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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The second cited US Patent in the IDS of 9/05/2024 lists the wrong patent number. Hewett et al, US# 776061, appears to be the intended reference and has been included in the attached pto-892.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “t” in the phrase “and t the first fluid” on line two of the claim should be removed. 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 8-9 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 8 recites “wherein the pressure balancing valve is biased towards a position restricting or closing the fluid flow path between the accumulator and one of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume.” Parent claim 1 requires “when there is low or no pressure gradient between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume, the pressure balancing valve permits connection between the accumulator and both the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume thereby allowing equilibration of pressure across the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume.” It is not clear how this is accomplished when the pressure balancing valve is biased towards a position closing the fluid path between the accumulator and one of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume as specified by claim 8.
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) 1, 5, and 7-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rybicki (US# 4084668) in view of Faith and Hook (US# 698483) or Hewett (US# 776061).
Rybicki discloses a fluid circuit device comprising 10: a first fluid volume 22 and a second fluid volume 24; an accumulator 40; and a pressure balancing valve 52 between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume linking the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume to the accumulator, the pressure balancing valve comprising a first seal 54 in communication with the first fluid volume 22; a second seal 56 in communication with the second fluid volume 24; and an interlock 58 between the first seal and the second seal such that the first seal and the second seal act in unison; wherein, in use, the pressure balancing valve is actuated on application of a pressure gradient between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume such that the pressure balancing valve moves to provide a fluid flow path between the accumulator and whichever of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume that has a lower pressure and restricts or closes a fluid flow path between the accumulator and another of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume (col. 3, lines 40-55). Rybicki lack the clear disclosure of, when there is low or no pressure gradient between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume, the pressure balancing valve permits connection between the accumulator and both the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume thereby allowing equilibration of pressure across the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume.
Faith and Hook or Hewett both disclose similar cylinder devices and utilize members (12 of Faith/Hook; 12 of Hewett) to ensure an open default position of the valves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize elements or valve arrangement such as taught by Faith/Hook or Hewett to position the valve elements or in place of the valve elements of Rybicki to ensure equalizing takes place properly, including in situations of little to no pressure gradient or when the first and second volumes have higher pressure than the equalizing chamber (due to circumstances such as temperature variances across the device), thereby improving performance of the device.
Regarding claim 5, the interlock 58 is connected to both the first seal 54 and the second seal 56.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Rybicki further lack the first seal and the second seal having a ball valve-arrangement. Faith and Hook further teach a ball valve arrangement 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use balls, such as taught by Faith and Hook, in place of the valve elements 54/56 of Rybicki as an obvious alternative structure which is more economical to manufacture.
Regarding claim 8, Hewett, Faith and Hook both teach a pressure balancing valve 8-9 is biased towards 12a position restricting or closing the fluid flow path between the drain and one of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume. Note each spring biases the valve towards a respective closed position.
Regarding claim 9, Hewett, Faith and Hook both teach the pressure balancing valve is biased by being imposed by a spring 12.
Regarding claim 10, Hewett, Faith and Hook both teach the pressure balancing valve is biased toward a position whereby the accumulator equilibrates both the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume.
Regarding claim 11, Hewett, Faith and Hook both teach the pressure balancing valve is biased by being imposed by a spring 12.
Regarding claim 12, the pressure balancing valve comprises an elongated pin element 58; and when the pressure balancing valve moves to provide a fluid flow path between the accumulator and the first fluid volume, an end of the elongated pin element restricts or closes the fluid flow path between the accumulator and the second fluid volume.
Regarding claim 13, the pressure balancing valve comprises an elongated pin element 58; and when the pressure balancing valve moves to provide a fluid flow path between the accumulator and the second fluid volume, another end of the elongated pin element restricts or closes the fluid flow path between the accumulator and the first fluid volume.
Regarding claim 15, the first seal 54 and the second seal 56 have a check valve arrangement. Note col. 3, lines 40-52 describe a check valve function.
Regarding claim 16, Rybicki discloses an energy absorption device (col. 1, lines 9-16) comprising: a fluid circuit device 10 that comprises a first fluid volume 22 and a second fluid volume 24; an accumulator 40; and a pressure balancing valve 52 between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume linking the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume to the accumulator, the pressure balancing valve comprising a first seal 54 in communication with the first fluid volume; a second seal 56 in communication with the second fluid volume; and an interlock 58 between the first seal and the second seal such that the first seal and the second seal act in unison; wherein, in use, the pressure balancing valve is actuated on application of a pressure gradient between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume such that the pressure balancing valve moves to provide a fluid flow path between the accumulator and whichever of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume that has a lower pressure and restricts or closes a fluid flow path between the accumulator and another of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume (col. 3, lines 40-55). Rybicki lack the clear disclosure of, when there is low or no pressure gradient between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume, the pressure balancing valve permits connection between the accumulator and both the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume thereby allowing equilibration of pressure across the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume.
Faith and Hook or Hewett both disclose similar cylinder devices and utilize members (12 of Faith/Hook; 12 of Hewett) to ensure an open default position of the valves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize elements or valve arrangement such as taught by Faith/Hook or Hewett to position the valve elements or in place of the valve elements of Rybicki to ensure equalizing takes place properly, including in situations of little to no pressure gradient or when the first and second volumes have higher pressure than the equalizing chamber (due to circumstances such as temperature variances across the device), thereby improving performance of the device.
Regarding claim 17, the energy absorption device further comprises a cylinder 10 and a piston 12 within the cylinder, and t the first fluid volume 22 and the second fluid volume 24 are on opposite sides of the piston.
Regarding claim 18, the pressure balancing valve 52 is external to the cylinder 10, and the cylinder comprises ports (where 50 and 53 connect to 22 and 24) that connect the pressure balancing valve to the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume.
Regarding claim 19, the energy absorption device is a hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 20, the energy absorption device is a viscous damper.
Regarding claim 21, Rybicki discloses a method comprising: providing a fluid circuit device 10, wherein said fluid circuit device comprises a first fluid volume 22 and a second fluid volume 24; an accumulator 40; and a pressure balancing valve 52 between the first fluid volume 22 and the second fluid volume 24 linking the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume to the accumulator 40, the pressure balancing valve comprising a first seal 54 in communication with the first fluid volume 22; a second seal 56 in communication with the second fluid volume; and an interlock 58 between the first seal and the second seal such that the first seal and the second seal act in unison; wherein, in use, the pressure balancing valve is actuated on application of a pressure gradient between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume such that the pressure balancing valve moves to provide a fluid flow path between the accumulator and whichever of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume that has a lower pressure and restricts or closes a fluid flow path between the accumulator and another of the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume (col. 3, lines 40-55); and applying a pressure gradient to the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume (col. 3, lines 40-55). Rybicki lack the clear disclosure of, when there is low or no pressure gradient between the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume, the pressure balancing valve permits connection between the accumulator and both the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume thereby allowing equilibration of pressure across the first fluid volume and the second fluid volume.
Faith and Hook or Hewett both disclose similar cylinder devices and utilize members (9 of Faith/Hook; 8a-9a of Hewett) to ensure an open default position of the valves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize elements or valve arrangement such as taught by Faith/Hook or Hewett to position the valve elements or in place of the valve elements of Rybicki to ensure equalizing takes place properly, including in situations of little to no pressure gradient or when the first and second volumes have higher pressure than the equalizing chamber (due to circumstances such as temperature variances across the device), thereby improving performance of the device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rybicki (US# 4084668), Faith and Hook (US# 698483) or Hewett (US# 776061), as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Hammer (US# 190680).
Rybicki, as modified above, disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the disclosure of the interlock being variable such that a stroke of the pressure balancing valve can be varied to alter switch phasing. Hammer discloses similar check valve arrangements and further teach a variable interlock (E/F) which allows the adjustment of the check valves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a variable interlock, such as taught by Hammer, in the device of modified Rybicki to provide adjustment to the valves, thereby allowing accommodation of wear, fine tuning of the valve actuation and/or allow manufacture with increased tolerances to improve economy. Also note MPEP 2144.04(V)(D) regarding the obviousness of making adjustable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-8, and 10-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10948044. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims represent a slight broader version of patent claim 2 and combinations of claim 2 and depending claims.
Claims 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11598387. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent claim 2 anticipates application claims 21-22 including a narrower recitation of the specific interlock of a pin element.
Claims 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12092186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent claim 2 anticipates application claims 21-22 including a narrower recitation of the specific interlock of a pin element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571 272-7124. 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights