DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending in the present application.
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 information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2025 and 3/27/2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohr et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0209445 A1, hereinafter Bohr) in view of Moler et al. (US Pat. No. 7,021,191 B2, hereinafter Moler).
Regarding claim 20, Bohr teaches a hydraulic assembly (see Fig. 7, all elements), comprising: a valve (354) configured to control a hydraulic actuator (see Fig. 7 and [0074], force actuator is a hydraulic actuator), the valve (354) having a controller (302) to receive pressures indicative of a load on a test article (see Fig. 7 and [0076], controller 302 configured to receive pressures from sensors 348/352 and determine command forces or actuator loads for applying to a test article 304), the valve operating valve firmware configured to reduce differential load on a piston of the hydraulic actuator (see Fig. 7 and 9-12; see also [0096], valve 354 includes valve driver 382, considered by the Examiner as including software/firmware for driving the valve 354 as suggested in [0096]; wherein the hydraulic actuator increases and decreases the load as shown in Fig. 9-12 and thus is considered to reduce the differential load on the piston 70 of the hydraulic actuator 356 as the load approaches the zero crossings in each of Fig. 9-12).
Bohr fails to specifically teach that the valve is a proportional valve.
Moler teaches that proportional valves may be used to control fluid operation of a hydraulic actuator (see Fig. 1, proportional valves 26/28/30/32 utilized for fluid control for a hydraulic actuator 12; see also col. 6, line 61 through col. 7, line 16, discussion of operation of hydraulic actuator 12 utilizing the proportional valves 26/28/30/32).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the valve of Bohr such that one or more proportional valves were utilized as suggested by Moler. This would allow for inexpensive and accurate control of fluid operated cylinder as described by Moler (see col. 1, lines 41-55).
Regarding claim 21, Bohr as modified by Moler above teaches all of the limitations of claim 20.
Furthermore, Bohr teaches a pair of pressure transducers configured to detect and transmit pressures at the hydraulic actuator to the (proportional) valve (see Fig. 7 and [0076], pair of pressure transducers 348 detect and transmit pressures at the hydraulic actuator ports A/B to the valve 354 via the valve driver as shown and described).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1-19, Bohr in view of Moler above represents the best art of record. However, Bohr in view of Moler above fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 17.
Regarding claim 1, Bohr teaches a method for unloading a load on a test article in a testing system (see Fig. 6, 7, and 9-12, all elements; see also [0063]-[0089], method for loading/unloading a load on a test article 304 in a test system described), comprising: determining a load differential in at least one of a calculated load at a valve for an actuator of the testing system and a calculated load on a load cell coupled to the actuator (see Fig. 7 and [0072], load differential determined for the force command 314 based on the pressure sensor readings 340/342 at the actuator ports, wherein the pressure differential at the ports is considered to correspond to the pressure on each output of the valve); initiating a controlled unload of the load on the test article via a system controller when the determined load differential a reaches a first level (see Fig. 9-12, controlled unload of the test article 304 when after each positive and negative peak of the triangular waveforms shown).
However, Bohr, Moler, and combinations thereof fails to critically teach performing an interlock unload of the load on the test article via the valve when the determined load differential reaches a second level higher than the first level.
Regarding claim 13, Bohr, Moler, and combinations thereof fails to critically teach a method of interlock unloading a test article in a test system with a valve controlling an actuator, comprising: isolating the valve from a hydraulic source of the test system; determining a load differential on opposite sides of a piston of the actuator coupled to the valve; and ramping the load differential to a benign load differential using the valve.
Regarding claim 17, Bohr teaches a testing system for monitoring and unloading a load on a test article (see Fig. 6, 7, and 9-12, all elements; see also [0063]-[0089], method for loading/unloading a load on a test article 304 in a test system described), comprising: a hydraulic assembly (382/354/356), comprising: a control valve configured to control loads in a hydraulic actuator coupled to the test article (see Fig. 7 and [0076], valve 354 controls loads in a hydraulic actuator 356 coupled to the test article 304); a pair of pressure transducers configured to detect and transmit pressures in the hydraulic actuator (see Fig. 7 and [0076], pair pressure transducers 348 detects and transmits pressures in the hydraulic actuator 356 as described); a controller (302) configured to: determine a load differential in at least one of a calculated load at a valve for an actuator of the testing system and a calculated load on a load cell coupled to the actuator (see Fig. 7 and [0072], load differential determined for the force command 314 based on the pressure sensor readings 340/342 at the actuator ports, wherein the pressure differential at the ports is considered to correspond to the pressure on each output of the valve); initiate a controlled unload of the load on the test article via a system controller when the determined load differential a reaches a first level (see Fig. 9-12, controlled unload of the test article 304 when after each positive and negative peak of the triangular waveforms shown);
However, Bohr, Moler, and combinations thereof fails to critically teach an isolation valve to isolate the control valve from hydraulic pressure; and wherein the controller is configured to perform an interlock unload of the load on the test article via the valve when the determined load differential reaches a second level higher than the first level.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claims 1, 13, and 17 and the examiner can find no teachings for a method for unloading a load on a test article, method of interlock unloading a test article in a test system with a valve controlling an actuator, or testing system for monitoring and unloading a load on a test article as particularly claimed, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 22 and 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Bohr in view of Moler represents the best art of record. However, Bohr in view of Moler fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 22.
Specifically, Bohr in view of Moler fails to critically teach that the valve firmware is configured to perform an interlock unload of the differential load by: isolating the proportional valve from a source of hydraulic power to the hydraulic assembly; taking measurements of pressures on a piston of the actuator; determining a load differential on the piston of the hydraulic actuator; and ramping the load differential to a benign load differential using the valve.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 22 and the examiner can find no teachings for a hydraulic assembly as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hiroshi - JP2001-141628 – teaches controlled unloading of an actuator 10 via a valve 17, however the valve 17 is separate from the actuator control valve 20/30 and thus does not teach a interlock unload via the valve 20/30.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights