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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 14 remain as originally presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 – 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitations “a piston slipper arrangement,” “a piston slipper body,” “a compression ring,” “a ceramic sliding element,” and “a sliding unit,” these limitations are previously recited by claim 1 from which claim 7 depends, as such the aforesaid limitations should be recited with the article “the.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “radial sealing element,” this element is previously introduced by claim 12 and should be recited as “the radial sealing element.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 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.
Claims 3, and 7 – 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “at least one protrusion”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least three protrusions,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the axial direction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the recited axial direction is first introduced by claim 8 without providing a frame of reference as to the orientation of the axis, as such the axial direction is provided its broadest reasonable interpretation, as recited in the rejection herein of at least claim 8.
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) 1 – 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0223207. “Olsen,” in view of US 2023/0279947, “Andersen.”
Regarding Claim 1: Olsen discloses a compression ring (23, 34) for a piston slipper arrangement (Figure 6), wherein the piston slipper arrangement comprises a piston slipper body (11) and a sliding element (30) and is configured to be provided in an axial piston machine (1) (Figure 1), wherein the compression ring is configured to compress the sliding element ([0051], “disc 30 is held in that the plastic material 23 has been extended from the circumference of the slide shoe 11 in the direction of the swashplate 10 and forms a locking ring 34”), wherein the compression ring comprises first engagement means (Broadly interpreted as being formed by the radial extension which transitions the locking ring 34 from the major diameter surrounding annular groove 36 to the minor diameter surrounding the main shoe body 11 axially above the annular groove, in the direction away from the sliding disc 30, as shown in at least Figure 6; The first engagement means are alternatively, or simultaneously, interpreted as comprising the extensions of the lock ring which protrude radially inward into corresponding means in the piston slipper body 11 as shown in at least Figure 6 and 3, forming connections 4) configured for engaging with second engagement means of the piston slipper body (Broadly interpreted as being formed by the radial extension or shelf corresponding to the radial extension of the first engagement means, extending radially inward, as previously discussed; The second engagement means are alternatively, or simultaneously, interpreted as comprising the gaps of the slide shoe 11 which form the corresponding features mating with the connections 24 as previously discussed) in order to limit rotation of the compression ring relative to the piston slipper body ([0051]; The lock ring will act to limit rotation of the compression ring through at least the friction between the lock ring and the slipper body and through the four connections 24 discussed in at least [0042]); Olsen discloses a sliding element; however, Olsen fails to explicitly disclose that the sliding element is a ceramic sliding element.
Andersen teaches a piston arrangement for a axial piston machine similar to the arrangement of Olsen (At least Figures 1 – 3; At least [0028]), Andersen further teaches the arrangement of a ceramic sliding element (20) ([0042], “end surface 6 can be provided with a sliding element 20 formed of a ceramic material. The sliding element 20 can be in form of a ring. During operation of a hydraulic axial piston machine a pressure plate 23 acts on this face 19”) configured in an equivalent manner to that of the sliding element of Olsen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modify the arrangement of Olsen to have utilized a ceramic material, as taught by Andersen, in the manufacture of the sliding element with the predicted results that such a material will be capable of use for forming the sliding surface of the piston as taught by Andersen. It is additionally noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding Claim 2: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the compression ring according to claim 1; once combined, Olsen further discloses wherein the first engagement means include at least one protruding element (Each of the radially inward facing surface and the radially inward projections of the connections 24 are broadly interpreted as forming protruding elements such that at least one protruding element is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 3: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the compression ring according to claim 1; once combined, Olsen further discloses wherein the first engagement means include at least one protrusion, preferably at least three protrusions, protruding in an axial direction of the compression ring (Each of the radially inward facing surface and the radially inward projections of the connections 24 are broadly interpreted as forming protruding elements such that at least one protruding element is disclosed; It is noted that no reference for an axial direction of the compression ring is not established by the claim such that a broadest reasonable interpretation reads over each of the aforesaid protrusions extending in a manner parallel to an axis of the compression ring parallel to the end face of the sliding element; Such an interpretation not to preclude an interpretation over alternative means which could be interpreted as being formed in a direction parallel to the axial direction of travel of the piston).
Regarding Claim 4: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the compression ring according to claim 3; once combined, Olsen further discloses wherein each protrusion comprises at least one contact surface having a normal vector that is parallel to a local circumferential direction of the compression ring (As shown in at least Figures 3 and 6; Each of the connections 24 are shown forming a contact surface of 360° such that each protrusion forms at least one normal vector parallel to the circumferential direction of the compression ring, interpreted as the circumferential direction surrounding the piston relative to its axial displacement).
Regarding Claim 5: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the compression ring according to claim 1; once combined, Olsen further discloses wherein the first engagement means are configured to provide a centering functionality for centering the compression ring relative to the piston slipper body with regard to a central axis (CA) of the compression ring (As shown in at least Figures 3 and 6; The first engagement means being arranged around the radial outer surface of the slide shoe 11 will necessarily act in a manner which will align, or contribute to aligning, the compression ring relative to the piston slipper body relative to the central axis of the compression ring).
Regarding Claim 7: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the piston slipper arrangement according to claim 1; once combined, Olsen further discloses that the piston slipper body comprises the second engagement means (Broadly interpreted as being formed by the radial extension or shelf corresponding to the radial extension of the first engagement means, extending radially inward, as previously discussed; The second engagement means are alternatively, or simultaneously, interpreted as comprising the gaps of the slide shoe 11 which form the corresponding features mating with the connections 24 as previously discussed).
Regarding Claim 8: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the piston slipper arrangement according to claim 7; once combined, Olsen further discloses wherein the first engagement means comprises at least three protrusions (Each of the radially inward facing surface and the radially inward projections of the connections 24 are broadly interpreted as forming protruding elements such that at least three protruding elements are disclosed) protruding in the axial direction (It is noted that no reference for an axial direction of the compression ring is not established by the claim such that a broadest reasonable interpretation reads over each of the aforesaid protrusions extending in a manner parallel to an axis of the compression ring parallel to the end face of the sliding element; Such an interpretation not to preclude an interpretation over alternative means which could be interpreted as being formed in a direction parallel to the axial direction of travel of the piston) and wherein the second engagement means comprises a corresponding number of recesses.
Regarding Claim 13: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the piston slipper arrangement according to claim 7; once combined, Olsen further discloses wherein the ceramic sliding element extends in its axial direction beyond the piston slipper body and the compression ring (As shown in at least Figure 6; The ceramic sliding element is shown extending past each of the piston slipper body and the compression ring in its axial direction, broadly interpreted as corresponding to the axial direction of the travel of the piston).
Regarding Claim 14: Olsen, in view of Andersen, teaches the piston slipper arrangement according to claim 7; once combined, Olsen make obvious an axial piston machine (1) comprising a piston slipper arrangement according to claim 7 (At least Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, and 9 – 12 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.
Each of claims 6, and 9 – 12 recite limitations alone, or in combination with preceding claims, which provide further narrowing features relative to the claimed piston slipper arrangement such that additional references, or combination of references, would be needed to further modify the arrangement of Olsen, in view of Andersen. No reference, or combination of references, has been identified which would provide teachings to implement such modifications which would have made such modifications obvious over utilizing the instant claims as an impermissible roadmap to produce such modifications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3,455,585 – Piston slipper arrangement comprising compression ring
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2026.09.12
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 9/22/2026
