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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in DE on 5/29/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 13 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 13 recites “in particular and “preferably”. These terms render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination, they are not seen to be explicitly required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s cited DE 3404350, hereinafter Podzun (also see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “A method for filling and venting hydraulic systems by a hydraulic fluid, comprising the steps of:
a) degassing the hydraulic fluid by applying a vacuum (paragraph 3); and
b) filling the hydraulic system with the degassed hydraulic fluid (paragraph 3).”
Regarding claim 2, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “further including:
c) venting the hydraulic system by absorbing the air that is freely moving in the hydraulic system using the degassed hydraulic fluid (“The filling of the brake line systems should be carried out in such a way as to prevent any possibility of air getting into the hydraulic fluid until the hydraulic fluid has completely filled the brake line system. Due to degassing down to below the saturation limit, the hydraulic fluid eagerly absorbs gas again upon contact with air at atmospheric pressure.”).”
Regarding claim 5, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the hydraulic system is designed to be open, semi-open or closed (seen to be open or semi-open as evidenced by “atmospheric pressure”).”
Regarding claim 6, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the hydraulic fluid is circulated by a circulation device (4; ultrasonic transducer seen to be a “circulation device” similar to applicant’s propeller as 4 stimulates the fluid, causing bubbles to rise to the top) during degassing according to step a).”
Regarding claim 8, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the degassed hydraulic fluid is conveyed into the hydraulic system by overpressure during filling according to step b) (in the step of conveying fluid from the storage to the system, a positive pressure differential [“overpressure”] would exist in order for the fluid to displace from the filled container to the empty system).”
Regarding claim 9, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the degassed hydraulic fluid is supplied to the hydraulic system by at least one inlet connection (6) of the hydraulic system and/or drains out at at least one outlet connection of the hydraulic system, during filling according to step b).”
Regarding claim 12, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “A device (FIG 1) for filling and venting hydraulic systems by a hydraulic fluid, the device comprising:
- a first container (1) for receiving the hydraulic fluid and having a first vacuum connection (9);
- a vacuum device (8) fluidically connected to the first vacuum connection for applying a vacuum in the first container (paragraph 3); and
- a circulation device (4) arranged in the first container for circulating the hydraulic fluid provided in the first container (ultrasonic transducer seen to be a “circulation device” similar to applicant’s propeller as 4 stimulates the fluid, causing bubbles to rise to the top).”
Regarding claim 13, Podzun (FIG 1) does not explicitly state “wherein the first container is cylindrical (see FIG 1) and/or wherein a cylinder height of the cylinder and a cylinder diameter of the cylinder have a ratio in a range between 10:1 and 2:1 (length of tank seen to be at least twice the diameter), in particular 8:1 and 3:1, preferably 6:1 and 4:1.
Regarding claim 14, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the first container (1) has a first container connection (connection between 1 and 6), wherein the device has a conveyor (valve of 6) fluidically connected to the first container connection (see FIG 1) for conveying the hydraulic fluid from the first container into the hydraulic system (via valve opening).”
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podzun.
Regarding claim 7, Podzun (FIG 1) does not explicitly state “wherein degassing according to step a) is carried out in such a way that the degassed hydraulic fluid contains a maximum of 6 vol.% air.”
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to specify the degassing criteria of Podzun to a specified low air%, in this case such that “wherein degassing according to step a) is carried out in such a way that the degassed hydraulic fluid contains a maximum of 6 vol.% air”, as Podzun already discloses degassing air, and choosing a specific metric for the degassing step would be within routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podzun in view of WO 2010091896, hereinafter Maszull.
Regarding claim 3, Podzun does not explicitly state “d) before filling according to step b): emptying waste fluid from the hydraulic system, by suctioning waste fluid from the hydraulic system, and/or evacuating the hydraulic system by applying a vacuum.” However, it is understood that the system is normally empty before it is filled with the degassed fluid from the container.
Furthermore, Maszull (abstract) teaches it is known in the art of hydraulic systems (analogous to Podzun) to utilize a means for emptying, bleeding and/or flushing the hydraulic system, via a valved coupling and vacuum system (abstract).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the hydraulic system of Podzun with the emptying feature of Maszull, such that the combination includes “d) before filling according to step b): emptying waste fluid from the hydraulic system, by suctioning waste fluid from the hydraulic system, and/or evacuating the hydraulic system by applying a vacuum”, to provide a means for emptying the system, of which is clearly desired in Podzun.
Regarding claim 4, Podzun/Maszull do not explicitly state “wherein emptying waste fluid according to step d) is carried out by applying a vacuum in such a way that a maximum of 6 vol.% of freely moving air remains in the hydraulic system.”
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to specify the vacuum emptying criteria of Podzun/Maszull to a specified low air%, in this case such that “wherein emptying waste fluid according to step d) is carried out by applying a vacuum in such a way that a maximum of 6 vol.% of freely moving air remains in the hydraulic system”, as Podzun/Maszull already teach emptying the system and then filling it with degassed fluid, and choosing a specific metric for the emptying step would be within routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podzun in view of Brabrand et al (US 3385735).
Podzun is silent regarding “wherein a rinsing process is carried out through the at least one inlet connection and the at least one outlet connection.”
However, Brabrand (FIG 1) teaches it is known in the art of hydraulic systems (analogous to Podzun) to employ a cleaning process where a tank 25 circulates cleaning fluid (read on “rinsing process) through the system via an inlet and outlet connections 28/29.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the hydraulic system and process of Podzun with “wherein a rinsing process is carried out through the at least one inlet connection and the at least one outlet connection”, as taught by Brabrand, to provide a cleaning feature for a clean reset of the tank and system.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podzun in view of DE 2459276, hereinafter Kirchholtes.
Regarding claim 16, Podzun (FIG 1) discloses “A system having a hydraulic system (paragraphs 1-3) and… a fluid reservoir (1).”
Podzun is silent regarding “at least one gas collection container, wherein at free ends of the hydraulic system, in particular at the highest points in the installation position of the hydraulic system, and/or in the region of a fluid reservoir connection points are arranged for detachably receiving the at least one gas collection container.” However, both liquid and gas are located in the single container of Podzun.
However, Kirchholtes (FIG 1) teaches a hydraulic system (analogous to Podzun) comprising a gas collection vessel 2 mounted above a reservoir 18, the vessel attached to the top of the reservoir via a screw and nut (seen a “detachably”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the container system of Podzun to have a separable gas collection vessel as taught by Kirchholtes, such that the combination teaches ““at least one gas collection container in the region of a fluid reservoir connection points are arranged for detachably receiving the at least one gas collection container”, to make the liquid and gas sections of the vessel separable for ease of disassembly.
Regarding claim 17, Podzun/Kirchholtes are silent regarding “wherein the at least one gas collection container for testing the venting quality of the hydraulic system, is transparent, in particular at least in sections.” However, clear tanks or visibility windows in tanks are seen to be known in the art.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the container system of Podzun/Kirchholtes to include “wherein the at least one gas collection container for testing the venting quality of the hydraulic system, is transparent, in particular at least in sections”, as is known in the art, as the combination already teaches a tank, and choosing a known transparent material to make the same functional tank with added visibility to the user would be within routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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:
Regarding 15, Podzun is silent regarding “wherein the device has a second container for receiving waste fluid emptied from the hydraulic system, wherein the second container has a second container connection, wherein the vacuum device for suctioning waste fluid from the hydraulic system is fluidically connected to the second container connection.”
While emptying means are shown in Maszull, Podzun/Maszull still do not teach the claim. It would be nonobvious to further modify this combination without undue hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Ingvast (US 5317872) and Shen (US 4696684).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
