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 Amendment/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 12/31/25. Amended Claims 1, 3-14, 19 are pending.
Applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
178
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner notes the previous office action did not indicate allowable subject matter. The absence of an art rejection is not an indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding the previous drawing objections, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image2.png
216
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claimed invention continues to not be illustrated. The disagreement between the drawings and the claim language continues to raise questions as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding the previous claim objections, these have been overcome by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image3.png
1470
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s annotated drawing is not persuasive, as applicant’s annotated “working chamber” is not in agreement with the claim language. The claimed subject matter is not shown. Applicant’s own selected figure with annotations to highlight the issue:
PNG
media_image4.png
420
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The drawing shows two working chambers (annotated “1” and “2”) opposite the spring 39, one connected to pilot line 40 and one connected to pilot line 41. The claim requires both pilot lines 40 and 41 be attached to the same working chamber, which is not shown. The disagreement between the claimed subject matter and the disclosed subject matter continues to be present in the claims.
Regarding Claim 8, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image5.png
78
676
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Claim 8 continues to raise issues regarding indefiniteness.
Applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image6.png
718
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Claim 10 for example requires “wherein the pressure supply line is connected to the pressure line and the working line via parallel branches”. Annotating applicant’s Fig. 6 gives the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
528
1266
media_image7.png
Greyscale
There are two branches, annotated Branch A from pressure line 65 and Branch B from working line 54, to the pressure supply line 66. These are not in parallel, whereas the claim requires parallel branches to both the working and the pressure line, thereby requiring four total branches. The same analysis applies to Claim 12 as well, except for the pressure reduction line instead of pressure supply line.
Applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image8.png
96
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Examiner notes Claim 14 has been amended to include method steps.
Regarding the previously applied prior art of Swagten and Lucas, Lucas has been overcome by the amendments to Claim 1. Regarding Swagten, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image9.png
214
716
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites in part “at least one directional control valve connected to a pressure line and a working line of the hydraulic consumer and including a hydraulic control line structured to transfer the at least one directional control valve to a first position” and Swagten continues to meet this claim language as annotated below:
PNG
media_image10.png
234
639
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
276
822
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., some further language not currently present in the claims that more particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 Claim 3, 8, 9, 10, and 12 limitations (please see 112(b) section below) 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.
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.
Examiner notes on Claim Interpretation:
In Claim 10, “wherein the pressure supply line is connected to the pressure line and the working line via parallel branches” requires four branches, two branches for the pressure line (to be in parallel to each other) and two branches for the working line (to be in parallel to each other).
In Claim 12, “wherein the pressure reduction line is connected to the pressure line and the working line via parallel branches” requires four branches, two branches for the pressure line (to be in parallel to each other) and two branches for the working line (to be in parallel to each other).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 8-10, 12-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites in part “wherein the at least one directional control valve...includes two pilot control lines connected to a working chamber opposite the spring”. This is indefinite. This is not shown in applicant’s drawings Fig. 5 and 6. Also, if both pilot control lines (for example, both pilot control lines 40 and 41) are connected to the same working chamber, then the two pilot control lines are connected to one another and therefore each line would be at the same pressure as no other valves are present in the pilot control lines. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 8 recites in part “wherein the at least one directional control valve includes a first directional control valve and a second directional control valve, which are each respectively connected to first and second pressure lines and first and second working lines of the hydraulic consumer, the hydraulic control lines of the first directional control valve and the second directional control valve being connected to one another in such a way that the hydraulic control lines pilot the first directional control valve and the second directional control valve into the closed position when the hydraulic control lines are pressurized.”. This is indefinite. Claim 8 depends from Claim 1. Claim 1 already introduces “a pressure line” and “a working line”. Now Claim 8 appears to be introducing two “pressure line” and two “working lines” in addition to those introduced in Claim 1. This is not understood, as the drawings do not appear to depict the claimed structure. Further, there is indefiniteness of the “hydraulic control lines” (plural) in Claim 8 having characteristics of the “hydraulic control line” (singular) in Claim 1. There may be drawing, specification, and/or 112(a) issues. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the valve arrangement includes a shuttle valve with a first blockable inflow and a second blockable inflow and with an outflow, the first blockable inflow of the shuttle valve being connected to a first pressure line of the first directional control valve, the second blockable inflow of the shuttle valve is connected to a second pressure line of the second directional control valve and the outflow of the shuttle valve is connected to the pressure supply line; and the shuttle valve is structured such that the pressure line with a highest pressure is capable of being connected to the pressure supply line.” This is indefinite. Claim 9 depends from Claim 8 which depends from Claim 1. Claim 9 reciting “a first pressure line” and “a second pressure line” appears to be adding structure beyond that of Claim 8, which itself appears to be adding structure beyond that of Claim 1 with the same naming. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the pressure supply line is connected to the pressure line and the working line via parallel branches”. This is indefinite. The claimed invention and disclosed invention are not in agreement. The drawings show in Fig. 6 “branches” with non-return valves 71, 72; these are not shown in agreement with the presented claim language.
PNG
media_image12.png
428
461
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The two branches with non-return valves 72 are connected on opposite sides of the directional control valve 64, one from working line and one from pressure line. The two branches with non-return valves 71 are connected on opposite sides of the directional control valve 64, one from working line and one from pressure line. The two branches with non-return valves 71 are connected to the pressure supply line 66. There are not two branches from the pressure line to the pressure supply line in parallel, nor are there two branches from the working line to the pressure supply line in parallel.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the working lines" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the pressure lines" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites in part “wherein the pressure reduction line is connected to the pressure line and the working line via parallel branches”. This is indefinite. The claimed invention and disclosed invention are not in agreement. The drawings show in Fig. 6 “branches” with non-return valves 71, 72; these are not shown in agreement with the presented claim language.
PNG
media_image12.png
428
461
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The two branches with non-return valves 72 are connected on opposite sides of the directional control valve 64, one from working line and one from pressure line. The two branches with non-return valves 71 are connected on opposite sides of the directional control valve 64, one from working line and one from pressure line. The two branches with non-return valves 72 are connected to the pressure reduction line 62. There are not two branches from the pressure line to the pressure supply line in parallel, nor are there two branches from the working line to the pressure supply line in parallel.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swagten et al. (US 10400905).
Regarding Claim 1,
A valve arrangement for a mobile working machine with a hydraulic consumer, the valve arrangement comprising:
at least one directional control valve (8 or 40, in Figs. 1 and 2) connected to a pressure line (ex. line to 6) and a working line (line to 4) of the hydraulic consumer (4) and including a hydraulic control line (In Fig. 1: line to one of 34, 30, 32; in Fig. 2: line from 30 to 40 or line from 32 to 8) structured to transfer the at least one directional control valve to a first position;
a pilot valve (in Fig. 1: 34 or 30 or 32; in Fig. 2: 30 or 32) connected to the hydraulic control line;
a pressure supply line (as annotated); and
a pressure reduction line (as annotated); wherein
the pilot valve is structured to connect the hydraulic control line alternatingly to the pressure supply line and the pressure reduction line (Figs. 1 and 2); and
wherein the first position of the at least one directional control valve is a closed position in which flow is blocked in both inlet and outlet directions of the at least one directional control valve (Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image13.png
431
850
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
The valve arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the pilot valve is a 3/2-way valve (30, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5,
The valve arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the pilot valve is electrically actuatable (30, 32, or 42 in Fig. 1; 32 in Fig. 2) and, in a rest position, connects the pressure supply line to the hydraulic control line and, in an actuated position, connects the hydraulic control line to the pressure reduction line.
Regarding Claim 6,
The valve arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the pilot valve is electrically actuatable (30, 32, or 42 in Fig. 1; 32 in Fig. 2) in an operating position and is structured to be de-energized by an emergency stop switch.
Examiner note: The claim is interpreted in accordance with the limitations presented. That is, the required structure of the language “is structured to be” is met as the valves are controlled by electronic controllers (36, 38).
Regarding Claim 11,
The valve arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the pressure reduction line is a tank line which can be connected to a tank (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 14,
A method of using a valve arrangement in a mobile working machine (“drilling vessel”) including a working line of a hydraulic consumer, comprising:
providing the valve arrangement, the valve arrangement including:
at least one directional control valve (8 or 40, in Figs. 1 and 2) connected to a pressure line (ex. line to 6) and a working line (line to 4) of the hydraulic consumer and including a hydraulic control line (in Fig. 1: line to one of 34, 30, 32; in Fig. 2: line from 30 to 40 or line from 32 to 8) structured to transfer the at least one directional control valve to a first position;
a pilot valve (in Fig. 1: 34 or 30 or 32; in Fig. 2: 30 or 32) connected to the hydraulic control line;
a pressure supply line (example annotation below); and
a pressure reduction line (example annotation below); and
shutting off the working line when a leakage occurs in the working line to reduce or prevent hydraulic oil from escaping from a leakage point (ex. Col. 3, lines 28-38),
the pilot valve is structured to connect the hydraulic control line alternatingly to the pressure supply line and the pressure reduction line (Figs. 1 and 2); and
the first position of the at least one directional control valve is a closed position in which flow is blocked in both inlet and outlet directions of the at least one directional control valve (Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image13.png
431
850
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19,
The valve arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the at least one directional control valve is also movable to a second position (other of two positions of 8, 40) in which flow is free to move in both the inlet and outlet directions of the at least one directional control valve.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swagten in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 10837473).
Regarding Claim 7, Swagten teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the emergency stop switch is in a working cabin of the working machine so as to be manually actuatable.
Swagten discloses closing the valve in case of failures and emergencies (ex. Col. 1, lines 30-54, Col. 3, lines 28-47). Swagten discloses an interface for an operator (ex. Col. 10, lines 49-62).
Kawabuchi teaches
For a valve arrangement,
wherein the emergency stop switch (80, ex. Figs. 1 and 5) is in a working cabin of the working machine so as to be manually actuatable.
From Col. 5, lines 44-50:
That is, the emergency operation activation switch 80 is used by an operator in a case where the controller 43 cannot control the electromagnetic proportional valve 44. The emergency operation activation switch 80 is disposed in the cab 73. The emergency operation activation switch 80 is disposed on a front operation panel of the cab 73 so as to be easily operated.
Since both references are directed to valve arrangements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve arrangement of Swagten to include an emergency stop switch as taught by Kawabuchi in order to provide an operator control over the valve when the controller cannot during an emergency. Being able to close the valve(s) to achieve a safe state (“remain closed” - Col. 10, line 60) if the controller malfunctions during an emergency increases safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Breuning teaches elements of the claimed invention including a valve arrangement.
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 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