DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 August 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not within the range of 50-150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 5-6 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 5 recites the limitation "the operation section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kharpas (U.S. Patent 10,711,771).
Regarding claim 1, Kharpas discloses a hydraulic valve unit, comprising:
a valve block 128;
an oil passage (174-133) disposed in the valve block;
a spool 130 configured to adjust a flow rate of hydraulic oil flowing through the oil passage;
a solenoid 114 configured to move the spool in such a direction as to open and close the oil passage in response to a control current applied to the solenoid;
a biasing spring 118 biasing the spool in such a direction as to return the spool to an initial position thereof, and
at least one initial pressure adjustment mechanism (136/120/139) configured to adjust a biasing force of the biasing spring,
wherein the at least one initial pressure adjustment mechanism includes:
a spring bearing 136 configured to receive the biasing force of the biasing spring; and
an operating body 139 including an operation input portion (wider diameter section of 139 at D2 in FIG. 6) operable from outside the valve block and an operation output portion (smaller diameter section of 139) located inside the valve block and in contact with the spring bearing member, and
the at least one initial pressure adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust the biasing force in response to the operation input portion being operated to move the spring bearing in first directions in which the spool moves (FIG. 4, 6, 7; Col. 6 ln 29-Col. 9 ln 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kharpas discloses the valve block includes a first port 174 disposed at an upstream portion of the oil passage, a second port 133 disposed at a downstream portion of the oil passage, and a guide tube 170 configured to guide hydraulic oil flowing in from the first port towards the second port, and
the guide tube is fixed to the valve block at a position where the guide tube fits over the spring bearing member FIG. 6; Col. 7 ln 62-Col. 8 ln 7).
Regarding claim 9, Kharpas discloses a work machine 100 comprising the hydraulic valve unit according to claim 1 (FIG. 1, 4, 6, 7; Col. 6 ln 29-Col. 9 ln 2).
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharpas in view of Kroneis (U.S. Patent 11,215,172).
Regarding claim 2, Kharpas discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Kharpas further discloses the valve block includes an operating body mounting hole (116 at 144 in FIG. 6) in which the operating body is mountable in such a manner as to be movable forward and backward, and the spring bearing member moves in a direction along the moving direction of the spool in response to the operating body being moved in the direction in which the operating body is movable forward and backward (FIG. 6-7).
Kharpas is silent regarding the operating body is positioned such that the movement occurs oblique to the movement of the spool.
However, Kroneis teaches a valve block 10, an operating body 40 wherein the operating body is mountable in such a manner as to be movable forward and backward in directions oblique to the moving direction of the spool 13 (FIG. 1)
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an oblique connection for the operating body because Applicant has not disclosed that such a connection angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the operating body of Kharpas, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well because both operating bodies perform the same function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kharpas by positioning the operating body such that the movement occurs oblique to the movement of the spool, as taught by Kroneis, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Kharpas.
Regarding claim 3, Kharpas discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Kharpas further discloses the spring bearing member includes a tubular portion (portion of 136 surrounding the longitudinal portion of spring 118) fitted around the biasing spring outward of the spool, and a contact surface (portion of 136 contacting 120) that is flange-shaped and protrudes radially outward from the tubular portion, and the operating body is disposed so that the operation output portion is in contact with the contact surface (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Kharpas discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Kharpas further discloses in the operating body, the operation input portion is disposed at a first one end portion of the operation section, and the operation output portion is disposed at a second end of the operation section, and the operation section includes a male threaded portion (exterior of the smaller diameter section of 139 interacts with a locking nut 144 by way of threading) between the operation input portion and the operation output portion, and the operating body mounting hole has a female threaded portion configured to threadedly receive the male threaded portion, and the spring bearing member moves in a direction along the movement direction of the spool in response to a change in a screwing amount by which the operating body is screwed into the operating body mounting hole (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Kharpas discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 5.
Kharpas further discloses the operation section further includes: an outer circumferential threaded portion (exterior of the smaller diameter section of 139 interacts with a locking nut 144 by way of threading) for preventing rotation of the operation section is formed on an outer circumference of the one end portion, separate from the operation input portion, and a locking nut 144 mounted on the outer circumferential threaded portion and operable from outside the valve block (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Kharpas discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3.
Kharpas/Kroneis further discloses the contact surface is a flat surface (FIG. 6) that is substantially orthogonal (pursuant to the modification of claim 2 by Kroneis) to the moving direction of the spool, and
the operation output portion is in contact with a portion of the contact surface which portion changes in response to the operating body being moved in the direction in which the operating body is movable forward and backward (FIG. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious a return oil passage extending from the output port to the tank port, a second spool configured to adjust a flow rate of hydraulic oil flowing through the return oil passage, a second solenoid configured to, based on a control current applied to the second solenoid, operate the second spool in such a direction as to open and close the return oil passage, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diebold (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0137955) discloses a valve similar to the one disclosed in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights