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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 and 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to the rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the office action dated 04/24/2026 has been withdrawn. Upon further inspection, the claim language raises various U.S.C. 112(b) issues. See below for updated rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 and 32 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 and 32 lines 4-6,
“and having two proportional pressure control valves, of which one is associated with the piston chamber and the other is associated with the rod chamber”
should read
--and having a proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber and a proportional pressure control valve associated with the rod chamber-- to improve the language by explicitly providing antecedent basis for these terms in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11-18 and 29-33 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.
The claims recite an “inlet” in various recitations. A more accurate term would be “port”. The claims should be revised to recite ‘a first port’, ‘a second port’, etc. instead of “an inlet” and “a further inlet” because the term “inlet” implies fluid flows into the valves via the “inlets” while applicant’s system does not appear to disclose having some claimed “inlets” configured to have fluid flow into them.
Claim 11, line 9-10, "an inlet side of the proportional pressure control valve for the piston chamber such that" should read --an inlet side of the proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber such that-- to be consistent with the previously established language of claim 11 line 4-6. Otherwise, it is unclear whether this proportional pressure control valve is the same as the proportional valve associated with the piston chamber.
Claim 11, line 9 recites “an inlet side of the proportional pressure control valve”. It is unclear what side is the “inlet side” because fluid enters valve 20 on both ‘sides’ through port ‘1’ and port ‘2’ depending on whether fluid is entering or exiting piston chamber 16.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the return line" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the storage tank" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, line 5-6, “via the non-actuated proportional pressure control valve associated therewith” should read --via the non-actuated proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber--
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the respective proportional pressure control valve is configured to be identical to the other proportional pressure control valve" should read --wherein the proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber is configured to be identical to the proportional pressure control valve associated with the rod chamber-- to improve the language clarity.
Claim 16 recites “wherein a further inlet of both proportional pressure control valves is connected to the return line, said further inlet being connected at least in a fluid direction to the piston chamber when the respective proportional pressure control valve is in the non-actuated original position.” It is unclear whether applicant’s use of the term “inlet” is proper. If a fluid does not ever enter into the valve through the recited “inlet”, it does not appear to be proper to use the term “inlet”. As best understood, this “further inlet” is referring to port ‘3’ of the disclosed proportional valves 20, 22 as seen in applicant’s Fig. 1, and it appears that fluid only exits the valve with port ‘3’. To avoid the issue with using the terms “inlet” and “outlet”, these terms should be changed to --port--.
Claim 16 recites “said further inlet”. It is unclear which of the two further inlets this is referring to because the previous limitation establishes a further inlet on both proportional pressure control valves.
Claim 16 recites the “when the respective proportional pressure control valve is in the non-actuated original position”. It is unclear which proportional valve is being referred to with “the respective proportional control valve”. This should probably read --when the proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber is in the non-actuated original position--
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the return line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To remedy all issues with claim 16, claim 16 should be revised to read --wherein a further port of both proportional pressure control valves is connected to the return line, said further port of the proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber is configured to connect at least the piston chamber with a return line when the proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber is in the non-actuated position.
Claim 18, line 1-2, “a further inlet of the proportional control valve belonging to the rod chamber”. It is unclear if this “proportional control valve belonging to the rod chamber” is the same as the previously recited “proportional control valve associated with the rod chamber” established in claim 11. This limitation should use consistent language to properly refer back to established structures to remove any ambiguity.
Claim 32 line 9-10, "an inlet side of the proportional pressure control valve for the piston chamber such that" should read --an inlet side of the proportional pressure control valve associated with the piston chamber such that-- to be consistent with the previously established language of claim 11 line 4-6. Otherwise, it is unclear whether this proportional pressure control valve is the same as the proportional valve associated with the piston chamber.
Claim 32 line 9 recites “an inlet side of the proportional pressure control valve”. It is unclear what side is the “inlet side” because fluid enters valve 20 on both ‘sides’ through port ‘1’ and port ‘2’ depending on whether fluid is entering or exiting piston chamber 16.
The dependent claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 and 32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 12-18, 29-31, 33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
To facilitate allowance on the next action, the withdrawn method claims should be canceled.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not appear to disclose nor render obvious the hydraulic system with the specified valves, valve connections, valve positions and functions as claimed in claims 11 or 32.
The dependent claims are allowable because they depend from an allowed base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mentink (US 7216578) discloses a hydraulic system having a valve assembly similar to the present application having a valve associated with the rod side chamber and a valve associated with the piston side chamber
Hristov et al. (US 7752842) discloses the check valve, and proportional valves, but does not have the fluid regeneration from the rod chamber side to the piston chamber side
Rink (US 6327956), Schexnayder (US 5220862), Peterson et al. (US 10344784), Pfaff et al. (US 2018/0252243) all disclose hydraulic systems having pertinent structures/configurations
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights