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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 03/16/2026, hereinafter FOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUFENBACH WERNER PROF DR ING et al. DE 4430502 A1, hereinafter Hufenbach, in view of KEES ULRICH et al. DE 102009014813 A1, hereinafter Kees, in further view of Lindahl; Gary M. et al. US 20200010181 A1, hereinafter Lindahl, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically the argument that the modified device of Hufenbach/Kees/Lindahl fails to disclose the limitation: “wherein the front bearing, the front plate, the two or more tie rods, and the tailstock are arranged to define a traction load path from the movable rod and through the front bearing, the front plate, the two or more tie rods, and the tailstock” is not persuasive. It is not completely clear how the front bearing can be part of the ‘traction load path’ (hereinafter interpreted as a tension load path, or situation whereby the actuator is placed in tension). Typically, bearings function as an interface/guide for the movable rod (2) and are subjected to comparatively minor radial loads. However, if one were to consider the applicant’s identified structure bearing (14) as performing functions similar to that as the front plate (35), then (14) could be part of the tension load path. Stated another way, (14) is not only a linear/sliding bearing, it also performs the function of the front plate (35) by taking tensile loads applied to it by the fluid pressure within the actuator chamber.
Therefore, the tension load path would be understood to be:
-fluid pressure applies a force to (14) rightwards as depicted in applicant’s Fig. 4,
-(14) then abuts/loads rightwards upon (35),
-(35) then pulls rightwards upon nuts (depicted right) and tie rods (30) placing (30) in tension,
-(30) then pulls upon nuts (depicted let) which abut rightwards upon tailstock (25).
Applying a similar condition (actuator placed in tension) to Hufenbach, the tension load path would be:
-fluid pressure applies a force to bearing/front plate (9/6 depicted top) upwards as depicted in Fig. 1, (Hufenbach depicts the bearing and front plate as an integral piece, therefore the tensile load passes through both),
-(9/6 depicted top) then pulls upwards upon nuts (14 top) and tie rods (12) placing (12) in tension,
-(12) then pulls upon nuts (14 bottom) which abut upwards upon tailstock (6 bottom).
Therefore, Hufenbach discloses a nearly identical load path. The one difference being that the bearing and front plate are an integral piece. However, this does not affect reading upon the limitation as the tension load path still travels through the bearing and the front plate as an integral piece. Consequently, Hufenbach continues to read upon the claim and limitation.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln 2, please amend to --a ram body, [[and]] a movable rod within the ram body and an--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 3 and 8-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 Ln 2 states the limitation "one or more bearings”. It is unclear if this ‘one or more bearings’ is the same as or distinct from the front bearings stated in claim 1 Ln 13. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as -- one or more bearings comprising the front bearing between--.
Claim 8 Ln 12 states the limitation "wherein the front bearing”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which previous structure it is referring and also how the front bearing structure forms the traction load path. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as if a limitation were added similar to that of claim 1 Ln 13.
Claims 9-13 are rejected for their dependence upon claim 8.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUFENBACH WERNER PROF DR ING et al. DE 4430502 A1, hereinafter Hufenbach, in view of KEES ULRICH et al. DE 102009014813 A1, hereinafter Kees, in further view of Lindahl; Gary M. et al. US 20200010181 A1, hereinafter Lindahl. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (cylinder-end cap assemblies of fluid actuated devices); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (construction of the linear motor)). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Machine translations of Hufenbach and Kees are provided for disclosure reference callouts.
Regarding claim 1, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) an actuator assembly (1) comprising:
an actuator comprising
a ram body (4/5),
a movable rod (2/3) within the ram body;
two or more tie rods (12);
a tailstock (6, depicted bottom); and
a front plate (6, depicted top), the two or more tie rods linking the tailstock, the ram body and the front plate [0016],
wherein the ram body is formed of a first material (Claim 2 states one material for use of the control block sleeve (4) is aluminum and [0014] states another material for the control block pipe (5) is fiber-reinforced plastic); and
wherein the tailstock and the front plate are formed of a second material able to withstand more tensile stress than the first material ([0017] states one material for use of (6, 6) is steel; steel fundamentally has a higher tensile strength than that of aluminum and/or plastic)
wherein the moveable rod is supported relative to the ram body by at least a front bearing (9) [0015],
wherein the front bearing, the front plate, the two or more tie rods, and the tailstock are arranged to define a traction load path from the movable rod and through the front bearing, the front plate, the two or more tie rods, and the tailstock (as stated above, when the actuator is placed under tension, the tensile load path passes through (9 - 6 top - 14 top - 12 - 14 bottom - 6 bottom).
Hufenbach fails to explicitly state that the actuator further comprising: an actuator control block for causing movement of the movable rod, wherein the ram body is integral with the actuator control block and is made of a same material as the actuator control block, wherein the actuator control block is formed of a first material.
Lindahl discloses (Fig. 10) an actuator assembly (1000) comprising:
an actuator comprising
a ram body (500),
a movable rod (508) within the ram body and
an actuator control block (630/1002) for causing movement of the movable rod [0054], wherein the ram body is integral with the actuator control block and is made of the same material as the actuator control block ([0090] “in another example, the cylinder 500 and the manifold 1002 can be made as a single integrated housing”, also depicted as such) , wherein the actuator control block is formed of a first material (as they are disclosed/depicted as a single integrated housing, they are formed of the same material) for the purpose of “improving stiffness of the hydraulic system and improving motion control of the piston” [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Hufenbach, by forming the ram body and actuator control block integrally, as taught by Lindahl, for the purpose of improving stiffness of the hydraulic system and improving motion control of the piston.
Hufenbach further fails to explicitly state that the two or more tie rods, are formed of a second material able to withstand more tensile stress than the first material. Instead, Hufenbach is silent regarding the tie rod material.
Kees discloses (Fig. 1-2) an actuator assembly comprising:
an actuator comprising an actuator control block (3), wherein the actuator control block is formed of a first material (Pg 6 Ln 24 states plastic);
two or more tie rods (28);
a tailstock (32); and
a front plate (33);
wherein the two or more tie rods, the tailstock and the front plate are formed of a second material able to withstand more tensile stress than the first material (Pg 5 Ln 32-36 states one material for use of (28, 32 and 33) is steel; steel fundamentally has a higher tensile strength than that of aluminum and/or plastic) for the purpose of providing very high actuator strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Hufenbach, by providing the tie rods of steel material, as taught by Kees, for the purpose of providing very high actuator strength.
Regarding claim 2, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: nuts (14) to tighten the tie rods (28) [0018].
Regarding claim 3, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: one or more bearings (9, depicted surfaces that contact (4)) between the movable rod (2/3) and the ram body (4/5)) within which the movable rod moves ([0015] states the portion (9) functions as a piston rod (3) bearing, furthermore, the depicted piston surfaces that contact (4) function as bearings upon (4)).
Regarding claim 4, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) wherein the first material is aluminum (Claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the second material is steel (Hufenbach [0017], Kees Pg 5 Ln 32-36).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the second material is steel (Hufenbach [0017], Kees Pg 5 Ln 32-36).
Regarding claim 7, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: a sleeve (4) between the movable rod (2/3) and the ram body (5) within which the movable rod moves [0014].
Regarding claim 8, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) a method of making an actuator assembly comprising an actuator comprising a ram body (4/5) and movable rod (2/3) within the ram body, said method comprising:
forming the ram body of a first material (Claim 2 states one material for use of the control block sleeve (4) is aluminum and [0014] states another material for the control block pipe (5) is fiber-reinforced plastic); and
providing two or more tie rods (28) , a tailstock (6) and a front plate (6),
wherein the tailstock and the front plate are formed of a second material able to withstand more tensile stress than the first material ([0017] states one material for use of (6, 6) is steel; steel fundamentally has a higher tensile strength than that of aluminum and/or plastic), the two or more tie rods linking the tailstock, the ram body and the front plate [0016],
wherein the moveable rod is supported relative to the ram body by at least a front bearing (9) [0015],
wherein the front bearing, the front plate, the two or more tie rods, and the tailstock are arranged to define a traction load path from the movable rod and through the front bearing, the front plate, the two or more tie rods, and the tailstock (as stated above, when the actuator is placed under tension, the tensile load path passes through (9 - 6 top - 14 top - 12 - 14 bottom - 6 bottom).
Hufenbach fails to explicitly state that said method further comprising: integrally forming an actuator control block of a first material, wherein the ram body is integral in the actuator control block and is made of a same material as the actuator control block.
Lindahl discloses (Fig. 10) a method of making an actuator assembly comprising an actuator comprising a ram body (500) and movable rod (508) within the ram body, said method comprising:
integrally forming an actuator control block (630/1002) of a first material, wherein the ram body is integral in the actuator control block and is made of the same material as the actuator control block ([0090] “in another example, the cylinder 500 and the manifold 1002 can be made as a single integrated housing”, also depicted as such; as (500/1002) are disclosed/depicted as a single integrated housing, they are formed of the same material) for the purpose of “improving stiffness of the hydraulic system and improving motion control of the piston” [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Hufenbach, by forming the ram body and actuator control block integrally, as taught by Lindahl, for the purpose of improving stiffness of the hydraulic system and improving motion control of the piston.
Hufenbach further fails to explicitly state that the two or more tie rods, are formed of a second material able to withstand more tensile stress than the first material. Instead, Hufenbach is silent regarding the tie rod material.
Kees discloses (Fig. 1-2) an actuator assembly comprising:
an actuator control block (3), wherein the actuator control block is formed of a first material (Pg 6 Ln 24 states plastic);
two or more tie rods (28);
a tailstock (32); and
a front plate (33);
wherein the two or more tie rods, the tailstock and the front plate are formed of a second material able to withstand more tensile stress than the first material (Pg 5 Ln 32-36 states one material for use of (28, 32 and 33) is steel; steel fundamentally has a higher tensile strength than that of aluminum and/or plastic) for the purpose of providing very high strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Hufenbach, by providing the tie rods of steel material, as taught by Kees, for the purpose of providing very high strength.
Regarding claim 9, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: tightening the two or more tie rods (28) with a nut assembly (14) [0018].
Regarding claim 10, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: disposing one or more bearings (9, depicted piston surfaces that contact (4)) between the movable rod (2/3) and the ram body (4/5) within which the movable rod moves ([0015] states the portion (9) functions as a piston rod (3) bearing, furthermore, the depicted piston surfaces that contact (4) function as bearings upon (4)).
Regarding claim 11, Hufenbach discloses (Fig. 1-2) wherein the first material is aluminum (Claim 2).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the second material is steel (Hufenbach [0017], Kees Pg 5 Ln 32-36).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the second material is steel (Hufenbach [0017], Kees Pg 5 Ln 32-36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights