DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Application filed 08/25/2025
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 08/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Cylinder
Piston head
Second chamber
Rod
Leak path
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered:
Pump
Die
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in this application being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
Retainer: lock nut (210; par 18)
Intermediate component: spacer (212; par 13; Figs. 2-3)
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manney (US 7784392).
Regarding Claim 1 Manney discloses a hydraulic tool comprising:
a cylinder (52);
a piston (12) movably disposed within the cylinder (52) to define a first chamber (62) on a first side of a piston head (12) and a second chamber (60) on a second side of the piston head, the piston head (12) defining a cavity (24) that is in communication with a leak path (16a, 16b) extending from the cavity (24);
a relief valve (30) positioned in the cavity (24), the relief valve (30) opening at a threshold pressure to allow fluid to flow along the leak path (16a, 16b) between the first chamber (62) and the second chamber (60); and a retainer (46) coupled to the piston head (12) and securing the relief valve (30) within the cavity (24). (Col 6 lines 6-60)
Regarding Claim 2 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the first chamber (62) receives hydraulic fluid and the cavity (24) extends into the first side of the piston (12). (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 3 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses a pump that supplies pressurized hydraulic fluid to the first chamber (62), the pressure of the hydraulic fluid acting on the first side of the piston (12) to cause the piston (12) to move within the cylinder (52). (Col 6 line 61- 7 line 10)
Regarding Claim 4 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the piston includes a rod (54) extending from the second side of the piston and the leak path (16a, 16b) extends into the rod (54) to connect with the cavity (24).
Regarding Claim 5 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the leak path (16a, 16b) extends radially into the rod (54).
Regarding Claim 6 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the rod is configured to couple to move a die. (Fig 9) (Col 6 line 61- Col 7 line 10)
Regarding Claim 7 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the retainer is a lock nut (46) that threadably couples with the piston head (12).
Regarding Claim 9 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses an intermediate component (42) positioned between the lock nut (46) and the relief valve (30), the lock nut (46) providing a supporting force that is transmitted to the relief valve (30) by the intermediate component (42). (Col 4 line 51- Col 5 line 3)
Regarding Claim 10 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the intermediate component (42) defines an opening through which hydraulic fluid flows when the relief valve (30) opens. (Col 4 line 51- Col 5 line 10)
Regarding Claim 11 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the relief valve (30) extends into the opening in the intermediate component (42). (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 12 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the intermediate component (42) includes a peripheral flange. (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 13 Manney discloses a piston assembly for a hydraulic tool, the piston assembly comprising:
a piston (12) including a head defining a first side and a second side, and
a rod (54) extending from the second side of the head (12), the piston defining a cavity (24) extending into the first side of the head (12) and a leak path (16a, 16b) extending from the cavity and through the rod (54); and
an overload assembly secured to the piston (12), the overload assembly including:
a valve element (30) positioned in the cavity (24), the valve element (30) configured to transition from a closed configuration that blocks fluid flow along the leak path (16a, 16b) (Col 5 lines 23-37) to an open configuration that allows fluid flow along the leak path (16a, 16b) based on a pressure differential between the first side of the head (12) and the second side of the head (12), (Col 5 lines 38-52)
a retainer (46) coupled to the first side of the piston (12) to secure the valve element (30) in the cavity (24), and an intermediate component (42) position in the cavity (24) between the valve element (30) and the retainer (46), the intermediate component (42) defining an opening that allows fluid flow through the intermediate component (42) when the valve element (30) is in the open configuration. (Col 5 lines 38-52)
Regarding Claim 14 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the retainer is a lock nut (46) that defines a passage to allow fluid flow between the first side of the piston and the cavity (24).(Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 15 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the valve element (30) is positioned within the opening in the intermediate component (24). (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 16 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the valve element (30) moves relative to the intermediate component (42) to transition from the closed configuration to the open configuration. (Col 5 lines 23-52)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manney.
Regarding Claim 8 Manney discloses invention as described above. Manney further discloses the relief valve is a burst disc. While Manney names a poppet valve the function of Manney’s poppet valve is equivalent to a burst valve. (Col 6 lines 6-33)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 17 Manney discloses a hydraulic tool comprising:
a cylinder (52);
a piston (12) having a piston head defining a first side and a second side, the piston (12) movably disposed within the cylinder (52) to define a first chamber (62) on the first side of a piston head and a second chamber (60) on a second side of the piston head (12); and
an overload assembly ( positioned in a cavity (24) that is in communication with the first chamber and positioned between the first chamber (62) and a leak path (16a, 16b), the overload assembly including:
a valve element (30) positioned in the cavity (24), the valve element (30) opening at a threshold pressure to allow fluid to flow along the leak path (16a, 16b),
a retainer (46) securing the valve element (30) in the cavity (24),
an intermediate component (42) positioned in the cavity between the valve element (30) and the retainer (46), the intermediate component (42) defining an opening that allows fluid flow through the intermediate component (42) when the valve element (30) is open, the opening receiving the valve element (30).
However, the Prior Art does not teach the retainer at least partially defining the first chamber in addition to the limitations included in Claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights