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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected a species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-13 and 15-18 in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
The Applicant argued that “Applicant elects without traverse Species group I, which reads on claims 11- 13 and 15-18”.
In response to this argument, claim 13 recited “the hydraulic capacitor comprises a pressure vessel” which directed to species II of paragraph 0062;
Accordingly, claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the first and second hydraulic interfaces” should be changed to “the first hydraulic interfaces and the second hydraulic interface”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-17 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 16 recites the term " a cartridge valve configured to deflect a conducted flow of hydraulic liquid at a right angle" which was not described in the specification to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention;
the specification paragraph 056 discloses: “The hydraulic resistor 22 is implemented as a cartridge valve 22′, which is designed to deflect a conducted flow of hydraulic liquid at a right angle to the second longitudinal axis 27”;
However, the specification does and give any details regarding how “a cartridge valve” configured to deflect a conducted flow of hydraulic liquid at “a right angle”;
Claim 17 is rejected because it depends from claim 16.
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 16-17 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.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "a cartridge valve configured to deflect a conducted flow of hydraulic liquid at a right angle" render the claim indefinite because it is clear what is meant by “a right angle”; the specification does and give any details regarding “a right angle”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite, proper clarification is required in the replying to this office action. for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted claim 15 as “wherein the hydraulic resistor is a cartridge valve to connect the hydraulic inductor fluidically to the hydraulic capacitor”.
Claim 17 is rejected because it depends from claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the cartridge valve comprises an infinitely variable proportional valve” render the claim indefinite because:
As known in art, a cartridge valve is a compact, screw-in or slip-in hydraulic component designed to fit directly into a machined manifold cavity; while
an infinitely variable proportional valve is a functional classification of a valve that modulates flow or pressure continuously based on a variable analog or digital electrical signal;
So, there is no way for a cartridge valve to be an infinitely variable proportional valve;
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite, proper clarification is required in the replying to this office action. for the purpose of the examination the Examiner is provide a prior art rejection as best as understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the set" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rainer (WO2020239589A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 10-12, Rainer discloses a dissipator (fig.9: (18)) for damping vibrations in a roll stand for producing flat metallic rolled material (fig.1), comprising:
a hydraulic inductor (fig.9: (20));
a hydraulic resistor (fig.9: (21)); and
a hydraulic capacitor (fig.9: (19)); wherein the dissipator has a frequency-dependent damping effect that is tuned to a characteristic vibration frequency of the roll stand;
wherein the dissipator has an intermediate piece (fig.9: (25)) configured to be fluidically arranged between an adjusting cylinder (fig.9: (6)) of the roll stand and a valve block having a control valve (figs.8-9: see the element (14) of the valve (15)) assigned to the adjusting cylinder;
wherein the intermediate piece (fig.9: (25)) has a first hydraulic interface (fig.9: hydraulic interface with element (18)) for direct hydraulic- mechanical linking of the dissipator to the adjusting cylinder; and
wherein the intermediate piece (fig.9: (25)) has a second hydraulic interface (fig.9: (14)) for hydraulic linking of the valve block to the dissipator.
Regarding claim 11, Rainer discloses wherein the second hydraulic interface (fig.9: (14)) provides direct hydraulic-mechanical linking of the valve block figs.8-9: see the element (14) of the valve (15)) to the dissipator.
Regarding claim 12, Rainer discloses wherein the hydraulic resistor comprises an adjustable valve (paragraph 0104 and fig.9: (31)).
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.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer (WO2020239589A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 15, Rainer discloses wherein:
the intermediate piece (fig.9: (25)) comprises a rigid block,
the hydraulic resistor (fig.9: (21)) and the hydraulic capacitor (fig.9: (19)) being fluidically connected to the rigid block;
the hydraulic inductor (fig.9: (20)) is fluidically connected to the hydraulic resistor (fig.9: (21)) or to the hydraulic capacitor (fig.9: (19)) so that the hydraulic inductor, the hydraulic resistor, and the hydraulic capacitor are fluidically coupled to one another in series (fig.10); and
the hydraulic inductor (fig.9: (20)) is made in the intermediate piece as a tubular cavity and is fluidically connected to the first interface (fig.9: hydraulic interface with element (18)) and second hydraulic interfaces (fig.9: (14)).
Rainer does not disclose detachably;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to Rainer to make the hydraulic resistor and the hydraulic capacitor being detachably connected to the rigid block for the purpose of the maintenance and repairing, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the breaker members of Blackwell’s. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 16, Rainer discloses wherein the hydraulic resistor (fig.9: (21)) is a cartridge valve (paragraph 0104) configured to deflect a conducted flow of hydraulic liquid at a right angle and to connect the hydraulic inductor (fig.9: (20)) fluidically to the hydraulic capacitor (fig.9: (19)).
Regarding claim 17, Rainer does not disclose an infinitely variable proportional valve with a controllable opening position between 0 and 100% of a maximum opening position and is configured to report the set opening position;
Rainer discloses the cartridge valve;
Further using an infinitely variable proportional valve is very know in the art; and choosing the type of the valve would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the valve to be an infinitely variable proportional valve with a controllable opening position between 0 and 100% of a maximum opening position and is configured to report the set opening position order to provide the advantage of using an infinitely variable proportional valve of provides continuous, real-time control of fluid flow or pressure.
Regarding claim 18, Rainer does not disclose wherein the dissipator comprises a cover cap mechanically detachable from the intermediate piece, the cover cap configured to delimit the hydraulic inductor at one end.
However, using a cap is very know in the art and would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the dissipator comprises a cover cap mechanically detachable from the intermediate piece, the cover cap configured to delimit the hydraulic inductor at one end in order to provide closing and sealing the dissipator while enabling access to that dissipator for inspection or service.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer (WO2020239589A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view Rudolf (EP0542282A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, Rainer does not disclose wherein the dissipator comprises a cover cap mechanically detachable from the intermediate piece, the cover cap configured to delimit the hydraulic inductor at one end.
Rudolf teaches a device for damping vibrations comprises a cover cap (fig.1: (22)) mechanically detachable configured to delimit a hydraulic chamber (paragraphs 0001 and 0046);
Both of the prior arts of Rainer and Rudolf are related to a device for damping vibrations;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Rainer the configuration of a cover cap as taught by Rudolf for the purpose of the services (Rudolf: paragraph 0046); thereby wherein the dissipator comprises a cover cap mechanically detachable from the intermediate piece, the cover cap configured to delimit the hydraulic inductor at one end.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights