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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged.
The applicant has overcome the objection to claim 2 by amending claim 2. The objection to claim 2 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the hydraulic pump motor and regeneration valve taught by Vacca et al. would not be obvious to be utilized in the hydraulic drive device of Yoshimatsu because the pump constitutes a closed circuit in Yoshimatsu and the pump constitutes an open circuit in Vacca, thus rendering the regeneration valve not particularly necessary in Yoshimatsu
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that the pump constitutes an open circuit in Yoshimatsu does not render the hydraulic device incapable of using a regeneration valve. The regeneration valve taught by Vacca et al. provides the ability to efficiently control the speed of actuation of the hydraulic cylinder by utilizing the regeneration feature of the valve to feed fluid from one of the head-end port and the rod-end port to the other. Claim 1 also does not require the pump to constitute an open or closed circuit. Therefore, modifying the hydraulic pump to be a hydraulic pump motor and adding a regeneration valve that opens and closes a regeneration passage connecting the head-end port and the rod-end port to improve the efficiency of controlling the speed of actuation of the hydraulic cylinder would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimatsu (JP2008157407A) in view of Vacca et al. (20220252088). Yoshimatsu discloses (claim 1) a hydraulic drive device that supplies a working fluid to a hydraulic cylinder 3 including a head-end port and a rod-end port, the hydraulic drive device comprising a hydraulic pump 2 including a suction port and a discharge port, an electric motor 1 connected to the hydraulic pump 2, a directional control valve 4 that switches a connection target of the head-end port between the discharge port and the suction port, and an unloader valve 15 that connects, to a tank 7, a discharge passage connecting the discharge port and the directional control valve 4. Yoshimatsu does not disclose a hydraulic pump motor and a regeneration valve that opens and closes a regeneration passage connecting the head-end port and the rod-end port.
Vacca et al. teaches for a hydraulic drive device that supplies a working fluid to a hydraulic cylinder CYL including a head-end port and a rod-end port, the hydraulic drive device comprising a hydraulic pump motor HP including a suction port and a discharge port, an electric motor EM connected to the hydraulic pump motor HP, a directional control valve 4/3 DV that switches a connection target of the head-end port between the discharge port and that there is (claim 1) a regeneration valve BPV that opens and closes a regeneration passage (paragraph [0056]-[0057]) connecting the head-end port and the rod-end port for the purposes of efficiently providing high-speed actuation of the hydraulic cylinder.
Since Yoshimatsu and Vacca et al. are both in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Vacca et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yoshimatsu. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hydraulic drive device of Yoshimatsu to have a hydraulic pump motor and a regeneration valve that opens and closes a regeneration passage connecting the head-end port and the rod-end port for the purposes of efficiently providing high-speed actuation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimatsu and Vacca et al, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hori (JP2011149473). Yoshimatsu and Vacca et al. disclose all of the claimed subject matter but are silent as to a control device that controls an operation of each of the directional control valve, the regeneration valve, and the unloader valve according to a signal that is input to the control device.
Hori teaches for a hydraulic drive device that supplies a working fluid to a hydraulic cylinder 10 including a head-end port and a rod-end port, the hydraulic drive device comprising a hydraulic pump 17 including a suction port and a discharge port, a directional control valve 21 that switches a connection target of the head-end port between the discharge port and the suction port, a regeneration valve 23 that opens and closes a regeneration passage connecting the head-end port and the rod-end port, and an unloader valve 22 that connects, to a tank (not numbered), a discharge passage connecting the discharge port and the directional control valve 21 and that there is (claim 2) a control device 16 that controls an operation of each of the directional control valve 21, the regeneration valve 23, and the unloader valve 22 according to a signal that is input to the control device (controller 16 in paragraph [0028]) for the purposes of electronically controlling each component to achieve the desired mode of the operator.
Since Yoshimatsu, Vacca et al. and Hori are all in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Hori would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yoshimatsu. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Yoshimatsu to include a control device that controls an operation of each of the directional control valve, the regeneration valve, and the unloader valve according to a signal that is input to the control device for the purposes of electronically controlling each component to achieve the desired mode of the operator.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other hydraulic drive devices with regeneration valves and unloader valves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The improvement comprises (claim 3) that in causing the directional control valve to connect the head-end port to the suction port, the control device causes the unloader valve to connect the discharge passage to the tank, (claim 4) that in causing the directional control valve to connect the head-end port to the suction port, the control device causes the regeneration valve to open the regeneration passage and when a predetermined condition is satisfied, reduces an opening degree of the regeneration valve, and (claim 5) that in causing the directional control valve to connect the head-end port to the suction port, when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the control device causes the directional control valve to reduce an opening degree between the head-end port and the suction port.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights