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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 12f. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings contain reference numerals not in the specification, as detailed above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6 line 2, “as side surface” would be clearer if written as --as a side surface--.
In claim 8 line 3, “formed at the other axial end of the casing body” would be clearer if written as --formed at an opposite axial end of the casing body from the first lid body--. Accordingly, in line 4, “the other axial end” would be clearer if written as --the axial end--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: the variable capacity mechanism in claim 4.
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 § 102
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 1, 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Publication 2015/0267692 to Yamamoto.
Referring to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a rotary swash plate hydraulic pump comprising:
a casing (17, 19, 21, 40) including an inlet passage (33) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]);
a cylinder block (21) disposed in the casing (17, 19, 21, 40) so as to prevent relative rotation of the cylinder block (21) and including a plurality of cylinder bores (21a) connected to the inlet passage (33) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]);
a plurality of pistons (9) each of which is inserted into a corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores (21a) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]); and
a rotary swash plate (5) that is housed in the casing (17, 19, 21, 40) so as to be rotatable about an axis and reciprocates each of the plurality of pistons (9) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]), wherein:
the inlet passage (33) includes a plurality of inlet ports (40a, 250) through which a working fluid is drawn (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]).
Referring to claim 2, Yamamoto discloses a rotary swash plate hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above and further teaches a pump wherein:
the inlet passage (33) includes an inlet-end ring-shaped portion connected to each of the plurality of inlet ports (40a) and the plurality of cylinder bores; and the inlet-end ring-shaped portion is formed in the shape of a ring (annular) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]).
Referring to claim 7, Yamamoto discloses a rotary swash plate hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above and further teaches a pump wherein:
the casing (17, 19, 21, 40) includes: a casing body (outer portion of 21) that houses the cylinder block (inner portion of 21) so as to prevent relative rotation of the cylinder block (by being integrally formed); and a first lid body (17) that houses the rotary swash plate (5); and the first lid body (17) covers the casing body (outer portion of 21) so that the rotary swash plate (5) faces the cylinder block (inner portion of 21) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]).
Referring to claim 8, Yamamoto discloses a rotary swash plate hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above and further teaches a pump wherein:
the casing (17, 19, 21, 40) further includes a second lid body (19); the inlet passage (33) is formed at an opposite axial end of the casing body (outer portion of 21) from the first lid body (17); and the second lid body (19) is provided at the axial end of the casing body (outer portion of 21) so as to block the inlet passage (33) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2015/0267692 to Yamamoto.
Referring to claim 3, Yamamoto teaches a rotary swash plate hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above and further teaches a pump wherein:
the casing (17, 19, 21, 40) includes a discharge passage (35) including a discharge port (the “outlet port”) through which the working fluid is discharged (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]).
Yamamoto does not teach two inlet ports in outer peripheral surface of the casing which are in a different phase from the discharge port. However, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to have two inlet ports in outer peripheral surface of the casing in order to increase the flow capacity of the inlet, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art (In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8), and it has been held that that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any reason why having the discharge port formed in an outer peripheral surface of the casing in a phase different in a circumferential direction from a phase in which the plurality of inlet ports are located is critical to the claimed invention, and therefore it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to form the discharge port in an outer peripheral surface of the casing in a phase different in a circumferential direction from a phase in which the plurality of inlet ports are located, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different locations for the ports solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different locations for the ports.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2015/0267692 to Yamamoto in view of Japanese Patent Publication 43-6655 to Weatherhead.
All Citations to Weatherhead refer to the English language translation provided herewith.
Referring to claim 5, Yamamoto teaches a rotary swash plate hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above and further teaches a pump comprising:
a plurality of discharge check valves (43a) each of which is provided on a corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores (21a) and opens and closes the discharge passage (35) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]-[0039]).
Yamamoto does not teach wherein each of the plurality of discharge check valves is inserted toward the corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores on the outer peripheral surface of the casing. Weatherhead teaches a pump wherein:
each of a plurality of discharge check valves (25) is inserted toward the corresponding one of a plurality of cylinder bores (2) on the outer peripheral surface of a casing (15) (Figures 5 and 6; pages 5-6 of English translation).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Yamamoto with the discharge valve locations taught by Weatherhead in order to locate the discharge valves so that they are individually accessible from the outside for such purposes as maintenance and so that separate valves may be used for each cylinder bore.
Referring to claim 6, Yamamoto and Weatherhead teach a rotary swash plate hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 5, as detailed above, but Yamamoto does not teach wherein each of the plurality of discharge check valves is inserted toward the corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores on the outer peripheral surface of the casing. Weatherhead further teaches a pump wherein:
a casing (15) is in the shape of a prism including a plurality of flat surfaces as a side surface; and each of the plurality of discharge check valves (25) is inserted toward the corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores (2) on a corresponding one of the plurality of flat surfaces (Figures 5 and 6; pages 5-6 of English translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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: the prior art does not teach a swash plate hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claims 1, 3 and 4, consistent with the above claim interpretations, but more specifically, a variable capacity mechanism that changes an effective stroke length of each of the plurality of pistons by adjusting opening and closing of a corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores, wherein: the plurality of cylinder bores are arranged about the axis in the cylinder block; and the variable capacity mechanism is positioned inward of the plurality of cylinder bores in the cylinder block.
While Yamamoto teaches a variable capacity mechanism positioned inward of the plurality of cylinder bores in the cylinder block, the Yamamoto variable capacity mechanism does not adjust an opening and closing of a corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores consistent with the above claim interpretations. The instant application discloses, and the prior art does not, a variable capacity mechanism which comprises communication portions 19d that communicate the inlet-end ring-shaped portion 19b (at inlet pressure) with communication chamber 19c, while spools 26 control the opening and closing of communication chambers 19c to the cylinder bores 12a, thereby adjusting an opening and closing of a corresponding one of the plurality of cylinder bores 12a to the inlet-end ring-shaped portion 19b (which is connected to the inlet ports 19a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Riken, Nakaima, Yamamoto and Cattanach teach similar pumps as claimed, but also do not teach the limitations of claim 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746