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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, applicant’s amendments remedy the U.S.C. 112 issues. The U.S.C. 112 rejections of the office action dated 04/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under U.S.C. 102 and U.S.C. 103 with the prior art as previously presented have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. See below for updated rejections.
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: “a pressure setting means for adapting a pressure setting of the motor-pump unit” in claim 1.
The nonstructural generic place holder “a pressure setting means” is coupled with the functional language of “for adapting a pressure setting of the motor-pump unit”.
The corresponding structure discussed in applicant’s specification is as follows:
Applicant’s specification recites “pressure setting means 38” which appears to point towards a control unit 26 and recites the “pressure setting means 38 can be implemented as software – especially as part of the operation computer program stored in the memory – or as hardware. In Fig. 3, a (e.g., graphical) user interface 44 is indicated as one example where an operator can manually set a pressure as wished or can choose one of several predefined pressure levels or can activate a wished mode in which the hydraulic system shall be operated, such as a flight mode, a long cruise mode, a ground service mode, or several maintenance and test modes. In some embodiments, activation of a special mode automatically leads to setting a predefined pressure adapted to this mode, e.g., as explained in more detail below.”
“a shut-off means configured to isolate one of the hydraulic consumers from the other hydraulic consumers while the isolated hydraulic consumer remains connected to the motor-pump unit.”
The nonstructural generic place hold “a shut-off means” is coupled with the functional language of “configured to isolate one of the hydraulic consumers from the other hydraulic consumers while the isolated hydraulic consumer remains connected to the motor-pump unit.”
The corresponding structure discussed in applicant’s specification is as follows:
Applicant’s specification recites “shut-off means 60 for separating individual consumers 24 or consumer groups” and applicant’s drawings show a plurality of valves forming the shut-off means.
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.
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(s) 1, 3-6, 11, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. (US 11614103), hereinafter ‘Onishi’ in view of Stratton et al. (US 6408676), hereinafter ‘Stratton’.
Onishi discloses:
1. (Currently Amended) An onboard hydraulic system for an aircraft, comprising:
a motor-pump unit (3) comprising an electric motor (34); a hydraulic pump (33) driven by the electric motor;
a hydraulic consumer (2) supplied with pressurized hydraulic fluid from the motor-pump a fluid reservoir (implicit reservoir connected to a return line);
a pressure sensor (38) for sensing pressure of the pressurized hydraulic fluid,
a control unit (9) for controlling the motor-pump unit;
a pressure setting means (9, etc.) for adapting a pressure setting of the motor-pump unit (see Fig. 5, pressure setting means is implicit disclosed with “first set pressure” and “second set pressure”; Col. 1 lines 54-67, Col. 2 lines 1-8);
wherein the control unit is configured to control the motor-pump unit in a first flight mode to supply the pressurized hydraulic fluid with a nominal system operation pressure ((see Fig. 5, “first set pressure” is a nominal system operation pressure; Col. 9-10);
Onishi does not disclose:
wherein the pressure setting means is configured to adapt the pressure setting of the motor-pump unit for ground service or maintenance and
wherein the control unit is further configured to control the motor-pump unit in a ground service, maintenance, or testing mode to supply the pressurized hydraulic fluid with a pressure different from the nominal system operation pressure and set by the pressure setting means.
However, Stratton discloses a hydraulic system in which a pump supplies pressurized fluid to a hydraulic cylinder to actuated a component similar to Onishi and therefore constitutes analogous art. Stratton discloses a relief valve testing method that causes the pump (106) to increase the pressure in the system until the relief valve (118) opens to determine the status of the relief valve by comparing the sensed relief pressure to an expected relief pressure for calibration purposes (Col. 5-6).
Since ensuring fully operational relief valves having calibrated opening pressures is beneficial for safe operation of hydraulic systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Onishi to have used have calibrated its relief valves as taught by Stratton which renders obvious having the originally disclosed pressure setting means Of Onishi configured to adapt the pressure setting of the motor-pump unit for ground service or maintenance and wherein the control unit is further configured to control the motor-pump unit in a ground service, maintenance, or testing mode to supply the pressurized hydraulic fluid with a pressure different from the nominal system operation pressure and set by the pressure setting means (operating the pump-motor of Onishi such that its relief valves 36 opens is a pressure different from the nominal system operation pressure, Onishi Col. 10 lines 52-59).
The combination of Onishi and Stratton further renders obvious:
3. (Currently Amended) The hydraulic system according to claim 1,
wherein the pressure setting means is configured to at least one or several of the following:
a) set a pressure higher than the nominal system operation pressure for testing a consumer function (Onishi Col. 10 lines 52-59 discloses the relief valve opening pressure is higher than the first and second set pressure seen in Onishi Fig. 5; therefore, when utilizing the pressure relief testing operation implemented in light of Stratton, the pressure would be set higher than the nominal system operation pressure of the first and second set pressures during a testing operation of the system);
b) set a pressure higher than the nominal system operation pressure and below a hydraulic system relief pressure in order to test an internal pressure relief valve of the hydraulic consumer connected to the motor-pump unit;
c) set a pressure lower than the nominal system operation pressure for ground service, maintenance or testing (a second set pressure as seen in Onishi Fig. 5 is capable of being used for ground service, maintenance or testing absent further limitations); and/or
d) set a pressure lower than the nominal system operation pressure during ground service and changing to nominal system operation pressure during ground service on demand of the consumer or of at least one of several of the hydraulic consumers (the system of Onishi discloses a second set pressure lower than the first set pressure which is interpreted to be the nominal system operation pressure, and this occurs during both in flight and ground operation).
4. (Currently Amended) The hydraulic system according to claim 1, further comprising a first subsystem and a second subsystem, wherein the hydraulic consumer comprises a first hydraulic consumer (21) in the first subsystem and a second hydraulic consumer (22) in the second subsystem, wherein the motor-pump unit comprises a first motor-pump unit (first unit 31 which includes a first motor-pump 33, 34) for supplying the first subsystem with pressurized fluid and a second motor-pump unit (second unit 32 which includes a second motor-pump 33, 34) for supplying the second subsystem of the hydraulic system with pressurized fluid, the first and second motor-pump units being controllable by the control unit (controller 9 controls both 31, 32 with control line seen in Fig. 2), wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the first and second motor-pump units during a flight mode such that one of the motor-pump units supplies hydraulic fluid with nominal system operation pressure and the other of the motor-pump units supplies hydraulic fluid with a different pressure set by the pressure setting means (Col. 11-12 discloses first and second pump motor being operated individually such that one can be turned off while the other operates normally which appears to meet this limitation).
5. (Original) The hydraulic system according to claim 1, wherein the motor-pump unit is chosen from the group consisting of:
a hydraulic power pack including the electric motor, the pump and the reservoir (33, 34, 81 is an electric motor, pump and reservoir),
an electric motor pump (33, 34 is an electric motor pump),
a motor-pump unit of fixed displacement type and speed-controlled motor (33, 34 is a fixed displacement electric motor pump),
a motor-pump unit with fixed motor speed and controlled variable displacement, and a motor-pump unit with controlled variable displacement and controlled motor speed.
6. (Currently Amended) A method for operating the hydraulic system according to claim 1, comprising at least one or several of the steps:
a) testing a function of the hydraulic consumer (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that testing hydraulic actuators is met by actuating the actuator during the flight at any time; absent further limitations, testing an actuator is met by using the actuator which would naturally happen during normal operation of the aircraft of Onishi);
b) operating of consumers with a flow and/or pressure that is lower than a nominal flow and nominal system operation pressure (Onishi discloses operation at a below the first set pressure which is interpreted to be the nominal system pressure, Col. 1 lines 54-67, Col. 2 lines 1-8, Col. 9-10), respectively;
c) operating of consumers with a pressure lower than the nominal system operation pressure for reducing heat load of the hydraulic system when the aircraft is on ground
11. (Currently Amended) The hydraulic system according to claim 1, wherein: the pressure setting means is part of the control unit (Onishi controller 9 sets the first and second pressure seen in Fig. 5); and/or
the control unit is configured to cause the hydraulic system to carry out the steps: a) testing a function of the hydraulic consumer (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that testing hydraulic actuators is met by actuating the actuator during the flight at any time; absent further limitations, testing an actuator is met by using the actuator which would naturally happen during normal operation of the aircraft of Onishi);
b) operating of consumers with a flow and/or pressure that is lower than a nominal flow and nominal system operation pressure (Onishi discloses operation at a below the first set pressure which is interpreted to be the nominal system pressure, Col. 1 lines 54-67, Col. 2 lines 1-8, Col. 9-10), respectively;
c) operating of consumers with a pressure lower than nominal pressure for reducing heat load of the hydraulic system when the aircraft is on ground or in a specific flight mode;
d) managing power consumption and/or power sharing between several parts of the hydraulic system (Onishi, Col. 14 discloses alternately operating the first motor-pump 31 and second motor-pump 32 which is managing power between several parts of the hydraulic system).
13. (Original) A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, is configured to perform the method of claim 6.
14. (Original) An aircraft comprising a hydraulic system according to claim 1 (Col. 5 lines 7-14).
15. (Original) An aircraft comprising a control unit according to claim 12 (see Fig. 1, Col. 5 liens 7-14).
16. (New) The hydraulic system according to claim 1, further comprising a shut-off means configured to isolate one of the hydraulic consumers from the other hydraulic consumers while the isolated hydraulic consumer remains connected to the motor-pump unit (see Fig. 1, when valve 41 is in the center position and valve 43 is in its actuated closed position, hydraulic consumer 22 is isolated from hydraulic consumer 21 while hydraulic consumer 22 remains connected to the motor-pump 3).
17. (New) The hydraulic system according to claim 1, wherein the pressure setting means is configured to adapt the pressure setting of the motor-pump unit for specific flight conditions (controller 9 sets pressure for different loads which are interpreted to be different flight conditions; Col. 1 lines 39-48); and
wherein the control unit is configured to control the motor-pump unit in a second flight mode to supply the pressurized hydraulic fluid with a pressure different to the nominal system operation pressure and set by the pressure setting means (control unit 9 controls the pressure as seen in Fig. 5, 8 to different pressures than the first set pressure).
Claim(s) 6, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. (US 11614103), hereinafter ‘Onishi’ in view of Stratton et al. (US 6408676), hereinafter ‘Stratton’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 2011/0290353), hereinafter ‘Fukui’.
Regarding claim 6, 11 and 12, the combination of Onishi and Stratton renders obvious the method of claim 1, and further renders obvious:
a) testing a function of the hydraulic consumer (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that testing hydraulic actuators is met by actuating the actuator during the flight at any time; absent further limitations, testing an actuator is met by using the actuator which would naturally happen during normal operation of the aircraft of Onishi);
b) operating of consumers with a flow and/or pressure that is lower than a nominal flow and nominal system operation pressure (Onishi discloses operation at a below the first set pressure which is interpreted to be the nominal system pressure, Col. 1 lines 54-67, Col. 2 lines 1-8, Col. 9-10), respectively;
d) managing power consumption and/or power sharing between several parts of the hydraulic system (Onishi, Col. 14 discloses alternately operating the first motor-pump 31 and second motor-pump 32 which is managing power between several parts of the hydraulic system);
but does not disclose c) operating of consumers with a pressure lower than the nominal system operation pressure for reducing heat load of the hydraulic system when the aircraft is on ground.
However, Fukui discloses an aircraft hydraulic system similar to Onishi and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Fukui discloses a hydraulic system including a motor 19 driving a pump 18 that supplies pressurized fluid to hydraulic consumers 14 on an aircraft and controlled with controllers 11b, 12, 11a, 21, etc. Fukui discloses operating of consumers with a pressure lower than the nominal system operation pressure for reducing heat load of the hydraulic system when the aircraft is on ground (paragraph [0011]).
Since reducing unwanted heat in the hydraulic system is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the system of Onishi and Stratton to have configured to controller to operate of consumers with a pressure lower than the nominal system operation pressure for reducing heat load of the hydraulic system as taught by Fukui. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this teaching applies regardless of whether the aircraft is in the air or on the ground.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 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 October 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights