine if air exists within the vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Reibold with the pressure reading disclosed by Nienhoff. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by utilizing measurable parameters to make determinations.
With regards to Claim 4, Reibold in view of Nienhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising re-checking if the air bleeding is complete.”
Reibold discloses performing a check of whether air bleeding is required, it would be obvious that such a process would be repeated as many times as required to remove the air.
With regards to Claim 5, Reibold in view of Nienhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the checking the current value profile comprises checking a current value profile obtained when an operating stroke of an actuator of the hydraulic clutch is driven.”
Reibold [Abstract] discloses identifying the pressure standards of all positions of an actuator during its strokes.
With regards to Claim 6, Reibold in view of Nienhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the performing air bleeding comprises: measuring air bleeding performance time for which the air bleeding is performed; and re-checking the current value profile if the measured air bleeding performance time meets a predetermined time threshold.”
Reibold discloses constraining measurement by time. "The change rate of the value obtained within a predetermined period that ends at the previous measurement time or the final measurement time with respect to the clutch sampling point is greater than the predetermined sampling point change speed limit value. Here, the changing speed of the sampling point is a time gradient of the time lapse characteristic of the value obtained for the sampling point."
With regards to Claim 7, Reibold in view of Nienhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further discloses the following limitations:
“ checking a re-performance result value obtained after the re-checking the current value profile.”
Reibold discloses performing a check of whether air bleeding is required, it would be obvious that such a process would be repeated as many times as required to remove the air.
With regards to Claim 8, Reibold in view of Nienhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the checking the re-performance result value comprises: determining that air is present if a maximum current value in the current value profile is less than a maximum current value under a normal condition.”
Reibold discloses performing a check of whether air bleeding is required, it would be obvious that such a process would be repeated as many times as required to remove the air.
With regards to Claim 10, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 11: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 20: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reibold (JP 2017062043) in view of Nienhoff (US 2015/0153244) in view of Gu (US 2013/0197721).
With regards to Claim 9, Reibold in view of Neinhoff discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“and ending the checking the re-performance result value if it is determined that air is not present, and performing air bleeding if it is determined that air is present.”
Reibold discloses performing a check of whether air bleeding is required, it would be obvious that such a process would be repeated as many times as required to remove the air.
Reibold in view of Neinhoff does not disclose the following limitations that Gu does disclose:
“ displaying a hardware (H/W) inspection request message on a display if a number of times of the re-checking is greater than or equal to a preset number, after the checking the re-performance result value, and performing air bleeding if the number of times of the re-checking is less than the preset number”
Gu Paragraph [0056] discloses relaying message associated with bleeding air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Reibold in view of Neinhoff with the messaging system disclosed by Gu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for monitoring of systems.
With regards to Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Relevant References
Ando (US 4,450,824)
Krainski (US 4,332,175)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658