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 filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments addresses some but not all of the U.S.C. 112(b) issues discussed in the previous office action dated 09/02/2025. In particular, the issue of claiming two different embodiments within the same dependent claim causes clarity issues.
See updated rejections below.
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 1-11 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Applicant's claims attempt to claim different embodiments in the same claim, which makes the language confusing and ambiguous.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mode selection" in line 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 14-15 “the mode selection” should read --the operational mode-- to explicitly refer back to the previously established limitation using the same terminology.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the received action commands" in line 17-18 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 17-18 “the received action commands” should read --the action signals-- to explicitly refer back to the previously established limitation using the same terminology.
Claim 2 recites "when only one single said first hydraulic actuator exists" and "when a plurality of the first hydraulic actuators exist", and recites different structures for each scenario. The further dependent claims further complicate the issue when establishing new structures, it becomes unclear whether it refers to a previously established structure or is a new structure, and to which scenario is applicable.
Each embodiment should be a separate dependent claim with its own claim dependencies to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 3 recites "a second pressure compensator" and "a first pressure compensator" with the "wherein when only the single said first hydraulic actuator exists" in lines 2-3, and line 5, and claim 3 then recites "a second pressure compensator" and "a corresponding first pressure compensator" within the "when the plurality of the first hydraulic actuators exist" in line 22-24, etc..
It becomes ambiguous whether the first and second pressure compensators are the same or different between the two embodiments. The embodiment having only one actuator should be separated from the embodiment having a plurality of actuators in different dependent claims.
Claim 6 recites "the corresponding first control valve" in line 2-3. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this recitation. It is unclear what is the "corresponding" first control valve because claim 1 does not recite a "corresponding first control valve".
Claim 6 recites "the corresponding second control valve" and "the corresponding second hydraulic actuator" in lines 7-9. Claim 1 does not use the term "corresponding", it is unclear what these structures are referring to.
The claims should be revised so that multiple embodiments are not mixed within one claim so that U.S.C. 112 issues do not occur. For example, when reciting "the second pressure compensator", this becomes confusing because while the claim previously recited "a second pressure compensator", this was in the context of an embodiment with only one first hydraulic actuator.
All limitations directed towards the embodiment seen in Fig. 9 with a plurality of hydraulic actuators should not be combined in the same dependent claim as the embodiment seen in Fig. 1.
All of the claims should be revised to clarity and for proper antecedent basis when reciting structures.
The dependent claims are indefinite at least because they depend form an indefinite base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious a hybrid electro-hydraulic load sensing system including the combination of structures as recited in claim 1.
The dependent claims are allowable because they depend form allowable claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 March 6, 2026