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 June 11th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 11th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, & 13 have been amended, while Claim 10 has been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-2, 4-9, & 11-15 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 was objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, thereby obviating the previous claim objections.
Claims 2, 6-8, & 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3 should read "another of the at least one pump element" in line 3.
Claim 6, lines 1-2 should read “each position determining unit”.
Claim 15, line 2 should read "the ".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2, 4-9, & 11-15 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 have remedied these issues, thereby obviating the previous 112(b) rejections. However, issues remain.
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 1-2, 4-9, & 11-15 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 measured pressure" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pressure sensor that is configured for measuring the pressure (P1, P2) of the hydraulic fluid”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this pressure is 1) attempting to refer back to the previously recited “measured pressure” in line 13 or 2) introducing another measured pressure altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 8, line 2 recites “wherein the position sensor is disposed the hydraulic pump apparatus with which the position determining unit is associated”; this renders the claim indefinite. In this case, the limitation appears to be missing words, rendering it impossible to ascertain the true scope of the claimed invention. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as “wherein the position sensor is disposed on the hydraulic pump apparatus with which the position determining unit is associated”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the measured pressure" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “configured for measuring the pressure (P1, P2) of the hydraulic fluid”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this pressure is 1) attempting to refer back to the previously recited “measured pressure” in lines 14-15 or 2) introducing another measured pressure altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, & 11-15 are found to be provisionally allowable, pending Applicant overcoming the objections and rejections noted above. Applicant should note that the application cannot be properly allowed until each and every issue noted above has been fully and properly resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s amendments filed on June 11th, 2026 have overcome the outstanding prior art rejections.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the examiner has conducted an updated prior art search and has determined that no other prior art reference(s) successfully disclose or render obvious Applicant’s invention as now recited in Claims 1 & 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed June 11th, 2026 have necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights