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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 16, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sipola et al (9021798).
Sipola et al disclose:
14. A hydraulic control system (e.g. Figs. 11, 15) for use with heavy machinery, comprising: at least one hydraulic actuator (e.g. 112) each with a plurality of chambers (e.g. A1, A2, B1, B2) disposed therein; a plurality of hydraulic pressure rails including i) a high-pressure rail (e.g. 3), ii) a medium pressure rail (e.g. 121), and iii) a low-pressure rail (e.g. 4); a plurality sets of proportionally controlled hydraulic valves (e.g. as shown in Fig. 15 constituting 40) each set for and coupled to each of the at least one hydraulic actuator, wherein each of the plurality of chambers of each of the at least one actuator is coupled to the plurality of hydraulic pressure rails via each said plurality of sets of proportionally controlled hydraulic valves, wherein continuous force control (e.g. Col. 7, Ln. 4 - Col. 8, Ln. 49) is achieved by proportionally controlling an opening area of each of the plurality of sets of proportionally controlled hydraulic valves, and a control unit (e.g. 24) configured to adjust the corresponding opening area of each of the plurality of sets of the proportionally controlled hydraulic valves such that a closed loop-pressure control is achieved by fluid throttling in each one of the plurality of chambers of the at least one hydraulic actuator.
15. The hydraulic control system of claim 14, wherein each of the at least one hydraulic actuator includes pressure sensors (e.g. Col. 17, Ln. 24-26) in hydraulic lines upstream and downstream of each of the plurality of sets of the proportionally controlled hydraulic valves.
16. The hydraulic control system of claim 14, wherein position or speed sensors (e.g. Col. 23, Ln. 11-16) are further included in the closed-loop pressure control.
17. The hydraulic control system of claim 14, wherein at least one of plurality of hydraulic pressure rails is sourced from a power source including at least one hydrostatic pump (e.g. 120, Fig. 11), and wherein the at least one hydrostatic pump is based on one of fixed or variable displacement.
18. The hydraulic control system of claim 17, wherein the power source further includes one of an internal combustion engine, or one or two electric motors powered by a battery pack (e.g. Col. 15, Ln. 39-42, Col. 36, Ln. 58-61).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12292062. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12292062 “anticipate” Application Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, respectively. Accordingly, Application Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 are not patentably distinct from Patent Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, respectively.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific Patent Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 encompass Application Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, respectively. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LESLIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 am - 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 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 LESLIE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
November 25, 2025