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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/9/25 and 2/20/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 2 and 9 are 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 2 recites the limitation “ wherein the at least one hydraulic pump comprises a single hydraulic pump” but then later in the claim recites to “ the further hydraulic pump”. It is unclear to the Examiner how there can be a further hydraulic pump when the one hydraulic pump comprises only a “single hydraulic pump”. It appears the initial claim language of claim 2 contradicts the later language wherein more than a single pump is being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Similarly, Claim 9 recites “wherein the at least one hydraulic pump comprises a single hydraulic pump”. However, claim 8 recites to a further hydraulic pump”. It is unclear to the Examiner how there can be a further hydraulic pump when the one hydraulic pump comprises only a “single hydraulic pump”. It appears the initial claim language of claim 2 contradicts the later language wherein more than a single pump is being claimed. Appropriate correction is required’
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Applicant has claimed controlling components without claiming the actual structures to control. In other words, the controlled components of the claim aren’t actually part of the device as the claim is currently constructed.
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, 7, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goetz et al., German Patent Publication DE19831828 B4 (hereinafter “Goetz”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Goetz discloses a method for operating a hydraulic system ( See, Figure 1) the method comprising: providing a delivered volumetric flow of hydraulic medium (inherent given the field of endeavor and hydraulic circuit) for moving at least one hydraulic cylinder (8) by a hydraulic device which has at least one hydraulic pump (3) and which at a minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump provides a minimum delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic medium, wherein when reaching a predetermined delivered volumetric flow which is greater than the minimum delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic device, connecting a further hydraulic pump (13) having a minimum rotational speed for increasing the delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic medium when the rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device and the rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump. See, Paragraph [0016-0018]: “if the flow rate of the first hydraulic pump 3 is insufficient for the required stroke speed, the second hydraulic pump 13 is switched on”; See Paragraph [0016]: “the first hydraulic pump 3 is dimensioned such that at its maximum delivery rate it is sufficient only for a slow extension of the lifting cylinder.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Goetz further discloses wherein the at least one hydraulic pump comprises a single hydraulic pump, the single hydraulic pump has a minimum rotational speed for providing a minimum delivered volumetric flow, wherein when reaching the predetermined delivered volumetric flow which is greater than the minimum delivered volumetric flow of the single hydraulic pump the rotational speed of the single hydraulic pump is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the single hydraulic pump and the rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump. See, Paragraph [0016-0018] which discloses the primary pump 3 and the secondary hydraulic pump 13 operating to meet demand.
In Reference to Claim 7 and 19:
Goetz further discloses the method wherein a functional speed of the hydraulic system is brought about by the hydraulic system, wherein the functional speed of the hydraulic system remains constant when the further hydraulic pump is connected. See, Paragraph 0018] examiner notes the pumps speed maintains constant and the second pump is added to increase fluid pressure and meet load demand. See, Paragraph
In Reference to Claim 15:
Goetz further discloses wherein the minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device and the minimum rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump are dependent on the respective efficiency characteristics of the respective hydraulic pump. Examiner notes that this claim language is inherent in the operation of any pump and governed by the laws of pump design, also known as the affinity laws, wherein the maximized best efficiency point is maximized for a given design.
In Reference to Claim 16:
Goetz further discloses wherein the at least one hydraulic pump and the further hydraulic pump are controlled independently of one another by a controller comprising hardware. See, Paragraph [0018] which discloses pump 13 only is powered on in certain conditions and therefore much be independently controlled rom pump 3.
In Reference to Claim 17:
Goetz discloses an industrial truck (See, Abstract which discloses a forklift vehicle) comprising: a controller (40) the controller being configured to: provide a delivered volumetric flow of a hydraulic medium for moving at least one hydraulic cylinder (8) by a hydraulic device which has at least one hydraulic pump (3) and which at a minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump provides a minimum delivered volumetric flow of a hydraulic medium, wherein when reaching a predetermined delivered volumetric flow which is greater than the minimum delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic device, connect a further hydraulic pump (13) having a minimum rotational speed for increasing the delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic medium when the rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device and the rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump. See, Paragraphs [0016-0018] which disclose the control of a the single pump and when the additional pump is added to the system.
In Reference to Claim 18:
Goetz further discloses a lifting mast (8) configured to lift a load; wherein the at least one and further hydraulics pumps (3 and 13) are configured to operate the lifting mast to lift the load. See, Abstract which discloses the system being a forklift and the cylinder being for lifting.
In Reference to Claim 20:
In so far as the claim is defined, Goetz discloses a controller (40) and hardware ( See, Figure 1) the controller being configured to: provide a delivered volumetric flow of a hydraulic medium for moving at least one hydraulic cylinder (8) by a hydraulic device which has at least one hydraulic pump (3) and which at a minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump provides a minimum delivered volumetric flow of a hydraulic medium, wherein when reaching a predetermined delivered volumetric flow which is greater than the minimum delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic device, connect a further hydraulic pump having a minimum rotational speed for increasing the delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic medium when the rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device and the rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump (13) is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump. See, Paragraphs [0016-0018].
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(s) 3, 8, 9, amd 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz et al., German Patent Publication DE19831828 B4 (hereinafter “Goetz”)
In Reference to Claim 3:
Goetz disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of pumps are connected to one another (3 and 13), the single hydraulic pump has a minimum rotational speed for providing a minimum delivered volumetric flow (inherent in pump design) but fails to disclose wherein when reaching the predetermined delivered volumetric flow which is greater than the minimum delivered volumetric flow of the single hydraulic pump the rotational speed of the single hydraulic pump is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the single hydraulic pump and the rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the further hydraulic pump.
Examiner notes that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Goetz such that the pumps operate above their predetermined minimum delivered volumetric flow speed given that pumps operate more efficiently at certain operational speed and therefore volume flow speeds and controlling the pumps to operate such that they function in regions above their minimum rotational speed would thereby be a obvious end result effective variable for a person designing the hydraulic circuit to optimize the hydraulic circuits efficiency.
In Reference to Claim 9:
Goetz disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic medium is provided for moving at least one hydraulic cylinder by a hydraulic device which has the at least one hydraulic pump and which at a minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump provides a minimum delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic medium, wherein when reaching a predetermined delivered volumetric flow which is greater than the minimum delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic device. See Paragraph [0016-0018].
Goetz fails to disclose wherein when reaching a predetermined volumetric flow that the one hydraulic pump can provide for, the further hydraulic pump having a minimum rotational speed is disconnected for reducing the delivered volumetric flow of the hydraulic medium when the rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Goetz such that the system disconnects the second hydraulic pump (13) when the primary pump is capable of supporting the volume flow rate because such a modification is a mere reversal of the control discussed in Goetz. That is merely altering the control to run inverse of Goetz would also allow the system to operate more efficiently by only running a single pump when the system can handle it, thereby avoiding the unnecessary waste of energy provided by the additional pump.
In Reference to Claim 9
Examiner notes that it is inherent in the function and operation of the one hydraulic pump (via the Affinity Pump Laws), wherein said one hydraulic pump comprises a single hydraulic pump that the single hydraulic pump has a minimum rotational speed for providing a minimum delivered volumetric flow, and wherein when reaching the predetermined delivered volumetric flow which is greater than the minimum delivered volumetric flow of the single hydraulic pump the rotational speed of the single hydraulic pump is equal to or greater than the minimum rotational speed of the single hydraulic pump as claimed by claim 9. In other words, it is well established by pump laws that a predetermined volumetric flow rate which is greater than the minimum volumetric flow rate of a pump must be at a speed greater than the minimum rotational speed of the single hydraulic pump.
In Reference to Claim 14:
Goetz further discloses wherein a functional speed of the hydraulic system is brought about by the hydraulic system (inherent that the functional speed of a hydraulic actuator is dependent on the hydraulic system).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing that the functional speed of the hydraulic system would remain constant when the further pump is disconnected because as recited in claim 8, the further pump is only disconnected when the one hydraulic pump can operate within its designed parameters to meet the desired flow rate. Therefore, the speed of operation of the hydraulic system would be maintained despite the disconnect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-7, 10-13, and 19 are 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device is reduced when the further hydraulic pump is connected or the rotational speeds of the at least one and further hydraulic pumps of the hydraulic device are reduced when the further hydraulic pump is connected.” The prior art fails to disclose reducing the rotational speed of the hydraulic pump when attaching the additional pump to the load demand. The prior art which does connect the additional pump typically mantains the speed and connects the additional pump to increase actuation speed.
Claim 5-6 would be allowed based off their dependency of allowable claim 4.
Claim 10 recites “wherein when the further hydraulic pump is disconnected the rotational speeds of the plurality of hydraulic pumps of the hydraulic device are respectively equal to or greater than the respective minimum rotational speed of the respective hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device”. The prior art fails to disclose wherein the additional hydraulic pump is disconnected when a plurality of the hydraulic pumps meet the rotational speed. Examiner notes that the novelty is disconnecting an additional pump when a plurality of pumps meet the demand.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the rotational speed of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device is increased when the further hydraulic pump is disconnected or the rotational speeds of the at least one hydraulic pump of the hydraulic device are increased when the further hydraulic pump is disconnected.” The prior art fails to disclose this control aspect instead relying on the further pump to increase the operational speed of the hydraulic device and therefore does not increase the pump speed to meet the demand when disconnecting the additional/further pump.
Claims 12-13 would be allowable based off their dependency of claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. AT516181 discloses a multi pump system where depending on load demand can be combined, but typically is operated as single pump. AT516181 also would meet the language of claim 1 as currently recited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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) 272-4648. 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 S COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights