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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-17 and 19-20 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims are responsive to the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/06/2025, hereinafter FOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the interpretation of claim(s) 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argued that the limitation of claim 12 that required interpretation no longer requires interpretation due to amendment is accurate. Therefore, the interpretation of claim 12 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the interpretation of claim(s) 1, 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant objected to the use of 112(f) as stated in the NFOA. Claims 1, 14 and 17 use the term “control element”, which has been interpreted as a generic placeholder for “means’, that is modified by functional language ‘seals the bladder… opens/vents the bladder’, and is not modified by structure for performing the claimed function. The applicant argued that the term “control element” is a term used to represent ‘valve elements’ and ‘would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function’. In response, the examiner stated that the interpretation provided by 112(f) in the NFOA, interprets the control element as a poppet valve as described in the specification [0059] AND EQUIVALENTS THEREOF. The applicant disagreed with interpreting under 112(f) the control element as a poppet valve or equivalent thereof as the control element under that interpretation lacked breadth.
If applicant does not want to have the claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may:
(1) present a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(2) amend the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function) OR
(3) amend the claim to cite “valve elements” instead to thereby establish the ‘breadth’ desired.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner; Rudolf US 6415641 B1, hereinafter Wagner, in view of FERTIG VOLKER DE 102005029730 A1, hereinafter Fertig, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s argument that the modified device of Wagner/Fertig fails to disclose “the set pressure of the bladder relief assembly being selectively adjustable to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure”. The applicant further argues that Fertig’s opening pressure is not selectively adjustable because the opening pressure is only selectively adjusted to match an application requirement (specific pump flow rate and/or avoided pressure drop). In response, it appears that the applicant is arguing that the set pressure IS selectively adjustable, albeit a different reason than the disclosed invention. Stated another way, Fertig’s opening pressure is selectively adjustable, just for a different reason. Therefore, the modified device of Wagner/Fertig discloses “the set pressure of the bladder relief assembly being selectively adjustable to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
Claim 1 Ln 6 states the claim limitation “control element”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “seals the bladder… opens the bladder” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “The relief valve 150 can include a control element 158 configured as a valve poppet”, described in the specification [0059] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 14 Ln 4 states the claim limitation “control element”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “seals the internal cavity… vents the internal cavity” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “The relief valve 150 can include a control element 158 configured as a valve poppet”, described in the specification [0059] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 17 Ln 9 states the claim limitation “control element”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “seals the internal cavity… vents the internal cavity” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “The relief valve 150 can include a control element 158 configured as a valve poppet”, described in the specification [0059] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 5-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are 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.
Claim 1 Ln 9-11 states the claim limitation “the set pressure of the bladder relief assembly being selectively adjustable to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure”. The addition of the terms ‘first set pressure’ and ‘second set pressure’ are not found within the original specification. This information goes beyond the subject matter as originally filed. The specification only provides coverage for “the set pressure of the bladder relief assembly may be adjustable” [0007] and “the set pressure may be an adjustable set pressure” [0018]. Neither of which make any disclosure to multiple set pressures that are different from each other.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected for the same issue as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3, 5-13, 16 and 19-20 are rejected for their dependence upon claims 1, 14 or 17.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner; Rudolf US 6415641 B1, hereinafter Wagner, in view of FERTIG VOLKER DE 102005029730 A1, hereinafter Fertig. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (hydraulic pumps, Wagner); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (over pressure relief of pump reservoir, Fertig). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) a hydraulic pump comprising:
a housing (2) including a work port (44);
a bladder (33) that stores hydraulic fluid (Col 4 Ln 32-34);
a pump assembly (26-32) that pumps hydraulic fluid from the bladder to the work port (Col 4 Ln 24-32); and
a removeable fill cap (35).
Wagner fails to explicitly state that the pump further comprises a bladder relief assembly coupled to the bladder, the bladder relief assembly including
a control element that is movable between a first position that seals the bladder to the atmosphere and a second position that opens the bladder to the atmosphere to relieve a pressure within the bladder, the control element moving from the first position to the second position when the pressure in the bladder reaches a set pressure, the set pressure of the bladder relief assembly being selectively adjustable to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure.
Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) a removable fill cap (1) coupled to a bladder relief assembly (3) coupled to a bladder [0001], the bladder relief assembly including
a control element (33/37’) that is movable between a first position that seals the bladder to the atmosphere and a second position that opens the bladder to the atmosphere to relieve a pressure within the bladder, the control element moving from the first position to the second position when the pressure in the bladder reaches a set pressure (“opening pressure”, [0037]) , the set pressure of the bladder relief assembly being selectively adjustable to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure ([0007] states that the opening pressure is adjusted/selected depending upon application, each application fundamentally having various set pressures that are different from each other, if all the applications had the same set pressure value, being adjustable wouldn’t be mentioned and/or required).
Fertig further discloses that bladder relief assembly be provided to prevent excess pressure for safety [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Wagner, by providing a removeable fill cap coupled to a bladder relief assembly, as taught by Fertig, for the purpose of preventing unsafe excess pressures.
To further clarify the modification, the removeable fill cap of Wagner is replaced with the removeable fill cap by Fertig.
Regarding claim 2, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) further comprising a release valve positioned between the work port and the bladder to control fluid flow between the work port and the bladder (Col 7 Ln 46-50).
Regarding claim 5, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) the bladder further comprises a removeable fill cap (35). However, as modified above for claim 1, Fertig’s removeable fill cap (1).
Regarding claim 6, Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) the bladder relief assembly (3) is coupled to the fill cap (1).
Regarding claim 8, Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) the fill cap includes a head (2) and a stem (3) that couples to the bladder, the control element being moveably disposed in a passage (35) extending between the head and the stem.
Regarding claim 9, Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) the passage (35) includes a first passage (portion of (35) depicted exiting (33)) defined in the head and a second passage (portion of (35) depicted entering (33)) that is defined in the stem, which are selectively fluidly coupled by the control element (37’).
Regarding claim 10, Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) the first passage (portion of (35) depicted exiting (33)) extends toward the stem and radially through the head (depicted as extending radially through the head towards the stem).
Regarding claim 11, Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) the head defines a flange (portion of (2) approximate (20), see Fig. 3) and a distal end of the first passage is positioned along a side of the flange that faces the bladder [0032].
Regarding claim 12, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) the housing includes a battery receptacle (14) that is configured to couple to a battery to provide electrical power to the hydraulic pump (Col 3 Ln 50-51).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) further comprising a manifold (32) coupled to the work port (44), the manifold disposed inside the housing to allow fluid flow between the bladder and the work port (Col 4 Ln 64 - Col 5 Ln 9), the work port configured to couple to an end effector (40) that performs a work operation (Col 6 Ln 63 - Col 7 Ln 3).
Regarding claim 14, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) a bladder assembly for a hydraulic tool, the bladder assembly comprising:
a reservoir (33) defining an internal cavity configured to receive hydraulic fluid (Col 4 Ln 32-34); and
a fill cap (35) removably coupled to the reservoir.
Wagner fails to explicitly state that the fill cap defining a passageway and including control element moveably disposed along the passageway, the control element movable between a first position that seals the internal cavity to the atmosphere and a second position that vents the internal cavity to the atmosphere to relieve a pressure within the bladder, the control element moving from the first position to the second position when the pressure in the bladder reaches a set pressure, where the set pressure is a selectively adjustable set pressure to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure ([0007] states that the opening pressure is adjusted/selected depending upon application, each application fundamentally having various set pressures that are different from each other, if all the applications had the same set pressure value, being adjustable wouldn’t be mentioned and/or required).
Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) a removable fill cap (1) coupled to a bladder [0001], the fill cap defining a passageway (35) and including control element (33/37’) moveably disposed along the passageway, the control element movable between a first position that seals the internal cavity to the atmosphere and a second position that vents the internal cavity to the atmosphere to relieve a pressure within the bladder, the control element moving from the first position to the second position when the pressure in the bladder reaches a set pressure (“opening pressure”, [0037]) , where the set pressure is a selectively adjustable set pressure to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure ([0007] states that the opening pressure is adjusted/selected depending upon application, each application fundamentally having various set pressures that are different from each other, if all the applications had the same set pressure value, being adjustable wouldn’t be mentioned and/or required).
Fertig further discloses that bladder relief assembly be provided to prevent excess pressure for safety [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Wagner, by providing a removeable fill cap coupled to a bladder relief assembly, as taught by Fertig, for the purpose of preventing unsafe excess pressures.
To further clarify the modification, the removeable fill cap of Wagner is replaced with the removeable fill cap by Fertig
Regarding claim 16, Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) the fill cap includes a stem (3) that couples to the reservoir and a head (2) that extends from the stem to be manipulable by a user, the head including a first segment (portion of (35) depicted exiting (33)) of the passageway that extends toward an outer perimeter of the head and toward the reservoir (depicted as extending radially through the head towards the stem).
Regarding claim 17, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) a power tool comprising:
a housing (2) including a battery receptacle (14, Col 3 Ln 50-51);
a drive unit (4) disposed within the housing;
a pump (26-32) operatively coupled to the drive unit to provide a pressurized fluid (Col 4 Ln 24-32);
a trigger (15) that allows a user to control the drive unit to operate the power tool (Col 3 Ln 30-34); and
a bladder assembly (33/35) disposed in the housing, the bladder assembly including:
a reservoir (33) defining an internal cavity configured to receive hydraulic fluid (Col 4 Ln 32-34); and
a fill cap (35) removably coupled to the reservoir (Col 4 Ln 34-38).
Wagner fails to explicitly state that the fill cap defining a passageway and including a control element moveably disposed along the passageway, the control element movable between a first position that seals the internal cavity to the atmosphere and a second position that vents the internal cavity to the atmosphere to relieve a pressure within the bladder when the pressure in the bladder reaches a set pressure and the fill cap extending outside the housing to allow a user to selectively vary the set pressure to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure.
Fertig discloses (Fig. 1-5, specifically, 5) a fill cap (1) removably coupled to a reservoir (3), the fill cap defining a passageway (35) and including a control element (33/37’) moveably disposed along the passageway, the control element movable between a first position that seals the internal cavity to the atmosphere and a second position that vents the internal cavity to the atmosphere to relieve a pressure within the bladder when the pressure in the bladder reaches a set pressure (“opening pressure”, [0037]) , the fill cap extending outside the housing (depicted as extending outside the housing and further evidenced by [0027-0028], whereby ‘the portion (2) extends outside the container’) to allow a user to selectively vary the set pressure to operate at each of a first set pressure and a second set pressure that is different from the first set pressure ([0007] states that the opening pressure is adjusted/selected depending upon application, each application fundamentally having various set pressures that are different from each other, if all the applications had the same set pressure value, being adjustable wouldn’t be mentioned and/or required).
Fertig further discloses that bladder relief assembly be provided to prevent excess pressure for safety [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Wagner, by providing a removeable fill cap coupled to a bladder relief assembly, as taught by Fertig, for the purpose of preventing unsafe excess pressures.
To further clarify the modification, the removeable fill cap of Wagner is replaced with the removeable fill cap by Fertig.
Regarding claim 19, Wagner discloses (Fig. 2) the power tool includes a manifold (32) having a work port (44) that couples to an end effector (40) that performs a work operation (Col 6 Ln 63-Col 7 Ln 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, in view of Fertig as disclosed above for claim 2, and in further view of Ballard; James G. et al. US 10312653 B2, hereinafter Ballard. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (hydraulic pumps, Ballard). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 3, Wagner discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 2 except fails to explicitly state that the release valve includes a knob extending outside the housing to allow a user to manipulate the release valve.
Ballard discloses (Fig. 3, 9) a hydraulic pump comprising:
a housing (340) including a work port (123B);
a bladder (60) that stores hydraulic fluid;
a pump assembly (40) that pumps hydraulic fluid from the bladder to the work port; and
a release valve (200) positioned between the work port and the bladder to control fluid flow between the work port and the bladder (Col 5 Ln 16-24), the release valve includes a knob (180) extending outside the housing to allow a user to manipulate the release valve (Col 5 Ln 16-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Wagner, by providing a knob, as taught by Ballard, for the purpose of allowing a user to manipulate the release valve and return the device to a neutral/start position.
Claim 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, in view of Fertig as disclosed above for claim 6 and 17, and in further view of Goettker; Bernhardt P. US 5040816 A, hereinafter Goettker. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (closure of reservoir openings, Fertig). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 7, Wagner discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 2 except fails to explicitly state that the fill cap extends outside of the housing.
Goettker discloses (Fig. 14, 15) a bladder assembly for a hydraulic tool, the bladder assembly comprising:
a housing (30)
a reservoir (140/144) defining an internal cavity (140) and a bladder (144) configured to receive hydraulic fluid;
a fill cap (148) removably coupled to the reservoir; and
a mounting bracket (146) coupled between the reservoir and the fill cap (depicted as coupled between (140/144 & 148);
wherein the fill cap extends outside of the housing (depicted as extending out of the housing in Fig. 15).
Goettker further discloses the mounting bracket and fill cap extending outside of the housing enables minimum time and effort to be required to check reservoir fluid level and to replenish the fluid as needed (Col 6 Ln 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Wagner, by providing a mounting bracket and fill cap extending outside of the housing, as taught by Goettker, for the purpose of enabling minimum time and effort to be required to check reservoir fluid level and to replenish the fluid as needed.
Regarding claim 20, Wagner discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 2 except fails to explicitly state that the bladder includes a mounting bracket coupled between the reservoir and the fill cap, the mounting bracket couplable to the housing.
Goettker discloses (Fig. 14, 15) a bladder assembly for a hydraulic tool, the bladder assembly comprising:
a housing (30)
a reservoir (140/144) defining an internal cavity (140) and a bladder (144) configured to receive hydraulic fluid;
a fill cap (148) removably coupled to the reservoir; and
a mounting bracket (146) coupled between the reservoir and the fill cap, , the mounting bracket couplable to the housing (depicted as coupled between (140/144 & 148);
wherein the fill cap extends outside of the housing (depicted as extending out of the housing in Fig. 15).
Goettker further discloses the mounting bracket and fill cap extending outside of the housing enables minimum time and effort to be required to check reservoir fluid level and to replenish the fluid as needed (Col 6 Ln 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Wagner, by providing a mounting bracket and fill cap extending outside of the housing, as taught by Goettker, for the purpose of enabling minimum time and effort to be required to check reservoir fluid level and to replenish the fluid as needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745