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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praddaude US 3593621 in view of applicant’s admitted prior art Viard FR 3024503.
Praddaude discloses:
1. (Currently Amended) A hydraulic machine comprising: a distribution cover (see annotated Fig 1 herein), a distributor 8, a displacement selection slide valve 10 mounted sliding between a first position in which the machine is configured to operate with a first displacement and a second position in which the machine is configured to operate with a second displacement different from the first displacement (see e.g. col 2, lines 27-64 wherein increased speed corresponds to increased displacement); and a direction changing valve mounted sliding between a first position in which the machine is configured to exert a torque in a first direction around an axis of rotation and a second position in which the machine is configured to exert a torque in a second direction (see e.g. col 2, lines 70-75), the direction changing valve being mounted sliding along an axis distant from the axis of rotation (see col 2 line 8 and col 2 lines 70-75), the direction changing slide valve extending: - in a wall of the distributor (13 and 14 are in a wall of the distributor 8, see col 2 line 8 and col 2 lines 70-75) or in a wall of the distribution cover and outside the displacement selection slide valve.
Praddaude discloses the use of a reversing valve for reversing the motor but does not specify the valve is a slide valve. However, applicant’s admitted prior art discloses the use of a slide valve for reversing the direction of the motor (see the Prior Art section of applicant’s specification).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a slide valve for the reversing of the motor of Praddaude as taught by applicant’s admitted prior art to gain the benefit of using a known type of valve for changing the direction of a hydraulic motor.
Additionally, regarding the location of the direction changing slide valve, MPEP 2144.04 V.I. C. makes it clear that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify operation of the hydraulic machine is held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, a mere change in location of the direction changing slide valve of Praddaude as modified above without any modification of the operation of the hydraulic machine is an obvious modification [see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to mount the direction changing valve along an axis distant from the axis of rotation in the system of Praddaude as modified above to gain the benefit of placing the valve in a location which can reverse the fluid flow through main fluid conduits 13 and 14 which are part of 8 in order to reverse the direction of the motor.
PNG
media_image1.png
876
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Praddaude as modified above discloses (all references to Praddaude unless noted otherwise):
2. (Currently Amended) The machine according to the preceding claim, wherein the displacement selection slide valve 10 extends within the distributor 8 (main fluid conduits 13 and 14 are in a wall of the distributor 8 as in Fig 1, see col 2 line 8 and col 2 lines 70-75). Additionally, regarding the location of the direction changing slide valve, MPEP 2144.04 V.I. C. makes it clear that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify operation of the hydraulic machine is held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, a mere change in location of the direction changing slide valve without any change in operation of the hydraulic machine is an obvious modification [see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
3. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 1, wherein the displacement selection slide valve 10 is coaxial with the axis of rotation (see Fig 1).
4. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 1, wherein the direction changing slide valve extends outside of the displacement selection slide valve 10 (see col 2 line 8 and col 2 lines 70-75). Additionally, regarding the location of the direction changing slide valve, MPEP 2144.04 V.I. C. makes it clear that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify operation of the hydraulic machine is held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, a mere change in location of the direction changing slide valve without any change in operation of the hydraulic machine is an obvious modification [see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Regarding claims 5-6, Praddaude does not disclose the orientation of the reversing valve and thus does not disclose the limitations of claims 5-6. However, the orientation of the reversing valve (e.g. “wherein the direction changing slide valve is mounted sliding in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation” or “wherein the direction changing slide valve is mounted sliding in a direction that is not parallel to the axis of rotation” is a matter of simple engineering design choice. The reversing valve of Praddaude performs the same function as the now claimed structures as the orientation of the direction changing slide valve does not cause the direction changing slide valve to perform a different function. Thus, the selection of the orientation of the direction changing slide valve would be a simple matter of engineering design choice as evidenced by applicant’s claiming of all possible options (i.e. parallel and non-parallel) for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function).
