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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on January 27th, 2026 (and supplementally on March 3rd, 2026) in response to the Final Office Action mailed on November 17th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11-13, 15 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
Claims 1-2 & 4-15 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, thereby obviating the previous claim objections.
Claim 8 is now objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 2 should read “one of the hydraulic pump apparatuses of the plurality of”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2, 5-8, & 4-15 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 some of these issues, thereby obviating some 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 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, lines 9-10 recite “a pump controller configured to determine an offset between two of the at least one pump element”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required functionality of the invention cannot be determined. In this instance, the language of the limitation does not make clear whether the “two of the at least one pump element” refers to 1) pump elements of the same hydraulic pump apparatus or 2) two pump elements of two different hydraulic pump apparatuses. In other words, it is not made clear if the controller is determining an offset within a singular pump apparatus or determining an offset between two different pump apparatuses. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 1 cannot be positively discerned, rendering it indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has applied the second interpretation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a position determining unit that is configured to determine the respective pump element position of each pump element”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. At the outset, it is not clear how many position determining units are required by the claim. In this instance, the language as written implies that a single position determining unit for determining pump element positions of each respective pump element. However, this appears to conflict with the written description, which describes (and depicts) respective position sensors for each hydraulic pump apparatus. Thus, as far as the examiner understands, it appears that Claim 5 is likely intending to recite respective position sensors for the hydraulic pump apparatuses. However, the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s intent. Second, it is not made clear from the phrase “each pump element” which particular pump elements are being referred to. In other words, it is not clear whether the position determining unit is determining pump element positions 1) within a singular hydraulic pump apparatus or 2) within multiple hydraulic pump apparatuses. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 1 cannot be positively discerned, rendering it indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted Claim 5 as requiring respective position determining units for respective pump apparatuses of the plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the pump controller is configured to determine the offset based on the pump element positions of a pair of pump elements of the at least one pump element”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required functionality of the invention cannot be determined. In this instance, the language of the limitation does not make clear whether the “pair of pump elements of the least one pump element” refers to 1) pump elements of the same hydraulic pump apparatus or 2) two pump elements of two different hydraulic pump apparatuses. In other words, it is not made clear if the controller is determining an offset within a singular pump apparatus or determining an offset between two different pump apparatuses. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 5 cannot be positively discerned, rendering it indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has applied the second interpretation.
Claim 8, line 2 recites “the at least one pump element”, and “the electric pump motor”; these limitations render the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. At the outset, “the electric pump motor” lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite on its face. Second, it is not clear which of the plurality of pump elements is being referred to by these limitations. Claim 1 makes clear that at least two “at least one pump element” exist in the invention, and as such, Claim 8 referring to a singular one of these elements introduces ambiguity. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 8 cannot be positively discerned, rendering it indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted this limitations as requiring the position sensor to be disposed on one of the hydraulic pump apparatuses of the plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses.
Claim 11, lines 10-11 recite “a pump controller configured to determine an offset between two of the at least one pump element”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required functionality of the invention cannot be determined. In this instance, the language of the limitation does not make clear whether the “two of the at least one pump element” refers to 1) pump elements of the same hydraulic pump apparatus or 2) two pump elements of two different hydraulic pump apparatuses. In other words, it is not made clear if the controller is determining an offset within a singular pump apparatus or determining an offset between two different pump apparatuses. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 11 cannot be positively discerned, rendering it indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has applied the second interpretation.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “determining a position of the at least one pump element”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear from the phrase “the at least one pump element” which particular pump elements are being referred to. In this instance, Claim 11 (from which Claim 13 depends) makes clear that there exists a plurality of sets of “at least one pump element” in the invention. Thus, Applicant’s claim language in Claim 13 does not make clear whether the position determining occurs 1) within a singular hydraulic pump apparatus or 2) within multiple hydraulic pump apparatuses. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 13 cannot be positively discerned, rendering it indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted Claim 13 as requiring determining positions for the plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the pump element positions”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how many positions are required to be determined in the invention. In this case, line 2 of Claim 13 requires only “a position of the at least one pump element”. Thus, line 2 requires only a singular position to be determined. Thus, when line 3 recites “the pump element positions” (plural), a conflict in claim scope arises within the claim. In other words, it becomes unclear how many positions must be determined in the invention. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 13 cannot be positively discerned, rendering it indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted Claim 13 as requiring determining at least two positions.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, & 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0057619 to Wilson et al. in view of US 5,259,731 to Dhindsa et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Wilson discloses:
1. A hydraulic system (Fig. 1; Abstract; “fluid power system”) for a vehicle (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses (104 in Fig. 1; 732 in Fig. 7; “pneumatically-driven (e.g., air-driven) hydraulic pumps”) configured for generating hydraulic pressure (“pneumatically-driven (e.g., air-driven) hydraulic pumps. In some cases, the pumps may represent “demand” pumps that provide additional hydraulic fluid to one or more aircraft hydraulic systems”; para. 15), each hydraulic pump apparatus of the plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses comprising a hydraulic pump (104, 106, 108; Fig. 1), wherein each hydraulic pump has a pump discharge (the three rightward arrows extending from pumps 104, 106, 108 in Fig. 1) and at least one pump element (implicit) that is configured to displace hydraulic fluid through the pump discharge to generate the hydraulic pressure (Fig. 1), wherein the pump discharges are fluidly connected to form a single discharge (112; Fig. 1; “One or more of the pumps 104 may provide hydraulic fluid to one or more aircraft hydraulic systems 112”; “The plurality of pumps 104 illustrated in FIG. 1 may represent “supplementary” pumps (also referred to herein as “demand” pumps) that provide additional hydraulic fluid to the aircraft hydraulic system(s) 112 during particular time period(s) and/or operating condition(s) that represent periods of “high demand” for hydraulic fluid”; paras. 19-20) coupled to a hydraulic actuator, and wherein the hydraulic actuator is coupled to an aircraft component (Wilson’s disclosures within paras. 15 & 20 stating “in the context of an aircraft hydraulic system, operations associated with relatively high demand for hydraulic fluid may include flap extension/retraction, landing gear retraction/extension, wing tip folding, among other alternatives” and “the pumps 104 of FIG. 1 may provide hydraulic fluid to the aircraft hydraulic system(s) 112 during flap extension/retraction, landing gear retraction/extension, wing tip folding, among other alternatives” clearly imply a hydraulic actuator connected to an aircraft component to be moved); a pump controller (114; similarly, 738 in Fig. 7) and, wherein each pump discharge comprises a pressure sensor (126, 128, 130; Fig. 1) that is configured for measuring the pressure (P1, P2) of the hydraulic fluid (Fig. 1; para. 23), and the pump controller is configured to control each of the plurality of the hydraulic pump apparatuses (“different speeds”; para. 19) such that a nominal pressure (P0) (“pressure thresholds”; para. 23) is kept at each hydraulic pump while discharging the hydraulic fluid (paras. 19, 23, 38)
11. An aircraft (702; Fig. 7; see also “an aircraft”; paras. 2, 5, & 9), comprising: an aircraft component (“flap”; “landing gear”; “wing tip”; paras. 15 & 20); a hydraulic system (728) comprising a plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses (732; Fig. 7; para. 86; see also the plurality of pump apparatuses 104 within Fig. 1) configured for generating hydraulic pressure, each hydraulic pump apparatus comprising a hydraulic pump (106, 108, 110; Fig. 1), wherein each hydraulic pump has a pump discharge (represented by rightward arrows in Fig. 1) and at least one pump element (implicit) that is configured to displace hydraulic fluid through the pump discharge to generate the hydraulic pressure (Fig. 1), wherein the pump discharges are fluidly connected to a single discharge (112) coupled to a hydraulic actuator, and wherein the hydraulic actuator is coupled to the aircraft component (Wilson’s disclosures within paras. 15 & 20 “in the context of an aircraft hydraulic system, operations associated with relatively high demand for hydraulic fluid may include flap extension/retraction, landing gear retraction/extension, wing tip folding, among other alternatives” and “the pumps 104 of FIG. 1 may provide hydraulic fluid to the aircraft hydraulic system(s) 112 during flap extension/retraction, landing gear retraction/extension, wing tip folding, among other alternatives” clearly imply a hydraulic actuator connected to an aircraft component to be moved); a pump controller (734; Fig. 7); wherein each pump discharge comprises a pressure sensor (126, 128, 130; Fig. 1) that is configured for measuring the pressure (P1, P2) of the hydraulic fluid (Fig. 1; para. 23), and the pump controller is configured to control each of the plurality of the hydraulic pump apparatuses such that a nominal pressure (P0) is kept at each hydraulic pump while discharging the hydraulic fluid (paras. 19, 23, 38), wherein the hydraulic system is configured to drive any of a high-lift device, a door or freight door, a landing gear, and a control surface (paras. 15 & 20).
While Wilson discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose that the controller is configured to determine a pump offset between two of the at least one pump element and to adjust the offset such that the two pump elements move with a 180 degree phase shift, as claimed.
However, Dhindsa et al. (Dhindsa) details another multi-pump hydraulic system (Fig. 1; “a system for pumping a fluid”; Abstract; “mud, oil, water”; col. 1, line 31) in which two (or three) three-cylinder pumps (12, 14, 16) driven by respective variable speed DC motors are speed-controlled by a central controller 40 based on position sensors (52, 54, 56). In particular, Dhindsa discloses a plurality of hydraulic pump apparatus (12-16, 72-76, 20; Fig. 1) configured for generating hydraulic pressure (“pumps the fluid from a source (not shown) into a common pressure outlet or manifold 20”; col. 3, lines 38-41), each hydraulic pump apparatus comprising a hydraulic pump (12, 14, 16; “reciprocating pumps”; col. 3, lines 38-39), wherein each hydraulic pump has a pump discharge (20; Fig. 1) and at least one pump element (“piston”; col. 3, line 46) that is configured to displace hydraulic fluid (“mud”) through the pump discharge to generate the hydraulic pressure, wherein the pump discharges are fluidly connected to form a single discharge (21); and a pump controller (40) configured to determine an offset (“a sixty-degree (60.degree.) phase shift between their piston strokes”; Fig. 2D) between two of the at least one pump element (via phase difference detector 100; Fig. 4; col. 9, lines 1-25 disclose the controller 40 monitoring pump element positions via sensors 52 & 54 and calculating an offset/phase difference between the two pump apparatuses), wherein the pump controller is configured to adjust the offset (“adjust the speed”) such that the two pump elements move with a 180 degree phase shift (col. 5, lines 21-44 and col. 9, lines 1-25 disclose the controller 40 adjusting the pump offset via speed control in order to achieve a particular phase/offset between two pump apparatuses that achieves “zero beat frequency”). In particular, Dhindsa discloses “In a two pump system wherein each pump has three cylinders, the most even pressure in the manifold 20 is obtained when the phase shift between successive piston strokes in a pump system cycle is sixty degrees (60.degree.). This is because there are a total of six cylinders in the system (three for each pump) and each pump system cycle consists of three hundred sixty degrees (360.degree.)”. Dhindsa further discloses “As it will be obvious, with a three pump system, wherein each pump has three (3) pistons, the most even pressure at the common pressure outlet 20 is obtained when the phase shift between successive piston strokes is forty degrees (40.degree.).”. In other words, Dhindsa recognizes that an optimally smooth pressure output is achieved when piston phase differences collectively add up to exactly 360 degrees. In his example using 2 pumps with 3 cylinders each, Dhindsa discloses providing a 60 degree phase between each successive piston (i.e. 180 degree phase shift between piston #1 and piston #4, between pistons #2 and #5, and between pistons #3 and #6) in order to achieve “the most even pressure in the manifold 20”. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a multi-pump hydraulic system that counteracts pressure imbalances between pumps in order to provide even discharge pressure without damaging beat frequencies, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Dhindsa in combination with those seen in Wilson 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 Wilson with the three-cylinder pumps, variable speed DC motors, position sensors, and associated speed/phase-control methodology of Dhindsa, in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a well controlled 180 degree phase difference between two of the at least one pump element, and therefore, smoother operation of Wilson’s aircraft components without damaging beat frequencies.
In regards to Claim 2, Dhindsa makes clear that the pump controller 40 is configured to adjust the offset such that one of the at least one pump element discharges hydraulic fluid when the other of the at least one pump element draws in hydraulic fluid (col. 5, lines 21-54 and col. 9, lines 1-25 disclose the controller 40 adjusting the pump offset to achieve a 180 degree phase offset between every three pistons, and thus, an overlapping of the suction and discharge strokes). The same would remain when combined with Wilson.
In regards to Claim 4, Dhindsa makes clear that the hydraulic pump apparatus comprises an electric pump motor that (“d.c. motors”; col. 4, line 1) is operatively coupled to the pump controller to be controlled and that drives the hydraulic pump (col. 3, line 66 — col. 4, line 12). The same would remain when combined with Wilson.
In regards to Claim 5, Dhindsa further discloses a position determining unit (52, 54, 56) that is configured to determine a pump element position of each pump element (col. 3, lines 44-55), and the pump controller is configured to determine the offset based on the pump element positions of a pair of pump elements (see Claim 1 above). The same would remain when combined with Wilson.
In regards to Claim 6, Dhindsa further discloses that the position determining unit (52, 54, 56) comprises a position sensor that is configured to measure a quantity that is indicative of the pump element position (col. 3, lines 44-55). The same would remain when combined with Wilson.
In regards to Claim 8, Dhindsa further discloses that the position sensor (52, 54, 56) is disposed on the hydraulic pump, the pump element, or the electric pump motor (“Position sensors 52, 54 and 56 are respectively installed in pumps 12, 14 and 16”). The same would remain when combined with Wilson.
In regards to Claim 9, Dhindsa further discloses that the pump controller is configured to adjust the offset by controlling the speed of the hydraulic pump (via speed control circuits 72, 74, 76; col. 4, line 63 —col. 6, line 20). The same would remain when combined with Wilson.
In regards to Claim 12, see Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 13, see Claims 5-6 above.
In regards to Claim 14, see Claim 9 above.
In regards to Claim 15, see Claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,259,731 to Dhindsa et al. in view of US 2017/0057619 to Wilson et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Dhindsa et al. (Dhindsa) discloses:
1. A hydraulic system (Fig. 1; Abstract; “a system for pumping a fluid”; “mud, oil, water”; col. 1, line 31) for a vehicle (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses (12-16, 72-76, 20; Fig. 1), each hydraulic pump apparatus of the plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses comprising a hydraulic pump (12-16), wherein each hydraulic pump has a pump discharge (20; Fig. 1) and at least one pump element (“piston”) that is configured to displace hydraulic fluid through the pump discharge to generate the hydraulic pressure (Fig. 1), wherein the pump discharges are fluidly connected to form a single discharge (21; Fig. 1); and the pump controller is configured to control each of the plurality of the hydraulic pump apparatuses (“different speeds”; para. 19) such that a nominal pressure (P0) (“pressure thresholds”; para. 23) is kept at each hydraulic pump while discharging the hydraulic fluid (paras. 19, 23, 38)
While Dhindsa discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose that 1) the single discharge is coupled to a hydraulic actuator coupled to an aircraft component or 2) wherein each pump discharge comprises a pressure sensor that is configured for measuring the pressure (P1, P2) of the hydraulic fluid, as claimed (Dhindsa provides pressurized fluid to a well rather than an actuator/aircraft, without any pressure sensor-based feedback).
However, Wilson details another multi-pump hydraulic system hydraulic system (Fig. 1; Abstract; “fluid power system”) for a vehicle (“aircraft”), comprising: a plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses (104 in Fig. 1; 732 in Fig. 7; “pneumatically-driven (e.g., air-driven) hydraulic pumps”) configured for generating hydraulic pressure (“pneumatically-driven (e.g., air-driven) hydraulic pumps. In some cases, the pumps may represent “demand” pumps that provide additional hydraulic fluid to one or more aircraft hydraulic systems”; para. 15), each hydraulic pump apparatus of the plurality of hydraulic pump apparatuses comprising a hydraulic pump (104, 106, 108; Fig. 1), wherein each hydraulic pump has a pump discharge (the three rightward arrows extending from pumps 104, 106, 108 in Fig. 1) and at least one pump element (implicit) that is configured to displace hydraulic fluid through the pump discharge to generate the hydraulic pressure (Fig. 1), wherein the pump discharges are fluidly connected to form a single discharge (112; Fig. 1; “One or more of the pumps 104 may provide hydraulic fluid to one or more aircraft hydraulic systems 112”; “The plurality of pumps 104 illustrated in FIG. 1 may represent “supplementary” pumps (also referred to herein as “demand” pumps) that provide additional hydraulic fluid to the aircraft hydraulic system(s) 112 during particular time period(s) and/or operating condition(s) that represent periods of “high demand” for hydraulic fluid”; paras. 19-20) coupled to a hydraulic actuator, and wherein the hydraulic actuator is coupled to an aircraft component (“in the context of an aircraft hydraulic system, operations associated with relatively high demand for hydraulic fluid may include flap extension/retraction, landing gear retraction/extension, wing tip folding, among other alternatives” and “the pumps 104 of FIG. 1 may provide hydraulic fluid to the aircraft hydraulic system(s) 112 during flap extension/retraction, landing gear retraction/extension, wing tip folding, among other alternatives” within paras. 15 & 20 clearly imply a hydraulic actuator connected to an aircraft component to be moved); a pump controller (114; similarly, 738 in Fig. 7) and, wherein each pump discharge comprises a pressure sensor (126, 128, 130; Fig. 1) that is configured for measuring the pressure (P1, P2) of the hydraulic fluid (Fig. 1; para. 23), and the pump controller is configured to control each of the plurality of the hydraulic pump apparatuses (“different speeds”; para. 19) such that a nominal pressure (P0) (“pressure thresholds”; para. 23) is kept at each hydraulic pump while discharging the hydraulic fluid (paras. 19, 23, 38). As such, Wilson clearly discloses the well-known use of pressure-sensor-based feedback for accurately controlling multiple pumps in a hydraulic system operating hydraulic actuators of aircraft components (i.e. landing gear, wing tips, etc.; paras. 15 & 20). In other words, Wilson clearly shows that multi-pump hydraulic systems (like that of Dhindsa) are similarly known to be used in providing pressurized fluids to aircraft hydraulic actuators in an accurate manner through pressure-sensor-based feedback control methodologies. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a multi-pump hydraulic system that accurately monitors individual pressure conditions of each hydraulic pump while avoid over/under pressure conditions, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wilson in combination with those seen in Dhindsa 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 Dhindsa with Wilson’s discharge pressure sensors (128-130) and associated speed/pressure-control methodology for driving a hydraulic actuator of an aircraft component, as taught in Wilson, in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a safer and more reliable multi-pump hydraulic system that ensures pump failures from over/under pressure conditions are ultimately avoided.
In regards to Claim 2, Dhindsa makes clear that the pump controller 40 is configured to adjust the offset such that one of the at least one pump element discharges hydraulic fluid when the other of the at least one pump element draws in hydraulic fluid (col. 5, lines 21-54 and col. 9, lines 1-25 disclose the controller 40 adjusting the pump offset to achieve a 180 degree phase offset between every three pistons, and thus, an overlapping of the suction and discharge strokes).
In regards to Claim 4, Dhindsa makes clear that the hydraulic pump apparatus comprises an electric pump motor that (“d.c. motors”; col. 4, line 1) is operatively coupled to the pump controller to be controlled and that drives the hydraulic pump (col. 3, line 66 — col. 4, line 12).
In regards to Claim 5, Dhindsa further discloses a position determining unit (52, 54, 56) that is configured to determine a pump element position of each pump element (col. 3, lines 44-55), and the pump controller is configured to determine the offset based on the pump element positions of a pair of pump elements (see Claim 1 above).
In regards to Claim 6, Dhindsa further discloses that the position determining unit (52, 54, 56) comprises a position sensor that is configured to measure a quantity that is indicative of the pump element position (col. 3, lines 44-55).
In regards to Claim 8, Dhindsa further discloses that the position sensor (52, 54, 56) is disposed on the hydraulic pump, the pump element, or the electric pump motor (“Position sensors 52, 54 and 56 are respectively installed in pumps 12, 14 and 16”).
In regards to Claim 9, Dhindsa further discloses that the pump controller is configured to adjust the offset by controlling the speed of the hydraulic pump (via speed control circuits 72, 74, 76; col. 4, line 63 —col. 6, line 20).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson-Dhindsa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,664,938 to Yang.
In regards to Claim 7, Dhindsa discloses the invention of Claim 1, including clearly disclosing the use of respective position sensors (52, 54, 56) for monitoring position of the at least one pump element of the pumps (12, 14, 16), but does not further disclose that the position sensor is chosen from a group consisting of an optical position sensor, a magnetic position sensor, a resolver, an electrical power sensor, and an electrical current sensor, as claimed (Dhindsa simply does not detail any particular type of position sensor).
However, as denoted in previous office actions, Yang discloses another multi-pump system in which the pumps discharge into a single discharge while being speed controlled by a central controller, wherein optical encoders (120-124) are used to monitor position of each of the pumps in order to provide optimal pump control. Yang makes clear that optical encoders “provide enhanced resolution for very low flow rates”, and thus, can monitor pump position even at very slow speeds. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydraulic system with highly accurate position monitoring, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yang in combination with those seen in Wilson-Dhindsa 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 position sensors of Wilson-Dhindsa with the optical encoder type taught in Yang in order to obtain predictable results; those results being accurate position monitoring, even at very slow speeds.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa-Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,664,938 to Yang.
In regards to Claim 7, Dhindsa discloses the invention of Claim 1, including clearly disclosing the use of respective position sensors (52, 54, 56) for monitoring position of the at least one pump element of the pumps (12, 14, 16), but does not further disclose that the position sensor is chosen from a group consisting of an optical position sensor, a magnetic position sensor, a resolver, an electrical power sensor, and an electrical current sensor, as claimed (Dhindsa simply does not detail any particular type of position sensor).
However, as denoted in previous office actions, Yang discloses another multi-pump system in which the pumps discharge into a single discharge while being speed controlled by a central controller, wherein optical encoders (120-124) are used to monitor position of each of the pumps in order to provide optimal pump control. Yang makes clear that optical encoders “provide enhanced resolution for very low flow rates”, and thus, can monitor pump position even at very slow speeds. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydraulic system with highly accurate position monitoring, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yang in combination with those seen in Dhindsa-Wilson 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 position sensors of Dhindsa with the optical encoder type taught in Yang in order to obtain predictable results; those results being accurate position monitoring, even at very slow speeds.
Conclusion
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