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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 13th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on April 24th, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on February 26th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1 & 35 have been amended. No claims have been newly-added or cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19-22, 24-26, 28-30, 32-33, 35, 37, & 39-40 remain pending in the instant application, with Claims 9, 12, 14, 17, 20, 24-26, 28-30, & 40 remaining withdrawn. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 19, 21-22, & 32-33 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have remedied these issues, rendering these objections moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 5, 7, 19, 21-22, 32-33, 35, 37, & 39 were 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. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have remedied most of these issues, but issues remain. Additionally, new issues have been introduced by Applicant’s amendments, as noted below.
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 1, 5, 7, 19, 21-22, & 32-33 are again 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 1 recites the limitation “the first bypass line and the second bypass line each connect to the next respective pressure port after the respective connected control port in a rotational direction of the cylinder block”; this limitation continues to render the claim indefinite because the meaning and arrangement required of this limitation cannot be discerned. The phrasing of the limitation is convoluted to the point that it becomes unintelligible. For example, it is entirely unclear what “the next respective pressure port after the respective connected control port in a rotational direction of the cylinder block” refers to. In this instance, both “the next respective pressure port” and “the respective connected control port” lack antecedent basis. Thus, it becomes unclear whether “the next respective pressure port” is 1) attempting to refer back to one of the previously-recited pressure ports or 2) introducing another pressure port altogether. Similarly, it becomes unclear whether “the respective connected control port” is 1) attempting to refer back to one of the previously-recited control ports or 2) introducing another control port altogether. Furthermore, as currently recited, both bypass lines are connected to “the next respective pressure port after the respective connected control port”, rendering it unclear whether the bypass lines are both connected to the same pressure port and the same control port, or not. It is simply unclear what particular arrangement is being required of this language, rendering Claim 1 indefinite. As far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears that Applicant is attempting to define the arrangement shown best in Applicant’s Figure 4, wherein a respective pressure port and a respective control port that are connected to a particular bypass line are arranged immediately after one another in the rotational direction of the cylinder block. However, the claim language does not recite as much, nor does the claim make clear such an arrangement. If Applicant desires to clearly recite the arrangement of Figure 4, the Examiner would strongly suggest that Applicant clarify the language of Claim 1 to instead recite: “the connected to the first bypass line is disposed immediately after the respective connected to the first bypass line in a rotational direction of the cylinder block, and the respective pressure port connected to the second bypass line is disposed immediately after the respective control port connected to the second bypass line in the rotational direction of the cylinder block”.
For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as requiring each bypass line to be connected to a pair of adjacent control/pressure ports.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “at least one adjustable orifice”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “adjustable orifice” recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing another orifice altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed April 24th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 35 using Leege have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Watts (see below).
Applicant's arguments filed April 24th, 2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejections of independent Claim 1 using Leege have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “because Leege discloses a counterclockwise rotation of the cylinder block 3, the bypass lines connect the control ports 23, 24 to the preceding pressure port 21, 22 in the counterclockwise rotational direction of the cylinder block 3. (See Leege, paras. [0004], [0028] and [0033] and FIGS. 1, 2 and 5). Therefore, Leege does not show or disclose each and every recitation of amended independent claim 1 and 35”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree as it relates to Claim 1. Applicant appears to be asserting that the limitation “the next respective pressure port after the respective connected control port in a rotational direction of the cylinder block” defines around a counterclockwise rotation of Leege’s cylinder block. Respectfully, this argument is not well taken. In this instance, there is nothing within Applicant’s claim language requiring (or precluding) a particular rotation direction for the cylinder block, and thus, it is not entirely clear why Applicant believes Leege’s counterclockwise rotation, specifically, would fail to meet the language of the claim. As far as the examiner understands the invention, Figure 3 of the instant application can be equated with Figure 5 of Leege. To be clear, both Applicant’s figure and Leege’s figure depict kidney-shaped inlet/outlet ports (21/22 in the case of Leege) that are separated from one another by IDC/ODC control ports (23/24 in the case of Leege). Leege further discloses “the inventive hydraulic piston unit can be operated in both rotational directions as well as in propel mode or in drag mode” (para. 18). In other words, Leege makes clear that his hydraulic axial piston machine can be operated in both clockwise and counterclockwise rotational directions to provide both a pump mode and a fluid motor mode. Furthermore, Figure 5 appears to show that given a counterclockwise movement/rotation of the cylinder bores 31, control port 23 would be connected by the first bypass line to the pressure port 22, which is after the control port 23 in the counterclockwise rotational direction. Similarly, as also shown in Figure 3, the control port 24 would be connected by the second bypass line to the pressure port 21, which is after the control port 24 in the counterclockwise rotational direction. However, even if Applicant’s assertion regarding Leege’s counterclockwise rotation mode were true (which the Examiner does not concede), Leege clearly also discloses a clockwise rotation direction for the hydraulic unit that would presumably negate the alleged failure of Leege’s counterclockwise rotation mode. Finally, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the current claim language that Applicant is arguing herein is indefinite on its face (see 112(b) rejection above). Until this indefinite language is clarified by Applicant to the point that the claim scope is made clear, there remains little point in arguing whether the prior art does or does not meet this unclear language. The Examiner would respectfully direct Applicant to the 112(b) rejection noted above for further details. As noted previously above, for examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring each bypass line to be connected to a pair of adjacent control/pressure ports, and the examiner respectfully maintains that Leege discloses as much. Given all of these facts, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0040867 to Leege et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-2 & 5, Leege et al. (Leege) discloses:
A hydraulic axial piston unit (1) with a rotating group (3, 5, 6) whose displacement volume is set by means of a displacement element (4), the rotating group comprising a rotatable cylinder block (3) with cylinder bores (5) in which working pistons (6) are mounted reciprocally moveable, and with a valve segment (20) comprising a kidney-shaped first pressure port (21) and a kidney-shaped second pressure port (22) (Fig. 5); wherein a cylinder bore of the cylinder bores is configured to be fluidly connected to an IDC control port (24) or an ODC control port (23) when an associated working piston of the working pistons is at or close to an inner dead center (IDC) or at or close to an outer dead center (ODC), respectively (Figs. 1-2 & 5; paras. 28-33), wherein the IDC control port and the ODC control port are located circumferentially between respective circumferential ends of the first pressure port and the second pressure port (Fig. 5), wherein a circumferential distance from the IDC control port to the first and second pressure ports and a circumferential distance from the ODC control port to the first and second pressure ports is smaller than a circumferential extension of each of the cylinder bores (apparent in Fig. 5), and wherein a first bypass line and a second bypass line are provided (i.e. the unlabeled fluid lines connecting the two control ports 23 & 24 to the two pressure ports 22 & 21, via orifice 16 and valve 30; see Fig. 1), each connecting one of the control ports with one of the pressure ports (Fig. 1 clearly shows how one bypass line connects pressure port 22 with control port 23 while another bypass line connects pressure port 21 with control port 24, based on the position of adjustable orifice 10 and valve 30), with an adjustable orifice (10) arranged in the first bypass line (Fig. 1), the adjustable orifice capable of continuously variably opening and closing the first bypass line in order to enable a variably adjustable fluid flow connection between the respective control port and the respective pressure port (paras. 29-33 describe how the electronic control valve 10 adjusts its openings/orifices to redirect fluid flow to the axial piston unit based on input from controller 100) wherein, the first bypass line and the second bypass line each connect to the next respective pressure port after the respective connected control port in a rotational direction of the cylinder block (Fig. 5; given a counterclockwise movement/rotation of the cylinder bores 31, control port 23 would be connected by the first bypass line to pressure port 22, which is after the control port 23 in the counterclockwise rotational direction; similarly, control port 24 would be connected by the second bypass line to pressure port 21, which is after the control port 24 in the counterclockwise rotational direction).
In regards to Claim 5, the second bypass line is connected to a pressure compensation chamber (i.e. the chamber of pressure selecting/compensation valve 30; Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 21, the IDC control port and/or the ODC control ports (23, 24) comprise a circular shape (Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 22, the IDC control port and/or the ODC control port are circumferentially located on the valve segment with an angular offset to a rotational position on the valve segment at which the working pistons are at the inner dead center (IDC) and/or outer dead center (ODC), respectively (Figures 1-2 & 5 clearly show that IDC control port is located at a valve plate position that is rotationally offset (i.e. 180 degrees) from the working piston ODC position; similarly, the ODC control port is located at a position that is rotationally offset (i.e. 180 degrees) from the working piston IDC position).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 19, 21-22, 32, 35, 37, & 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,554,007 to Watts.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-2 & 5, Leege et al. (Leege) discloses:
A hydraulic axial piston unit (10; Fig. 1) with a rotating group (11, 13, 14) whose displacement volume is set by means of a displacement element (16), the rotating group comprising a rotatable cylinder block (11) with cylinder bores (13) in which working pistons (14) are mounted reciprocally moveable, and with a valve segment (23) comprising a kidney-shaped first pressure port (18) and a kidney-shaped second pressure port (19) (Fig. 2); wherein a cylinder bore of the cylinder bores is configured to be fluidly connected to an IDC control port (22) or an ODC control port (21) when an associated working piston of the working pistons is at or close to an inner dead center (IDC) or at or close to an outer dead center (ODC), respectively (“control pockets 21 and 22 are respectively disposed at regions commonly referred to as top and bottom dead centers”), wherein the IDC control port and the ODC control port are located circumferentially between respective circumferential ends of the first pressure port and the second pressure port (Fig. 2), wherein a circumferential distance from the IDC control port to the first and second pressure ports and a circumferential distance from the ODC control port to the first and second pressure ports is smaller than a circumferential extension of each of the cylinder bores (apparent in Fig. 2), and wherein a first bypass line (contains valve 28; Fig. 2) and a second bypass line (contains valve 27; Fig. 2) are provided (i.e. the unlabeled fluid lines connecting the two control ports 21, 22 to the two pressure ports 18, 19, via valves/orifices 27 & 28; see Fig. 2), each connecting one of the control ports with one of the pressure ports (Fig. 2), with an adjustable orifice (28) arranged in the first bypass line (Fig. 2), the adjustable orifice capable of continuously variably opening and closing the first bypass line in order to enable a variably adjustable fluid flow connection (“modulate the flow rate therethrough”) between the respective control port and the respective pressure port (col. 3, lines 30-52; col. 4, lines 17-56) wherein, the first bypass line and the second bypass line each connect to the next respective pressure port after the respective connected control port in a rotational direction of the cylinder block (Fig. 2; given a clockwise movement/rotation of the cylinder bores 13, control port 22 connects to the next pressure port 19, which is after the control port 22 in the clockwise rotational direction, via the first bypass line/valve 28; similarly, control port 21 connects to the next pressure port 18, which is after the control port 21 in the clockwise rotational direction, via the second bypass line/valve 27).
35. A method for variably controlling a displacement volume of a hydraulic rotating group (11, 13, 14) driving or being driven by a driving shaft (12) having a displacement element (16) tiltable for adjusting the displacement volume of the rotating group (Figs. 1-2; col. 3, lines 30-52; col. 4, lines 17-56), wherein the rotating group comprises a rotatable cylinder block (11) in which working pistons (14) are mounted reciprocally moveable in cylinder bores (13), and a valve segment (23) with a kidney-shaped first pressure port (18) and with a kidney-shaped second pressure port (19) (Fig. 2), wherein an IDC control port (22) and an ODC control port (21) are circumferentially located on the valve segment between respective circumferential ends of the first pressure port and the second pressure port (Fig. 2), wherein a cylinder bore of the cylinder bores is configured to be fluidly connected to the IDC control port or the ODC control port when an associated working piston of the working pistons is at or close to its inner dead center (IDC), or is at or close to its outer dead center (ODC), respectively (“control pockets 21 and 22 are respectively disposed at regions commonly referred to as top and bottom dead centers”), wherein a circumferential distance from the IDC control port to the first and second pressure ports and a circumferential distance from the ODC control port to the first and second pressure ports is smaller than a circumferential extension of the each of the cylinder bores (apparent in Fig. 2), wherein the method comprises the following steps:- draining or supplying of hydraulic fluid from or to passing cylinder bores of the cylinder bores via the IDC control port by means of a first bypass line (line containing orifice 28) having a first orifice (28), supplying or draining of hydraulic fluid to or from the passing cylinder bores via the ODC control port by means of a second bypass line (line containing orifice 27) having a second orifice (27), adjusting an opening size of the first orifice, or an opening size of the second orifice in order to set or adjust an angle of tilt of the displacement element and to control the displacement volume of the hydraulic rotating group (col. 3, lines 30-52; col. 4, lines 17-56), wherein the hydraulic fluid from the ODC and IDC control ports is supplied or drained with the pressure level of the next respective pressure port of the first and second pressure ports in a rotational direction of the cylinder block (Fig. 2; given a clockwise movement/rotation of the cylinder bores 13, control port 22 connects to the next pressure port 19, which is after the control port 22 in the clockwise rotational direction, via the first bypass line/valve 28; similarly, control port 21 connects to the next pressure port 18, which is after the control port 21 in the clockwise rotational direction, via the second bypass line/valve 27).
In regards to Claim 5, the second bypass line is connected to a pressure compensation chamber (i.e. the unlabeled fluid reservoir/tank at the left of control port 21; see Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 7, openings of the cylinder bores facing the valve segment have a kidney-shaped cross section (Fig. 2), wherein circumferential extensions of kidney-shaped openings of the cylinder bores are smaller than a circumferential distance between adjacent ends of the first and second kidney-shaped pressure ports (apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 19, the opening size of the adjustable orifice is controlled mechanically or by an electronic control unit (ECU) (31) comprising a micro-controller (32) connected to at least one sensor (33) selected from a group of sensors comprising a tilt angle sensor, a shaft position sensor, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, a rotational speed sensor, a temperature sensor, a direction sensor, a torque sensor, an acceleration sensor or any other sensor capable of monitoring at least one operational parameter of the hydraulic axial piston unit (“angle detector 33”).
In regards to Claim 21, the IDC control port (22) and/or the ODC control ports (21) comprise a circular shape (Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 22, the IDC control port (22) and/or the ODC control port (21) are circumferentially located on the valve segment with an angular offset to a rotational position on the valve segment at which the working pistons are at the inner dead center (IDC) and/or outer dead center (ODC), respectively (Figure 2 shows that IDC control port 22 is located at a valve plate position that is rotationally offset (i.e. 180 degrees) from the working piston ODC position; similarly, the ODC control port 21 is located at a position that is rotationally offset (i.e. 180 degrees) from the working piston IDC position).
In regards to Claim 32, the adjustable orifice is controlled by an electronic control unit (ECU) (31) based on a pressure and/or displacement feedback (33) of at least one adjustable orifice.
In regards to Claim 37, Watts discloses processing a command of a control unit (29) or an operator by means of an electronic control unit (ECU) (31) having a microcontroller (32) for adjusting the opening sizes of the orifices in the first bypass line and/or in the second bypass line, in order to control the pressure in the cylinder bores for controlling the displacement volume of the hydraulic axial piston unit (col. 3, lines 30-52; col. 4, lines 17-56).
In regards to Claim 39, Watts continuously monitoring operational parameters of the hydraulic axial piston unit in order to smoothen pressure transition between the first and second pressure ports and vice versa, and/or for controlling the pressure in the cylinder bores, and/or for adjusting the angle of tilt of the displacement element (col. 3, lines 30-52; col. 4, lines 17-56 clearly describe adjusting the angle of tilt of the displacement element 16 by monitoring pump parameters 33).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leege (applied above) in view of US 5,554,007 to Watts.
In regards to Claim 7, Leege discloses the hydraulic axial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein the circumferential extensions of openings of the cylinder bores facing the valve segment are smaller than a circumferential distance between adjacent ends of the first and second kidney-shaped pressure ports (apparent in Fig. 5). However, Leege discloses circular cylinder bores rather than kidney-shaped cylinder bores, as claimed.
However, providing cylinder bores with kidney-shaped cross-sections is well known in the art, as shown by Watts (described above). Watts discloses another axial piston unit (Figs. 1-2) very similar to Leege, and which specifically discloses cylinder bores (13) having openings having a kidney-shaped cross section (Fig. 2), wherein the circumferential extensions of the kidney-shaped openings of the cylinder bores are smaller than the circumferential distance between the adjacent ends of the first and second kidney-shaped pressure ports (apparent in Fig. 2). Providing both the valve plate ports and cylinder bore ports with a kidney-shaped cross section allows the ports to more smoothly engage/disengage with one another, thereby suppressing pulsations. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an axial piston unit with reduced pulsation, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Watts in combination with those seen in Leege in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circular cylinder bores of Leege with the kidney-shaped cross sections taught in Watts in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an axial piston unit with reduced pulsation during operation.
In regards to Claim 19, Leege discloses the hydraulic axial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein the opening size of the adjustable orifice is controlled mechanically or by an electronic control unit (ECU) (100). However, Leege does not further disclose the control unit (100) 1) comprising a micro-controller, and 2) being connected to at least one sensor selected from a group of sensors comprising a tilt angle sensor, a shaft position sensor, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, a rotational speed sensor, a temperature sensor, a direction sensor, a torque sensor, an acceleration sensor or any other sensor capable of monitoring at least one operational parameter of the hydraulic unit.
However, Watts (described above) discloses another axial piston unit (Figs. 1-2) very similar to Leege which includes kidney-shaped pressure ports (13) flanking IDC and ODC control ports (21, 22) (Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the control ports is connected to a bypass line (Fig. 2) having a controlled adjustable orifice (27, 28) (Fig. 2), wherein a control unit (31) controls the orifice and comprises a micro-controller (32) and is connected to at least one sensor (33) selected from a group of sensors comprising a tilt angle sensor, a shaft position sensor, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, a rotational speed sensor, a temperature sensor, a direction sensor, a torque sensor, an acceleration sensor or any other sensor capable of monitoring at least one operational parameter of the hydraulic unit (para. 39 discloses a pressure sensor, a speed sensor, or a tilt angle sensor). Watts makes clear that such an arrangement allows for simplistic and accurate tilting control of the swash plate. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an axial piston unit with precise tilting, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Watts in combination with those seen in Leege in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leege’s control unit 100 with the microprocessor (31) and associated sensor-based feedback (33, 34) control taught in Watts in order to obtain predictable results; those results being optimized operation of the variable orifice valve.
In regards to Claim 32, please refer to Claim 19 above, as Claim 32 is rejected under Leege in view of Watts for the same reasons. Ultimately, Leege as modified by Watts results in Leege’s adjustable orifice (10) being controlled by an electronic control unit (31) based on a pressure feedback from a pressure sensor (33, 34).
In regards to Claim 37, please refer to Claim 19 above, as Claim 37 is rejected under Leege in view of Watts for the same reasons. Ultimately, Leege as modified by Watts results in processing a command of a control unit or an operator by means of an electronic control unit (ECU) (31) having a microcontroller (32, via Watts) for adjusting the opening sizes of the orifices in the first bypass line and/or in the second bypass line, in order to control the pressure in the cylinder bores for controlling the displacement volume of the hydraulic axial piston unit (via the combined teachings of Leege and Watts).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leege (applied above).
In regards to Claim 33, Leege discloses the hydraulic axial piston unit according to claim 1, but does not further disclose that the control ports are inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the hydraulic axial piston unit, as claimed. In this instance, Leege discloses straight control ports (Figs. 1-2) that are generally parallel to the rotational axis. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have provided inclined control ports (as claimed), since applicant has not disclosed that inclined control ports solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the straight ports taught in Leege. In fact, Applicant’s own originally filed specification makes clear that straight control ports are equally applicable to the invention, and that inclined ports are merely optional, depending simply on system size constraints (see para. 49). In other words, Applicant’s specification makes clear that there is no criticality to having inclined control ports over straight control ports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Leege’s control ports with an inclination, since it has been held that rearranging parts (i.e. control ports) of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (applied above).
In regards to Claim 33, Watts discloses the hydraulic axial piston unit according to claim 1, but does not further disclose that the control ports are inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the hydraulic axial piston unit, as claimed. In this instance, Watts discloses straight control ports (Fig. 1) that are generally parallel to the rotational axis. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have provided inclined control ports (as claimed), since applicant has not disclosed that inclined control ports solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the straight ports taught in Watts. In fact, Applicant’s own originally filed specification makes clear that straight control ports are equally applicable to the invention, and that inclined ports are merely optional, depending simply on system size constraints (see para. 49). In other words, Applicant’s specification makes clear that there is no criticality to having inclined control ports over straight control ports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Watts’ control ports with an inclination, since it has been held that rearranging parts (i.e. control ports) of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights