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 Objections
Claims 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14 line 1, “at user” would be clearer if written as --at a user--.
In claim 20 line 5 “and the high-flow piston” would be clearer if written as --and the high-pressure piston--.
In claim 20 line 7 “and from the high-flow piston” would be clearer if written as --and from the high-pressure piston--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
In claim 4 lines 1-2, it is unclear what is meant by “closing a valve that is positioned between the unloading valve and the tank to block the first flow path from the work port.” The Examiner notes that in further interpreting the claims, it is assumed that what is meant is --opening the unloading valve positioned between the high-flow piston and the tank to block the first flow path from the work port--. The Examiner notes that no other valve is disclosed between the unloading valve and the tank as originally written.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0154761 to Lefavour in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0070428 to Heusser.
Referring to claim 1, Lefavour teaches a method of operating a hydraulic piston pump (16) to provide fluid to a hydraulic tool (14) to perform a work operation on a workpiece (the electrical connector) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]), the method comprising:
determining an end of the work operation based on a second threshold pressure (the pressure which cause the poppet valve 62 to open) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]).
Lefavour teaches a single piston pump 16 (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), instead of separate high flow and a high pressure pumps. Heusser teaches a method comprising:
operating a high-flow pump (P3) to supply fluid from a tank (T) to a work port (port on 3 which receives line 10) via a first flow path; operating a high-pressure pump (P1) to supply fluid from the tank (T) to the work port via a second flow path; actuating an unloading valve (12) to selectively couple the first flow path and the second flow path based on a first threshold pressure (Fig. 2; annotated below; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
[AltContent: textbox (Pilot Line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Work Port)][AltContent: textbox (First Flow Path)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Flow Path)]
PNG
media_image1.png
500
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Heusser Figure 2.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the two pump arrangement taught by Heusser (by using two piston pumps and the unloading valve of Heusser instead of the one piston pump taught by Lefavour) in order to use a pumping system that provides both high flow and high pressure without overloading the drive motor, and since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the dual pump arrangement of Heusser, for another, the single pump arrangement of Lefavour, to obtain predictable results, pump hydraulic fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 2, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Lefavour teaches a single piston pump. Heusser further teaches a method wherein:
first threshold pressure (provided via the pilot line) is a pressure of the fluid in the second flow path (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
Referring to claim 3, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but Lefavour teaches a single piston pump. Heusser further teaches a method wherein:
actuating the unloading valve (12) includes: moving a control element (in 12) to a first position that couples the first flow path to the work port when the pressure of the fluid in the second flow path (sensed via the pilot line) is below the first threshold pressure; and moving the control element to a second position that blocks the first flow path (by connecting it to the tank which causes valve 11 to close) from the work port when the pressure of the fluid in the second flow path is above the first threshold pressure (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
Referring to claim 4, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but Lefavour teaches a single piston pump. Heusser further teaches a method comprising:
opening the unloading valve (12) positioned between the high-flow pump (P3) and the tank (T) to block the first flow path from the work port (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
Referring to claim 5, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but Lefavour teaches a single piston pump. Heusser further teaches a method comprising:
coupling both the first flow path and the second flow path to the work port when the control element (in 12) is in the first position, and coupling the high-flow piston to the tank (T) when the control element (in 12) is in the second position (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
Referring to claim 6, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 5, as detailed above, but Lefavour teaches a single piston pump. Heusser further teaches a method wherein:
the high-flow pump (P3) is coupled to the tank (T) by the unloading valve (12) (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
Referring to claim 7, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Lefavour teaches a single piston pump. Heusser further teaches a method comprising:
rotating a motor (M) in a first rotational direction to operate each of the high-flow pump (P3) and the high-pressure pump (P1) (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0027], [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
Referring to claim 10, Lefavour teaches a method of operating a hydraulic piston pump (16) to provide fluid to a hydraulic tool (14) to perform a work operation on a workpiece (the electrical connector) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]), the method comprising:
draining fluid from a work port (on 26) when a second pressure exceeds a second threshold pressure corresponding to an end to the operation (the pressure which cause the poppet valve 62 to open) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]).
Lefavour teaches a single piston pump 16 (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), instead of separate high flow and a high pressure pumps. Heusser teaches a method comprising:
supplying fluid (via high-flow pump P3) to a work port via a first flow path at a first flow rate and a first pressure; supplying fluid (a high-pressure pump P1) to the work port via a second flow path at a second flow rate and a second pressure; actuating an unloading valve (12) to inhibit fluid from flowing along the first flow path to the work port when the second pressure exceeds a first threshold pressure (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the two pump arrangement taught by Heusser (by using two piston pumps and the unloading valve of Heusser instead of the one piston pump taught by Lefavour) in order to use a pumping system that provides both high flow and high pressure without overloading the drive motor, and since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the dual pump arrangement of Heusser, for another, the single pump arrangement of Lefavour, to obtain predictable results, pump hydraulic fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 11, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 10, as detailed above, but Lefavour teaches a single piston pump. Heusser further teaches a method wherein:
fluid is supplied to the work port via both the first flow path and the second flow path when the second pressure is below the first threshold pressure (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
Claims 8, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0154761 to Lefavour in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0070428 to Heusser and U. S. Patent 6,863,502 to Bishop.
Referring to claim 8, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and Lefavour further teaches determining an end of the work operation to operate a valve (62) and connect the work port to a tank (22) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]). Lefavour and Heusser are silent as to the rotation directions of the pumps. Bishop teaches a method comprising:
rotating a motor (9) in a second rotational direction (retract mode) that is opposite a first rotational direction (advance mode) upon determining an end of the work operation (Figures 1, 2, 6, col. 4 line 44 - col. 6 line 5).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the reverse rotation taught by Heusser in order to relieve pressure at the work port and in the tool.
Referring to claim 9, Lefavour, Heusser and Bishop teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 8, as detailed above, and Lefavour further teaches a method comprising:
selecting a mode of operation (crimping); and setting the second threshold pressure (“8000-11,000 psi”) based on the mode of operation (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]).
Referring to claim 20, Lefavour teaches a method of operating a hydraulic piston pump (16) to provide fluid to a hydraulic tool (14) to perform a work operation on a workpiece (the electrical connector) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]), the method comprising:
operating a motor (18) in first rotation direction to actuate a piston pump (16); supplying hydraulic fluid from the piston pump (16) to a work port (on 26); and setting a second threshold pressure (the pressure which cause the poppet valve 62 to open) based on a work mode (crimping) of the hydraulic tool (14) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]).
Lefavour teaches a single piston pump 16 (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), instead of separate high flow and a high pressure pumps. Heusser teaches a method comprising:
operating a motor (M) in a first direction to actuate a high-flow pump (P3) and a high-pressure pump (P1); supplying hydraulic fluid from each of the high-flow pump (P3) and the high-pressure pump (P1) to a work port when a pressure at the work port (measured via the pilot line) is below a first threshold pressure; and supplying hydraulic fluid from the high-flow pump (P3) to a tank (T) (via 12) and from the high-pressure pump (P1) to the work port when a pressure at the work port (measured via the pilot line) is above the first threshold pressure (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the two pump arrangement taught by Heusser (by using two piston pumps and the unloading valve of Heusser instead of the one piston pump taught by Lefavour) in order to use a pumping system that provides both high flow and high pressure without overloading the drive motor, and since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the dual pump arrangement of Heusser, for another, the single pump arrangement of Lefavour, to obtain predictable results, pump hydraulic fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Lefavour and Heusser are silent as to the rotation directions of the pumps. Bishop teaches a method comprising:
operating the motor (9) in a second direction (retract mode) to drain a work port to a tank (11) when pressure at the work port reaches a second threshold pressure (Figures 1, 2, 6, col. 4 line 44 - col. 6 line 5).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the reverse rotation taught by Heusser in order to relieve pressure at the work port and in the tool.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0154761 to Lefavour in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0070428 to Heusser and U. S. Patent 6,939,109 to Takahashi.
Referring to claim 12, Lefavour and Heusser teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 10, as detailed above, but do not teach setting the second threshold based on a user input. Takahashi teaches a method comprising:
setting a second threshold pressure based on a user input (col. 7 line 1 - col. 8 line 59, wherein remote communication means 24 is used to change the settings of parameters required for operation).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the setting of the second threshold pressure taught by Takahashi in order to use a pump control system that allows for remote control “that can save labor and manpower for adjustment.” Takahashi col. 7 lines 25-28.
Referring to claim 13, Lefavour, Heusser and Takahashi teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, but Lefavour and Heusser do not teach setting the first threshold based on a user input. Takahashi teaches a method comprising:
setting a first threshold pressure based on the user input (col. 7 line 1 - col. 8 line 59, wherein remote communication means 24 is used to change the settings of parameters required for operation).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the setting of the second threshold pressure taught by Takahashi in order to use a pump control system that allows for remote control “that can save labor and manpower for adjustment.” Takahashi col. 7 lines 25-28.
Referring to claim 14, Lefavour, Heusser and Takahashi teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, but Lefavour and Heusser do not teach setting the first threshold based on a user input. Takahashi teaches a method comprising:
receiving the user input at user interface (24), the user input corresponding to a selected mode of operation (col. 7 line 1 - col. 8 line 59).
Claim 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0154761 to Lefavour in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0070428 to Heusser, U. S. Patent 6,939,109 to Takahashi and U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0214565 to Takasu.
Referring to claim 15, Lefavour, Heusser and Takahashi teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, but Lefavour and Heusser do not teach a remote control. Takahashi is silent as to the type of remote communication used. Takasu teaches a method comprising:
wirelessly coupling a remote controller, the first remote controller including the user interface (paragraphs [0139]-[0150] and [0193]-[0195]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the wirelessly coupling taught by Takasu in order to allow the remote device to be located anywhere with internet access. Takasu paragraphs [0139]-[0150] and [0193]-[0195].
Referring to claim 17, Lefavour, Heusser, Takahashi and Takasu teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 15, as detailed above, and Lefavour further teaches a method comprising causing a motor (18) to rotate in a first rotational direction (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0019]-[0027] and [0052]-[0054]). Lefavour teaches a single piston pump 16 (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), instead of separate high flow and a high pressure pumps. Heusser further teaches a method comprising to supply fluid along the first flow path and the second flow path in which pressure increases at the work port (Fig. 2; annotated above; paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0033], claim 5). Lefavour and Heusser are silent as to a remote control. Takahashi further teaches a method comprising:
sending a first signal with the first remote controller (col. 7 line 1 - col. 8 line 59).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0154761 to Lefavour in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0070428 to Heusser, U. S. Patent 6,939,109 to Takahashi, U. S. Patent Publication 2014/0214565 to Takasu and U. S. Patent Publication 2009/0042446 to Borst.
Referring to claim 16, Lefavour, Heusser, Takahashi and Takasu teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 15, as detailed above, but Lefavour and Heusser are silent as to a remote control. Takahashi is silent as to the type of remote communication used. Takasu teaches a method to detect a loss of wireless communication with a remote controller, and responsive to detecting the loss of wireless communication with the remote controller, wirelessly communicate with the remote controller to: (i) authenticate the remote controller, and (ii) after authenticating the remote controller, pair with the remote controller (paragraph [0193]-[0195]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Lefavour with wireless communication connection taught by Takasu in order to provide consistent remote control operation as much as possible.
Takasu does not teach the use of a different controller. Borst teaches that the replacement of a controller can be with a different controller (paragraph [0007], wherein it is taught then when a device is removed for such purposes as maintenance, it can be replaced with a new device). It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Lefavour with different device taught by Borst in order to reduce the time the system is down in the event that the original controller needs lengthy repair paragraph [0007]).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0154761 to Lefavour in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0070428 to Heusser, U. S. Patent 6,939,109 to Takahashi and U.S. Patent 6,863,502 to Bishop.
Referring to claim 18, Lefavour, Heusser, and Takahashi teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 17, as detailed above, but Lefavour and Heusser are silent as to a remote control. Takahashi further teaches a method comprising:
sending a first signal with the first remote controller (col. 7 line 1 - col. 8 line 59).
Lefavour, Heusser, and Takahashi are silent as to the rotation directions of the pumps. Bishop teaches a method comprising:
rotating a motor (9) in a second rotational direction (retract mode) to drain fluid from the work port (Figures 1, 2, 6, col. 4 line 44 - col. 6 line 5).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Lefavour with the reverse rotation taught by Heusser in order to relieve pressure at the work port and in the tool.
Referring to claim 19, Lefavour, Heusser, Takahashi and Bishop teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 18, as detailed above, but Lefavour and Heusser do not teach a remote control. Takahashi further teaches a method comprising:
sending feedback signal to the first remote controller to indicate a condition related to the work operation (col. 7 line 1 - col. 8 line 59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. White, Bowles and Virtue teach similar methods as recited in the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746