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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 11/3/25 is acknowledged.
Examiner notes in the 11/3/25 reply applicant withdrew Claim 17 (directed to the non-elected invention).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in DE on 2023-10-13. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 102023128095.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed invention of
Claim 1 (please see 112 discussions below)
Claim 3 (note Claim 1, from which Claim 3 depends, requires “wherein the cylinder surfaces of the at least one hydraulic cylinder which are hydraulically connected to a constant pump are configured to be of the same size” - Fig. 2 (closest Figure) shows two cylinders but the pistons do not meet the Claim 1 recitations)
Claim 6 (please see 112 discussion below)
Claim 7
Claim 10 (“4/2-way switching valve”)
Claim 11 (“wherein the switching valve can be switched via a pressure provided by the constant pump and/or by a fluid source”)
Claim 12 (“via an external pump”)
Claim 13 (“a piston pump or vane pump”)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
The unlabeled rectangular box(es) (11, Figs. 1-4) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels; alternatively, graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate (MPEP 608.02).
Symbol 3 and associated symbol 6 are not understood, as the symbol 3 depicts a fixed displacement pump/motor while symbol 6 depicts servo-actuators for a variable displacement pump/motor (please also see 112 discussion below)
Symbol 4 (Figs. 1-4) is incompletely illustrated (center position illustration missing)
In Fig. 3, the depiction of cylinder 2 is not understood:
PNG
media_image1.png
330
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification at [00074] describes this in part as “The hydraulic cylinder 2 of Figure 3 differs from the hydraulic cylinder of the embodiment according to Figures 1 and 2 in that this hydraulic cylinder has cylinder surfaces of the same size which are forcibly coupled together mechanically and in which a synchronized situation is present.” As best understood, the volumes annotated “1” and “2” are to be the “same size” (surface areas) then. However the third volumes, annotated “3” is then not understood, as this appears to be closed at what would have been the port annotated “A”. If this port is closed, then how the piston reciprocates in the cylinder is not understood as this would seem to fluidly lock the position of the piston. Alternatively it may be that volume annotated “2” and “3” communicate but then how this equals the area of the piston for volume “1” is not understood.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The contents of Claims 1-16 are not understood (please see 112 sections below).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
i. “a switching member, wherein a switching pressure is provided via the switching valve for switching the switching member; and wherein the switching member is configured, on the basis of the switching pressure, to switch the constant pump into one of the pumping states and to provide the corresponding volume flow to the hydraulic cylinder” in Claim 1 - [0062-0066] discuss a “switching member 6” which is described like a servo-actuator for adjusting a pump’s displacement (like axial piston pump with an adjustable swashplate); however the claim requires a “constant pump” which would not have an adjustment of the pump’s displacement so the corresponding structure is unclear and thus the interpretation is unclear (please see below 112 discussion as well)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“by means of the hydraulic cylinder” in Claim 2
“by means of the switching pressure” in Claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
Applicant has provided definitions in their specification of “hydrostatic drive system” ([00010]: “The term “hydrostatic drive system” as utilized herein refers to a hydraulic drive system which is configured to generate movements and a drive force by using a pressurized fluid.”), “constant pump” ([00011]: “The term “constant pump” as utilized herein refers to a hydraulic pump which can be used in hydraulic drive systems in order to provide a constant volume flow of a fluid, irrespective of changes in the system pressure or in the loading. A constant pump can provide a predefined quantity of hydraulic fluid for each revolution and does not change its pumping volume for each revolution.”), “switching pressure” ([00012]: “The term “switching pressure” as utilized herein is a specific pressure which is provided via a switching valve in order to activate and/or switch the switching member of the constant pump. In particular, the switching pressure is the differential pressure which prevails between the two switching pistons of the switching member and is sufficient to switch the constant pump at the respective operating point from one pumping state into another pumping state, each pumping state having a corresponding volume flow.”), “synchronized situation” ([00021] states: “The term “synchronized situation” is utilized herein to mean that the piston surfaces on both sides of the hydraulic cylinder (or a plurality of hydraulic cylinders) are of the same size and/or have the same effective area and that they are coupled together mechanically or hydraulically. A synchronized situation within the meaning of the disclosure with reference to the hydraulic cylinder also means that when a volume flow is supplied to a cylinder chamber of a hydraulic cylinder in a synchronized situation, an equal volume flow is removed from the other cylinder chamber of the hydraulic cylinder in the synchronized situation”). Applicant has therefore provided their own special definitions (MPEP 2111.01 IV and 2173.01 I)
In Claim 2, “configured to...mechanically connected system” has been interpreted as the hydrostatic drive system is capable of the claimed action and not an active recitation of the presence of a “mechanically connected system”.
In Claim 3, “a second pumping medium” has been interpreted to be a second volume of fluid rather than an explicit designation of a different type of medium.
In Claim 4, “forcibly coupled” has been interpreted as meaning the forces are coupled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2181 IV states:
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim.
Claim 1 is indefinite, as the corresponding structure of the claimed “switching member” of the “switching device” is indefinite (please see 112(b) below). Accordingly, Claims 1-16 are rejected for lacking adequate written description.
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 1-16 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 limitation “a switching member, wherein a switching pressure is provided via the switching valve for switching the switching member; and wherein the switching member is configured, on the basis of the switching pressure, to switch the constant pump into one of the pumping states and to provide the corresponding volume flow to the hydraulic cylinder” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the specification, [0062-0066] discuss a “switching member 6” which is described like a servo-actuator for adjusting a pump’s displacement (like axial piston pump with an adjustable swashplate); however the claim requires a “constant pump” which would not have an adjustment of the pump’s displacement so the corresponding structure is unclear and thus the interpretation is unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites in part “the constant pump for pumping a volume flow, wherein the constant pump is configured to provide at least two and at most three pumping states for pumping the volume flow as a corresponding volume flow; a switching device with a switching valve and a switching member, wherein a switching pressure is provided via the switching valve for switching the switching member; and wherein the switching member is configured, on the basis of the switching pressure, to switch the constant pump into one of the pumping states and to provide the corresponding volume flow to the hydraulic cylinder”. This is indefinite. Applicant has claimed a “constant pump” but has simultaneously claimed “wherein the constant pump is configured to provide at least two and at most three pumping states for pumping the volume flow as a corresponding volume flow; a switching device with a switching valve and a switching member, wherein a switching pressure is provided via the switching valve for switching the switching member; and wherein the switching member is configured, on the basis of the switching pressure, to switch the constant pump into one of the pumping states and to provide the corresponding volume flow to the hydraulic cylinder”. The structure being claimed is indefinite. What is being “switched” if the pump is constant displacement is not understood. Contrast with example US 7076946 discussing the angle of a swashplate of a pump/motor being varied (ex. Col. 1, line 50-Col. 2, line 32, Col. 5, line 59-Col. 6, line 5, Col. 8, line 21-Col. 10, line 14); this is an example variable displacement pump/motor as the angle of the swashplate is varied thereby varying the volume of the pump/motor in operation. While applicant appears to be describing a variable displacement pump/motor in some parts of the specification (ex. [0014, 0026, 0062-0066]) and in the drawings with the symbols used (as best understood, see drawing objection above), the claimed “constant pump” is at odds with this understanding. If there are plural states that switched, then the pump does not appear to be a constant pump, even as defined by applicant’s special definition. The claimed invention is not understood as a result. There may be further 112 issues.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the at least two states of the constant pump include a maximum positive volume flow Qmax+, and a maximum negative volume flow Qmax -“. This is indefinite. Claim 1 has claimed a “constant pump”. A constant pump having plural states is not understood. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the third pumping state forces a no-load volume flow Qo for the hydraulic cylinder”. This is indefinite. As best understood, the “third pumping state” is with respect to the pump, not the hydraulic cylinder; the claim is unclear what structure “forces” the “cylinder” to achieve the claim language. The metes and bounds of the claim language are indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the switching device is connected via fluid lines to the hydraulic cylinder or the hydraulic cylinder is configured with the switching device as a unit.” This is indefinite, as the metes and bounds of “unit” are not understood; examiner also notes “unit” can sometimes be a generic placeholder for “means” (MPEP 2181 I A).
Claim 9 recites “wherein a transfer between the maximum positive volume flow Qmax+ and the maximum negative volume flow Qmax - can be provided by means of the switching pressure”. This is indefinite. Claim 1 has established a “constant pump”, the different volume flows in Claim 9 are not understood. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “an electric machine, preferably an asynchronous machine.” This is indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(d) states
Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.
In Claim 14 the presence of “preferably” raises the question of whether “asynchronous machine” is a preference or a requirement of the claimed invention. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Conclusion
In view of the above noted 112 rejections and the compounding nature of these rejections, a determination of applicability of prior art to the claims could not be determined at this time. The claimed structure is indefinite and not understood (MPEP 2173.06 II states “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970).” and “Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art”). The absence of an art rejection is not an indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11808158 teaches elements of the instant invention including a pump with (and without, depending on embodiment) constant displacement, a switching valve, a safety valve, a pressure limiting valve, and at least one check valve.
US 11015620 teaches elements of the instant invention including a pump with a switching valve, a safety valve, a pressure limiting valve, and at least one check valve.
US 8833067 teaches elements of the instant invention including a pump with a switching valve, a safety valve, a pressure limiting valve, and at least one check valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745