Additionally, by claiming both possible options (parallel and non-parallel) applicant has met the criteria for obviousness as per MPEP 2143 I (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number (two options: parallel or non-parallel) of identified, predictable solutions (orientations of a direction changing slide valve), with a reasonable expectation of success (either option does not change the function of the direction changing slide valve and thus offers a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the reversing valve of Praddaude as modified above in a parallel or non-parallel orientation with respect to the rotation axis to gain the benefit of choosing from one of only two potions available to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
7. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim1, which comprises a high-pressure (13 or 14 if reversed) line and a low-pressure line (14 or 13 if reversed) and is configured so that the direction changing slide valve moves under an influence of a pressure in the high-pressure line (see e.g. the prior art section of applicant’s specification including “This slide valve is controlled by the pressure difference at the terminals of the machine.”).
8. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 1 wherein, the second displacement being less than the first displacement (see e.g. col 2 lines 27-64 wherein decreased speed corresponds to decreased displacement and increased speed corresponds to increase displacement), the second displacement is implemented by a group of pistons (the group being all the pistons) or a group of lobes of a cam, the group forming a regular polygon centered on the axis of rotation (all the pistons form a regular polygon in the same manner as applicant’s pistons would form a regular polygon).
9. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 1, wherein a fluid path (fluid path from inlet in annotated Fig 1 radially to 10 across the radial width of channel 9a) from an inlet (see inlet in annotated Fig 1 herein) of the machine to the displacement changing slide valve (10) is shorter than a fluid path (fluid path B which extends from the inlet to 13 across 15a) from the inlet to the direction changing slide valve (direction changing slide valve is in 13, 14 in 8 and therefore the fluid path from the inlet in annotated Fig 1 herein to the direction changing slide valve would be at least at long as 15a meaning fluid path A < fluid path B).
Additionally, regarding the lengths of the fluid paths, these limitation are directed to the relative locations of the, inlet the direction changing slide valve, and the displacement changing slide valve, MPEP 2144.04 V.I. C. makes it clear that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify operation of the hydraulic machine is held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, a mere change in location of the relative locations of the, inlet the direction changing slide valve, and the displacement changing slide valve without any change in operation of the hydraulic machine is an obvious modification [see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Additionally, the relative lengths of the fluid paths would also be a matter of obvious engineering design choice. The reversing valve of Praddaude would not perform a different function as the now claimed structures as the relative lengths of the fluid paths do not cause the direction changing slide valve to perform a different function. Thus, the selection of the relative lengths of the fluid paths of the direction changing slide valve of Praddaude would be a simple matter of engineering design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art which would depend on the relative positioning of the valves and an inlet of the machine. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a relative location of a fluid path from an inlet of the machine to the displacement changing slide valve is shorter than a fluid path from the inlet to the direction changing slide valve to gain the benefit of placing the valves in a desired position relative to the inlet while maintaining the function of the valves and the inlet as a matter of obvious design choice.
11. (Currently Amended) A device comprising at least one machine according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 and Fig 1 of Praddaude).
12. (Currently Amended) A subassembly for a hydraulic machine, the subassembly comprising: - a distributor 8, - a displacement selection slide valve 10 mounted sliding in the distributor between a first position wherein the machine is configured to operate with a first displacement and a second position wherein the machine is configured to operate with a second displacement different from the first displacement (see e.g. col 2, lines 27-64 wherein increased/decreased speed corresponds to increased/decreased displacement); and - a direction changing valve mounted sliding in the distributor between a first position wherein the machine is configured to exert a torque in a first direction around an axis of rotation and a second position wherein the machine is configured to exert a torque in a different direction (see e.g. col 2, lines 70-75), the direction changing slide valve being mounted sliding along an axis distant from the axis of rotation (13 and 14 are along an axis distant from the axis of rotation, see col 2 line 8 and col 2 lines 70-75).
Praddaude discloses the use of a reversing valve for reversing the motor but does not specify the valve is a slide valve. However, applicant’s admitted prior art discloses the use of a slide valve for reversing the direction of the motor (see the Prior Art section of applicant’s specification).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a slide valve for the reversing of the motor of Praddaude as taught by applicant’s admitted prior art to gain the benefit of using a known type of valve for changing the direction of a hydraulic motor.
Additionally, regarding the location of the direction changing slide valve, MPEP 2144.04 V.I. C. makes it clear that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify operation of the hydraulic machine is held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, a mere change in location of the direction changing slide valve without any modify operation of the hydraulic machine is an obvious modification [see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Conclusion
See form PTO-892 for additional prior art made of record but not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746