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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on February 9th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 14th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 7, 17, 19, 21-22, 32, 35, & 39 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35, 37, & 39-40 remain pending in the instant application, with Claims 9, 12, 14, 17, 20, 24-26, 28-30, & 40 remaining withdrawn.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.
Drawings
The drawings were objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they did not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “driving shaft 8”. Applicant has provided a corrected drawing sheet for Fig. 10a that remedies this issue, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) as required in reply to the Office action. Therefore, this objection is hereby withdrawn.
The drawings were objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Applicant’s amendments to the claims have remedied this issue, rendering the objection moot.
The drawings are once again objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein a first bypass line and a second bypass line are provided, each connecting one of the control ports with one of the pressure ports” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. In this instance, there does not appear to be any figure depicting both the first and second bypass line connecting one of the control ports with one of the pressure ports. Instead, Figure 2, for example, depicts the first and second bypass line each connecting a respective one of the control ports with a respective one of the pressure ports. In other words, the figures show the first and second bypass lines interconnection different pairs of ports; they do not connect the same pair of ports, as currently recited. Please also refer to the 112b rejection below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 19, 21-22, 32-33, 35, 37, & 39 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have remedied these issues, rendering these objections moot.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 19, 21-22, & 32-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16 should read “with one of the pressure ports, wherein an adjustable orifice is arranged in the first bypass line”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 35, 37, & 39 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 “wherein a first bypass line and a second bypass line are provided, each connecting one of the control ports with one of the pressure ports”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the particular structural arrangement of the two bypass lines is not made clear. In particular, it is not clear whether the two bypass lines 1) both connect between the same pair of ports, 2) respectively connect between respective pairs of ports, or 3) connect at least one of the control ports to at least one of the pressure ports. As currently recited, the first interpretation appears most accurate. However, Figure 2 of the originally filed specification appears to align more closely with the second and third interpretations. Due to this ambiguity, the particular structural arrangement of the two bypass lines cannot be determined. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not made clear. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted using the third interpretation.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a connected control port” and “a connected pressure port”; these limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not made clear whether these ports are 1) part of the kidney-shaped pressure ports and IDC/ODC control ports recited earlier in the claim or 2) reciting additional ports altogether. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not made clear. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted using the first interpretation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first bypass line and the second bypass line each connect the next pressure port after the 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 pressure port after the connected control port in a rotational direction of the cylinder block” refers to. Not only does “the next pressure port” lack antecedent basis, but as noted previously above, the meaning of “a connected control port” and “a connected pressure port” is indefinite. Thus, referring back to these indefinite limitations only further convolutes the claim. It is simply unclear what particular functionality or arrangement is being required of this language, rendering Claim 1 indefinite. For all of these reasons, Claim 1 is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as simply requiring the first and second bypass lines to fluidly connect to the first and second kidney-shaped pressure ports during rotation of the cylinder block.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “passing cylinder bores”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) part of the previously recited “cylinder bores” or 2) introducing additional cylinder bores altogether. Thus, it becomes impossible to know how many cylinder bores are being required in the invention, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted using the first interpretation.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “wherein the hydraulic fluid from the ODC and IDC control ports is supplied or drained with the pressure level of the next pressure port in rotational direction of the cylinder block”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the meaning 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 pressure level of the next pressure port in rotational direction of the cylinder block” refers to. Not only do “the pressure level” and “the next pressure port” lack antecedent basis, but there is no reference point given in the claim for what even constitutes “next” as it relates to the pressure ports. It is simply unclear what particular functionality or arrangement is being required of this language, rendering Claim 35 indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as simply requiring the first and second bypass lines to fluidly connect to the first and second kidney-shaped pressure ports during rotation of the cylinder block.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “In the rejection of claims 1 and 35, the Examiner asserts that Leege's FIGS. 1, 2 and 5 show bypass lines connected to control ports 23, 24 fluidly connected to the next pressure port 21, 22 during rotation of the cylinder block. (See Office Action, pages 13-14). Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's assertion and submits 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 claims 1 and 35”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant appears to be asserting that the limitation “the next pressure port after the 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. Given these facts, 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. 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) rejections noted above for further details. As noted previously above, for examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as simply requiring the first and second bypass lines to fluidly connect to the first and second kidney-shaped pressure ports during rotation of the cylinder block, and the examiner respectfully maintains that Leege discloses as much, regardless of the particular rotational direction. 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, & 35 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 Claims 1 & 35, 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 to the two control ports 23 & 24; see Fig. 1), each connecting one of the control ports with one of the pressure ports (Fig. 1 clearly shows how the two bypass lines fluidly connect pressure port 22 with either control port 23/24 based on the position of adjustable orifice 10), 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 a connected control port and a connected 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 pressure port after the connected control port in rotational direction of the cylinder block (the first and second bypass lines fluidly connect to the pressure ports during rotation of the cylinder block).
35. A method (paras. 29-33) for variably controlling a displacement volume of a hydraulic rotating group (2, 5, 6) driving or being driven by a driving shaft (8) (shaft driving and shaft driven are both disclosed at paras. 29-33) having a displacement element (4) tiltable for adjusting the displacement volume of the rotating group, wherein the rotating group comprises a rotatable cylinder block (3) in which working pistons (6) are mounted reciprocally moveable in cylinder bores (5), and a valve segment (20) with a kidney-shaped first pressure port (21) and with a kidney-shaped second pressure port (22), wherein an IDC control port (24) and an ODC control port (23) are circumferentially located on the valve segment between respective circumferential ends of the first pressure port and the second pressure port (apparent in Fig. 5), 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 (Figs. 1-2 & 5; paras. 28-33), 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), wherein the method comprises the following steps: draining or supplying of hydraulic fluid from or to passing cylinder bores via the IDC control port by means of a first bypass line (i.e. the unlabeled fluid line connecting to control port 24 in Fig. 1) having a first orifice (the orifice connected to the bypass line in Fig. 2); 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 (i.e. the unlabeled fluid line connecting to control port 23 in Fig. 1) having a second orifice (the orifice connected to the bypass line in Fig. 1), 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 (paras. 28-33 described adjusting the position (and thus, the opening size) of the orifices of the orifice/valve 10 via actuator 13 and controller 100), wherein the hydraulic fluid from the ODC and IDC control ports is supplied or drained with the pressure level of the next pressure port in a rotational direction of the cylinder block (the first and second bypass lines fluidly connect control ports 23 & 24 to the pressure ports 21 & 22 during rotation of the cylinder block, and thus, fluid is supplied or drained according to the connection of these ports).
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 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 8,794,124 to Iida et al.
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 Iida et al. (Iida). Iida discloses another axial piston unit (Figs. 1-3) very similar to Leege, and which specifically discloses cylinder bores (26) having openings (26-1 - 26-8) having a kidney-shaped cross section (Fig. 3), 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. 3; see also col. 5, lines 34-47). Iida makes clear that providing both the valve plate ports and cylinder bore ports with a kidney-shaped cross section allows the ports to smoothly engage, thereby suppressing a pulsation generated when switching from a low-pressure process to a high-pressure process and/or switching from a high-pressure process to a low-pressure process. 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 Iida 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 Iida in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an axial piston unit with reduced pulsation during operation.
Claim(s) 19, 32, 37, & 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leege (applied above) in view of US 2002/0106283 to Greene et al.
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, Greene et al. (Greene) another axial piston unit (Figs. 1-5) very similar to Leege which includes kidney-shaped pressure ports (46A, 46B) flanking IDC and ODC control ports (50) (Fig. 5), wherein at least one of the control ports (50) is connected to a bypass line (Fig. 3) having a controlled adjustable orifice (52) (Fig. 3), wherein a control unit (60) controls the orifice and comprises a micro-controller (Fig. 3; “microprocessor”; para. 39) and is connected to at least one sensor (58) 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). Greene makes clear that such an arrangement allows optimization of the porting of fluid into and out of the pumping and/or motoring pistons bores based upon operating conditions and a desired parameter upon which control is based, for example, noise, vibration, power level requirement, pressure, speed, swashplate angle, and/or the efficiency of the unit (para. 40). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an axial piston unit with improved porting optimization, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Greene 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 and associated sensor-based feedback control taught in Greene in order to obtain predictable results; those results being optimized operation of the variable orifice valve 10.
In regards to Claim 32, please refer to Claim 19 above, as Claim 32 is rejected under Leege in view of Greene for the same reasons. Ultimately, Leege as modified by Greene results in Leege’s adjustable orifice (10) being controlled by an electronic control unit (100) based on a pressure feedback from a pressure sensor (58) (see also the 112b rejection above).
In regards to Claim 37, please refer to Claim 19 above, as Claim 37 is rejected under Leege in view of Greene for the same reasons. Ultimately, Leege as modified by Greene results in processing a command of a control unit or an operator by means of an electronic control unit (ECU) (100) having a microcontroller (60, via Greene) 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 Greene).
In regards to Claim 39, please refer to Claims 19 & 37 above, as Claim 39 is rejected under Leege in view of Greene for the same reasons. Ultimately, Leege as modified by Greene results in Leege’s control unit 100 continuously monitoring operational parameters (i.e. fluid pressures, via pressure sensor 58 from Greene) 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 angle of tilt of the displacement element (via the pressure feedback teachings from Greene).
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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