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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “characterized in that it comprises” It is unclear what “it” refers to. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the claims rejected in detail above. The claims rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite will be examined as best understood under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and as per MPEP 2173.06 I interpretations of the indefinite limitations will be provided as mappings to the disclosure of the prior art as indicated in the prior art rejections 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: control unit.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahle DE 102015226823 A1 in view of Sun CN 110411403 A.
Vahle discloses:
1. (Original) A volumetric variable displacement machine interacting with an operating fluid, said machine being a motor with axial pistons or a pump with axial pistons (see e.g. 0018) and comprising: i) means interacting with the operating fluid (see e.g. pistons in 0019); ii) a housing casing housing means interacting with the operating fluid (see e.g. cylinder drum in 0019); iii) actuating means for regulating a displacement of the machine (see e.g. “The pivoting cradle 4 is adjustable via at least one pivoting device. The adjustment is effected by means of adjusting pistons.” in 0019); iv) a control unit for controlling the actuating means (see e.g. 0021); v) a detection sensor (5) for detecting a parameter associated with the adopted displacement of the machine and operationally connected to the control unit (see e.g. 0021); characterized in that it comprises a protective casing (outer casing of 5); ); said detection sensor being placed inside the protective casing (outer casing of 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vahle does not disclose protecting the control unit (5) that is integrated into or constrained physically on said housing casing (3).
Sun discloses a pump device 300 having an integrated angle sensor 100 and a control unit [see e.g. “The outer casing 21 and the cover 22 are also provided with an electronic control circuit board. (Not shown in the figure, which is used to control the automobile oil pump), the electronic control circuit board is electrically connected to the angle sensor circuit board 12 to acquire the detection signal of the angle sensor.” in 0039] in a casing (21, 22, 23).
Additionally, MPEP 2144.04 V.I. C. makes it clear that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify operation of the pump is held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, a mere change in location of the controller of Vahle without any change in operation of the pump is an obvious modification [see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Additionally, it has been held that integration of parts such as integrating a controller and a sensor is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V. B.) (see also, In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1954)).
Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to integrate the pump controller and the sensor in a housing as taught by Sun in the system of Vahle to gain the benefit of reducing the number of parts in the system.
Vahle as modified above discloses (references to Vahle unless noted otherwise):
2. (Original) The machine according to claim 1, characterized in that said axial piston motor or said axial piston pump in turn comprises: a plurality of pistons that are movable forwards and backwards along a common movement direction and are rotatable around an axis of rotation parallel to the movement direction (see e.g. 0019); a structure with variable tilt relative to the axis of rotation (see swashplate throughout including 0019) for regulating a stroke of the pistons and thus of the displacement of the machine; the actuating means acting on said structure with a variable tilt to regulate the displacement of the machine (see e.g. “The pivoting cradle 4 is adjustable via at least one pivoting device. The adjustment is effected by means of adjusting pistons.” in 0019).
3. (Original) The machine according to claim 2, characterized in that said protective casing and/or said sensor (5) are/is intersected by a straight line (10) around which said structure with a variable tilt is tiltable to vary the displacement (See e.g. “Furthermore, the sensor 5 is arranged coaxially to the pivot axis 10 of the swashplate machine 1 in the recess 12.” in 0021).
4. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 2 or 3, characterized in that the detection sensor comprises/is an angular sensor that detects a variation of the tilt of the structure with a variable tilt relative to the axis of rotation (see “sensor unit 3 for determining a swivel angle of the swivel cradle” in 0018).
Regarding claim 6, the federal circuit held that, where the only difference between theprior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device anda device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than theprior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert,denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP §2144.04. The claimed dimension of less than 10 mm would be an obvious would not perform any difference that Vahle as modified above as Vahle already provides guidance in 0023 Vahle discloses the wall thickness of the pump housing and thus the distance between the sensor and the magnet is a known design variable “selected such that the sensor 5 can detect the magnet 26 so that the pivot angle of the pivoting cradle 4 can be determined” which means the distance between the magnet and the sensor is a known design variable which is selected to allow the sensor to detect the magnet as is therefore obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (G) given the predictable result of ensuring the magnet is detected by the sensor. Thus, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious position the detection sensor less than 10 millimeters from said magnet in the system of Vahle as modified above to gain the benefit of ensuring the magnet can be detected by the sensor as taught by Vahle.
7. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 1, characterized in that one part of said housing casing (2) placed at the detection sensor (5) and/or said protective casing are not/is not ferromagnetic (see e.g. 0020).
8. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 1, characterized in that said protective casing is outside the housing casing and flanged thereupon (see e.g. Fig 1).
9. (Currently Amended) The machine according to claim 1, characterized in that a wall integrated into said housing casing (portion of 2 between 5 and 26) or into said protective casing separates physically: a zone bounded by the housing casing; and said detection sensor (see Fig 1 and 0021).
10. (Original) The machine according to claim 9, characterized in that said wall has a thinned thickness at said detection sensor relative to surrounding zones (see e.g. Fig 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahle DE 102015226823 A1 in view of Sun CN 110411403 A in further view of Howind US 20140130661.
Regarding claim 5, Vahle as modified above discloses characterized in that the angular sensor interacts remotely with a magnet that is solidly constrained to said structure with a variable tilt to comprise the degree of tilt of the structure with a variable tilt relative to the rotation axis (see Fig 1 and 0021-0022). Vahle as modified above does not specify the type of sensor use to detect the movement of the magnet and thus does not disclose a Hall effect sensor. Hall effect sensors are known in the art which is confirmed by the fact that applicant specifies the sensor by name only with no disclosure of the workings thereof. As per MPEP 2143 I (B), a simple substitution of one magnet sensor for another with the predictable result of sensing a magnet has been held obvious. For example, Howind discloses a Hall sensor 90 for detecting the angle of a swashplate cradle via magnet (see e.g. 0035). Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a Hall sensor as taught by Howind as a simple substitution for the sensor of Vahle as modified above to gain the benefit of utilizing a known sensor for detecting the angle of a swashplate.
Conclusion
See form PTO-892 for additional prior art made of record but not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights