DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 06/02/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 04/20/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/654,568, filed on 05/31/2024. The priority is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s amendments and arguments for claim 1,
a) the manifold of King looks essentially identical to the hydraulic pump assembly, and the pressure relief valves of King can anticipate the ability of both the hydraulic pump assembly and the manifold to relieve pressure in the system, because the manifold is a major sub-assembly of the hydraulic pump assembly (therefore, the 2 relief valves 402+410 are apart of both the manifold and the hydraulic pump assembly);
b) the amendments to claim do not have proper antecedent basis in the drawings (the drawings show no relief valve in manifold 20 at all, only 2 relief valves in the hydraulic pump assembly 10) or specification (the specification never mentions, implicitly or explicitly, that the manifold is configured to relieve pressure in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a first setpoint, and wherein the hydraulic pump assembly is configured to relieve pressure in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a second setpoint). Therefore, this amendment will receive a 112(a) new matter rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s amendments and arguments for claim 7, Examiner maintains that King discloses the hydraulic manifold as claimed, and that the pressure relief valves of King are constructed to direct fluid flow entering the first port to flow out of the second port or direct flow entering the second port to flow out of the first port, because the fluid from the first port can never reach the second port without going through at least one relief valve (402 or 410), and the fluid from the second port can never reach the first port without going through at least one relief valve (402 or 410). However, the fluid can travel between the first and second port without going through the fluid reservoir or pump.
Regarding Applicant’s amendments and arguments for claim 15, Examiner maintains that
King discloses all the functional and structural components of the hydraulic manifold as claimed (because the manifold is a sub-assembly of the hydraulic pump assembly);
the pressure relief valves of King are constructed to direct fluid flow entering the first port to flow out of the second port or direct flow entering the second port to flow out of the first port, because the fluid from the first port can never reach the second port without going through at least one relief valve (402 or 410), and the fluid from the second port can never reach the first port without going through at least one relief valve (402 or 410). However, the fluid can travel between the first and second port without going through the fluid reservoir or pump.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 4-5 have been addressed above with the response to arguments for claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 12-13 have been addressed above with the response to arguments for claim 7.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 17-18 and 20 have been addressed above with the response to arguments for claim 15.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “32A” has been used to designate both 32A and 34 in Figs. 4A-4E. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, line 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the hydraulic actuators” should read, “the one or more hydraulic actuators”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, lines 4-5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a hydraulic actuator” should read, “the hydraulic actuator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the hydraulic pump assembly is configured to relieve pressure in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a second setpoint” has no support in the drawings or specification. The hydraulic pump assembly (Figs. 4A-E) has no relief valves shown in the drawings, therefore it is unclear how the hydraulic pump assembly would be able to relieve pressure at all. Furthermore, the specification never mentions “a first setpoint” or “a second setpoint”, the specification only discusses one setpoint ever, and it is with regards to the manifold and the claimed “first setpoint”. Assuming the first setpoint and the second setpoint are the same setpoint does not work, because as Applicant extensively argues in the remarks filed on 04/20/2026, the manifold is separate and distinct from hydraulic pump assembly. Therefore, the relief valves of the manifold (and their associated setpoints) are separate and distinct from the hydraulic pump assembly. The only relief valves with setpoints mentioned in the specification are 16A and 16B (associated with the manifold, not the hydraulic pump assembly), and 40 (mentioned 11 times in the specification in paragraphs [0051-0053], but is also never mentioned as part of the hydraulic pump assembly, or shown in the drawings as part of the hydraulic pump assembly). For at least these reasons, the limitation “the hydraulic pump assembly is configured to relieve pressure in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a second setpoint” is rejected for failing to contain a written description of the invention.
Accordingly, claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of dependence from claim 1.
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.
(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 1-3, 6-8, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King (US 2023/0040307).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a hydraulic system {Figs. 1-12: “hydraulic system” [0075]} comprising:
(a) a hydraulic pump assembly {300 (Fig. 3); 400 (SHPU portion, Figs. 4-6): “submersible hydraulic power units (may be referred to as “SHPUs”) with interchangeable manifolds” [0003]};
(b) a manifold {320 (Fig. 3); 400 (manifold portion, Figs. 4-6): “Circuit diagrams for an SHPU with a double-acting manifold are described below. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any number of circuit diagrams for any number of manifolds with various actions (e.g., single-acting, double-acting, single/double-acting, double single-acting, double double-acting) may be utilized with SHPUs… The diagram 400 of the SHPU with a double-acting manifold is shown connected to a hydraulic cylinder 202” [0090-0091]} in fluidic communication with the hydraulic pump assembly {300; 400: “an interchangeable manifold 320 connected to the pump 312… allowing hydraulic fluid to move between the tank 302 (via the pump 312) and the manifold 320” [0088]; “an interchangeable manifold to connect to the pump” (Claim 1)}; and
(c) one or more hydraulic actuators {102 (Fig. 1); 202 (Figs. 2-6)} in fluidic communication with the manifold {320; 400 (manifold portion): “The interchangeable manifold 320 may include an A port to connect to a first chamber of the hydraulic cylinder and a B port to connect to a second chamber of the hydraulic cylinder” [0088]},
wherein the hydraulic pump assembly {300; 400 (SHPU portion)} is configured to pump a fluid to the one or more hydraulic actuators {102; 202; “hydraulic cylinder”: “an interchangeable manifold 320 connected to the pump 312… thereby allowing hydraulic fluid to move between the tank 302 (via the pump 312) and the manifold 320, as further described herein. The interchangeable manifold 320 may include an A port to connect to a first chamber of the hydraulic cylinder and a B port to connect to a second chamber of the hydraulic cylinder” [0088]; “the motor 416 may drive the pump 414 to push the hydraulic fluid from the tank 412 out of an A port 418 and/or a B port 420, thereby moving hydraulic fluid between a first chamber and a second chamber of the hydraulic cylinder 202” [0091]} to actuate the hydraulic actuators {102; 202 (Figs. 2A-C and 4-6)},
wherein the manifold {320; 400 (manifold portion)} is configured to relieve pressure {via relief valves: 402+410 (Figs. 4-6, [0092-0093])} in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a first setpoint {a relief valve is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as, “a valve for the escape of steam or fluid under excessive pressure”. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that an excessive pressure could be .001 psi or 1 billion psi, and that whatever pressure the designer or operator of the valve deems as the “excessive pressure” becomes the fixed setpoint pressure (the pressure at which the relief valve goes from not allowing relief of pressure to allowing relief of pressure). Therefore, the at least one relief valve of the manifold of King is inherently, by definition of a relief valve, configured to relieve pressure in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a setpoint};
wherein the hydraulic pump assembly {300; 400 (SHPU portion)} is configured to relieve pressure {via relief valves: 402+410 (Figs. 4-6, [0092-0093])} in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a second setpoint {wherein the first and second setpoint are the same setpoint: a relief valve is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as, “a valve for the escape of steam or fluid under excessive pressure”. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that an excessive pressure could be .001 psi or 1 billion psi, and that whatever pressure the designer or operator of the valve deems as the “excessive pressure” becomes the fixed setpoint pressure (the pressure at which the relief valve goes from not allowing relief of pressure to allowing relief of pressure). Therefore, the relief valve(s) of the SHPU of King is inherently, by definition of a relief valve, configured to relieve pressure in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a setpoint; Furthermore, King discloses “the first chamber may have a first pressure level and the second chamber may have a second pressure level. As further described below, the first and second chambers may be connected by an SHPU with an interchangeable manifold (e.g., a double-acting manifold) configured to move the hydraulic fluid between the first and second chambers” [0077]}.
Regarding claim 2, King discloses the hydraulic pump assembly {300; 400 (SHPU portion)} comprises:
(i) a reservoir {302 (Fig. 3, [0086]); 412 (Fig. 4, [0091]): “the tank (may also be referred to as “reservoir”)” [0004]};
(ii) a pump {312 (Fig. 3); 414 (Figs. 4-6)} configured to draw fluid from the reservoir {302; 412: “allowing hydraulic fluid to move between the tank 302 (via the pump 312) and the manifold 320” [0088]}; and
(iii) a selector valve {314 (Fig. 3); 404 (Figs. 4-6)}, in fluidic communication with the pump {312; 414}, capable of diverting fluid between two or more paths {has two fluid inlets and two fluid outlets shown in Figs. 4-6; and two or more fluid inlets/outlets shown in Figs. 3 and 7-12}.
Regarding claim 3, King discloses the hydraulic pump assembly {300; 400 (SHPU portion)} further comprises:
(iv) a return drain {“In addition, the SHPU 300 may include one or more openings for filling and/or draining the tank 302, as further described below” [0086]; 402 (Figs. 4-6)} configured to allow fluid to flow from the selector valve {404} to the reservoir {412 (Figs. 4-6)}; and
(v) one or more check valves {406A+408 (Figs. 4-6): “check valve 406A… check valve 408” [0093]} in fluidic communication with the selector valve {404 (Figs. 4-6)}, configured to disallow fluid to flow into the hydraulic pump assembly {400 (402+404+412+414): check valves 406A+408 (in conjunction with relief valve 410) are configured to entirely disallow fluid to flow into the hydraulic pump assembly (402+404+412+414), as shown in Figs. 4-6)}.
Regarding claim 6, King discloses the setpoint is fixed {as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the setpoint pressure of a relief valve is inherently fixed at whatever pressure the designer and/or operator of the valve designs and/or sets as the “excessive pressure”}.
Regarding claim 7, King discloses a hydraulic manifold {300 (Fig. 3); 400 (Figs. 4-6)} comprising:
(a) one or more hose arrays {212+214 (Figs. 2, 4-6)} fluidically connecting a first port {first (A) port (Fig. 2): “the first chamber may have a first port (may also be referred to as “bottom port”) that connects to a corresponding first port of the interchangeable manifold (e.g., a double-acting manifold) of the SHPU (may also be referred to as “A port”) for allowing the hydraulic fluid to enter and exit the first chamber” [0079]; 418 (Figs. 4-6): “A port 418” [0091]} and a second port {B port (Fig. 2): “the second chamber may include a second port (may also be referred to as “top port”) that connects to a corresponding second port of the interchangeable manifold (e.g., a double-acting manifold) of the SHPU (may also be referred to as “B port”)” [0079]; 420 (Figs. 4-6): “B port 420” [0091]}, the first port {first (A) port [0079]; 418} shaped and constructed to connect to a first chamber {204} of a hydraulic actuator {202 (Fig. 2A)} and the second port {second (B) port [0079]; 420} shaped and constructed to connect to a second chamber {206} of a hydraulic actuator {202 (Fig. 2A); and
(b) two or more relief valves {402+410 (Figs. 4-6): “relief valve 402… relief valve 410” [0092]} in fluidic communication with the one or more hose arrays {212+214}, the two or more relief valves {402+410} constructed to direct fluid flow entering the first port {first (A) port; 418} to flow out of the second port {second (B) port; 420} or direct flow entering the second port {second (B) port; 420} to flow out of the first port {first (A) port; 418}, when the fluid pressure is at or above a setpoint {a relief valve is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as, “a valve for the escape of steam or fluid under excessive pressure”. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that an excessive pressure could be .001 psi or 1 billion psi, and that whatever pressure the designer or operator of the valve deems as the “excessive pressure” becomes the fixed setpoint pressure (the pressure at which the relief valve goes from not allowing relief of pressure to allowing relief of pressure). Therefore, the at least one relief valve of the manifold of King is inherently, by definition of a relief valve, configured to allow a fluid to flow from one of the one or more hose arrays into another of the one or more hose arrays when the fluid pressure is at or above a setpoint, since the one or more relief valves are positioned between the first and second hose arrays as shown in Figs. 4-6 schematically}.
Regarding claim 8, King discloses the hydraulic manifold of claim 7, further comprising:
(c) one or more check valves {406A+408 (Figs. 4-6): “check valve 406A… check valve 408” [0093]} in fluidic communication with the one or more hose arrays {212+214};
(d) a reservoir {302 (Fig. 3, [0086]); 412 (Fig. 4, [0091]): “the tank (may also be referred to as “reservoir”)” [0004]} in fluidic communication with the one or more hose arrays {212+214 (Figs. 2, 4-6)}; and
(e) at least one internal hose array {unlabeled internal hose arrays arranged between: 404+412, 404+414, 402+404, 402+414, and 412+414 (Figs. 4-6)} in fluidic communication with the one or more check valves {406A+408}, the one or more relief valves {402+410}, and the reservoir {412 (Figs. 4-6)}.
Regarding claim 14, King discloses the setpoint is fixed {as discussed in the rejection of claim 7, the setpoint pressure of a relief valve is inherently fixed at whatever pressure the designer and/or operator of the valve designs and/or sets as the “excessive pressure”}.
Regarding claim 15, King discloses a tiltable trailer {“a dump truck utilizing a dual-acting hydraulic cylinder (may also be referred to as “hydraulic cylinder” or “cylinder”) for lifting a truck bed” [0027]} comprising:
(a) a tiltable deck {104 (Fig. 1); 216 (Figs. 2A-C)} configured to rotate about a fulcrum {116 (Fig. 1): “joint 116” [0078]};
(b) a hydraulic actuator {102 (Fig. 1); 202 (Figs. 2-6)} having a first chamber {204} which, when expanded by fluid {Figs. 2A-B}, extends the hydraulic actuator {202 (Figs. 2A-B)} and a second chamber {206} which, when expanded by fluid {Figs. 2B-C}, retracts the hydraulic actuator {202 (Figs. 2B-C)}, the hydraulic actuator {102; 202} in operative communication with the tiltable deck {104; 216} such that extension and retraction of the hydraulic actuator {102; 202} may rotate the tiltable deck {104; 216} about the fulcrum {116 (Figs. 1-2C)};
(c) a hydraulic manifold {320 (Fig. 3); 400 (manifold portion, Figs. 4-6): “Circuit diagrams for an SHPU with a double-acting manifold are described below” [0090]} in fluidic communication with the hydraulic actuator {102; 202}; and
(d) a hydraulic pump assembly {300 (Fig. 3); 400 (SHPU portion, Figs. 4-6): “Circuit diagrams for an SHPU with a double-acting manifold are described below” [0090]} in fluidic communication with the hydraulic manifold {320; 400 (manifold portion): “an interchangeable manifold 320 connected to the pump 312… thereby allowing hydraulic fluid to move between the tank 302 (via the pump 312) and the manifold 320” [0088]},
wherein the hydraulic manifold {320; 400 (manifold portion)} is configured to allow the hydraulic actuator {102; 202} to yield to a force by directing fluid flow from the first chamber {204} to the second chamber {206: “the hydraulic fluid may be transferred from the first chamber 204 to the second chamber 206” [0082]} or from the second chamber {206} to the first chamber {204: “the hydraulic fluid may be transferred from the second chamber 206 to the first chamber 204” [0081]}.
Regarding claim 16, King discloses the hydraulic manifold {320; 400 (manifold portion)} comprises one or more relief valves {402+410 (Figs. 4-6, [0092-0093])} configured to allow the hydraulic actuator {102; 202} to yield by allowing fluid to flow through the hydraulic manifold {320; 400 (manifold portion)} once the fluid reaches a setpoint pressure {a relief valve is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as, “a valve for the escape of steam or fluid under excessive pressure”. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that an excessive pressure could be .001 psi or 1 billion psi, and that whatever pressure the designer or operator of the valve deems as the “excessive pressure” becomes the fixed setpoint pressure (the pressure at which the relief valve goes from not allowing relief of pressure to allowing relief of pressure). Therefore, the at least one relief valve of the manifold of King is inherently, by definition of a relief valve, configured to relieve pressure in the fluid if the fluid pressure is above a setpoint pressure}.
Regarding claim 19, King discloses the setpoint pressure is fixed {as discussed in the rejection of claim 15, the setpoint pressure of a relief valve is inherently fixed at whatever pressure the designer and/or operator of the valve designs and/or sets as the “excessive pressure”}.
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 4-5, 12-13, 17-18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of King (US 2021/0180577), hereinafter King 2.
Regarding claim 4, King discloses all the aspects of claim 1. However, King does not explicitly disclose the setpoint (of the relief valves) is adjustable.
King 2 teaches the setpoint (of the relief valves) is adjustable {“For example, the first relief valve 356 may be an adjustable cartridge relief valve that may have an adjustable valve setting from 1 pound per square inch (“PSI”) to 5000 PSI” [0051], “the manifold 320 may also include additional hydraulic components, such as but not limited to a second relief valve (not illustrated) that may be a cartridge relief valve adjustable from 1 PSI to 5000 PSI” [0052]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relief valves of the hydraulic system disclosed by King, such that the setpoint is adjustable, as taught by King 2, in order for a “truck bed to maintain a static position (e.g., initial state), to be lowered, and/or to be raised” for a wide range of loads [0052].
Regarding claim 5, King and King 2 disclose all the aspects of claim 4. However, King does not explicitly disclose the setpoint is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi.
King 2 teaches the setpoint is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi {“the manifold 320 may also include additional hydraulic components, such as but not limited to a second relief valve (not illustrated) that may be a cartridge relief valve adjustable from 1 PSI to 5000 PSI” [0052]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relief valves of the hydraulic system, as disclosed by King and King 2, such that the setpoint is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi, as taught by King 2, in order for a “truck bed to maintain a static position (e.g., initial state), to be lowered, and/or to be raised” for a wide range of loads [0052].
Regarding claim 12, King discloses all the aspects of claim 7. However, King does not explicitly disclose the setpoint (of the relief valves) is adjustable.
King 2 teaches the setpoint (of the relief valves) is adjustable {“For example, the first relief valve 356 may be an adjustable cartridge relief valve that may have an adjustable valve setting from 1 pound per square inch (“PSI”) to 5000 PSI” [0051], “the manifold 320 may also include additional hydraulic components, such as but not limited to a second relief valve (not illustrated) that may be a cartridge relief valve adjustable from 1 PSI to 5000 PSI” [0052]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relief valves of the hydraulic system disclosed by King, such that the setpoint is adjustable, as taught by King 2, in order for a “truck bed to maintain a static position (e.g., initial state), to be lowered, and/or to be raised” for a wide range of loads [0052].
Regarding claim 13, King and King 2 disclose all the aspects of claim 12. However, King does not explicitly disclose the setpoint is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi.
King 2 teaches the setpoint is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi {“the manifold 320 may also include additional hydraulic components, such as but not limited to a second relief valve (not illustrated) that may be a cartridge relief valve adjustable from 1 PSI to 5000 PSI” [0052]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relief valves of the hydraulic system, as disclosed by King and King 2, such that the setpoint is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi, as taught by King 2, in order for a “truck bed to maintain a static position (e.g., initial state), to be lowered, and/or to be raised” for a wide range of loads [0052].
Regarding claim 17, King discloses all the aspects of claim 16. However, King does not explicitly disclose the yield force may be adjusted by adjusting the setpoint pressure (of the relief valves).
King 2 teaches the yield force may be adjusted by adjusting the setpoint pressure {of each relief valve: “For example, the first relief valve 356 may be an adjustable cartridge relief valve that may have an adjustable valve setting from 1 pound per square inch (“PSI”) to 5000 PSI” [0051], “the manifold 320 may also include additional hydraulic components, such as but not limited to a second relief valve (not illustrated) that may be a cartridge relief valve adjustable from 1 PSI to 5000 PSI” [0052]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relief valves of the hydraulic system disclosed by King, such that the yield force may be adjusted by adjusting the setpoint pressure of each relief valve, as taught by King 2, in order for a “truck bed to maintain a static position (e.g., initial state), to be lowered, and/or to be raised” for a wide range of loads [0052].
Regarding claim 18, King and King 2 disclose all the aspects of claim 17. However, King does not explicitly disclose the setpoint pressure is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi.
King 2 teaches the setpoint pressure is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi {“the manifold 320 may also include additional hydraulic components, such as but not limited to a second relief valve (not illustrated) that may be a cartridge relief valve adjustable from 1 PSI to 5000 PSI” [0052]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relief valves of the hydraulic system, as disclosed by King and King 2, such that the setpoint pressure is adjustable in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi, as taught by King 2, in order for a “truck bed to maintain a static position (e.g., initial state), to be lowered, and/or to be raised” for a wide range of loads [0052].
Regarding claim 20, King discloses all the aspects of claim 16. However, King does not explicitly disclose the setpoint pressure is fixed in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi.
King 2 teaches the setpoint pressure is fixed in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi {“the manifold 320 may also include additional hydraulic components, such as but not limited to a second relief valve (not illustrated) that may be a cartridge relief valve adjustable from 1 PSI to 5000 PSI” [0052]; once the setpoint pressure is adjusted to a pressure ranging from 1 psi to 5000 psi, it is then fixed at that pressure, because if it is not fixed at a pressure, then it would not function as a relief valve (by definition of a relief valve)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relief valves of the hydraulic system, as disclosed by King, such that the setpoint pressure is fixed in the range of about 50 psi to about 800 psi, as taught by King 2, in order for a “truck bed to maintain a static position (e.g., initial state), to be lowered, and/or to be raised” for a wide range of loads [0052].
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Zell (US 2019/0301139).
Regarding claim 9, King discloses all the aspects of claim 8. King further discloses there are two relief valves {402+410}, two hose arrays {212+214 (Figs. 2, 4-6)}, and two check valves {406A+408}.
However, King does not explicitly disclose there are four check valves.
Zell teaches a hydraulic system comprising four check valves {536, 538, 544, 546}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydraulic manifold, as disclosed by King, to comprise four check valves, as taught by Zell, in order “to direct pressurized fluid from the pump 204 to the articulation actuators 114, 116 in order to pivot the frames 118, 122 to the selected position” [0037]. Such a modification by addition is considered to require only routine skill to those of ordinary skill in the art {“Automatic operating functionality may thus be readily added to such work vehicles without replacing or significantly modifying an existing manual control circuit” [0029}].
Regarding claim 10, King and Zell disclose all the aspects of claim 9. King does not explicitly disclose two of the four check valves are configured to allow fluid to pass between the internal hose array and the reservoir.
Zell teaches two {544, 546} of the four check valves {536, 538, 544, 546} are configured to allow fluid to pass between the internal hose array {328+330+548+550 (Fig. 3)} and the reservoir {212 (check valve 544 is configured to allow fluid between the internal hose array 328+330+550 and the reservoir 212: “The pressurized fluid from the first work line 328 also opens the fourth pilot check valve 546 via the pilot line 550. This allows fluid to flow out of the rod chamber 114b of the first articulation actuator 114 and the head chamber 116a of the second articulation actuator 116, into the work line 330, and ultimately back to the reservoir 212” [0033], check valve 546 is configured to allow fluid between the internal hose array 328+330+548 and the reservoir 212: “The pressurized fluid from the second work line 330 also opens the third pilot check valve 544 via the pilot line 548. This allows fluid to flow out of the rod chamber 116b of the second articulation actuator 116 and the head chamber 114a of the first articulation actuator 114, into the work line 328, and ultimately back to the reservoir 212” [0035])}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydraulic manifold, as disclosed by King and Zell, such that two of the four check valves are configured to allow fluid to pass between the internal hose array and the reservoir, as taught by Zell, so that “a pressure imbalance is created in each of the articulation actuators” [0033, 0035] in order “to pivot the frames 118, 122 to the selected position” [0037].
Regarding claim 11, King and Zell disclose all the aspects of claim 9. King does not explicitly disclose two of the four check valves are configured to allow fluid in the internal hose array to flow into one or two of the two hose arrays.
Zell teaches two {536, 538} of the four check valves {536, 538, 544, 546} are configured to allow fluid in the internal hose array {428+430+534 (Fig. 3)} to flow into one or two of the two hose arrays {522+530 (check valve 536 is configured to allow fluid in the internal hose array 428+430+534 to flow into the two hose arrays 522+530: “As pressure builds in the first work line 428, the pressure acts against the first pilot check valve 536. When the pressure exceeds the cracking pressure of the valve 536, the first work line 428 pressurizes the pilot line 534 downstream of the first pilot check valve 536. The pressurized fluid is supplied to the pilots 532, which shift the first and second directional valves 512, 514 to their second positions. In other words, the third valve assembly 510 is actuated to its second state, in which the third valve assembly 510 fluidly communicates the work lines 428, 430 of the second valve assembly 410 with the actuator lines 522, 530, in response to increased fluid pressure (i.e. a pressure signal) in one of the work lines 428, 430 of the second valve assembly 410” [0039]; check valve 536 is configured to allow fluid in the internal hose array 428+430+534 to flow into the two hose arrays 522+530: “As pressure builds in the second work line 430, the pressure acts against the second pilot check valve 538. When the pressure exceeds the cracking pressure of the valve 538, the second work line 430 pressurizes the pilot line 534 downstream of the second pilot check valve 538. The pressurized fluid is supplied to the pilots 532, which shift the first and second directional valves 512, 514 to their second positions such that the third valve assembly 510 fluidly communicates the work lines 428, 430 of the second valve assembly 410 with the actuator lines 522, 530” [0042]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydraulic manifold, as disclosed by King and Zell, such that two of the four check valves are configured to allow fluid in the internal hose array to flow into one or two of the two hose arrays, as taught by Zell, in order “to direct fluid from the pump to the actuator via a first valve assembly to pivot the first and second frame members from a non-articulated position to an articulated position” and to direct “fluid from the pump to the actuator via a second valve assembly to pivot the first and second frame members toward the non-articulated position” [0005].
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 Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights