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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed with the request for continued examination (RCE) on 17 November 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, 13 & 20 have been amended, and no claims have been cancelled or added. Thus, claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 & 18-20 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s remarks filed 17 November 2025 identify claim 11 as amended, however, no corresponding amendments to claim 11 were actually made. Claim 11 is labeled as “previously presented” and does not show any markings to indicate amendment.
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 13 & 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.
Claim 13, as amended, recites “a quantity of compressible foam material within the bottom portion of the flexible diaphragm”, however, neither claim 11 nor claim 13 establishes such a “bottom portion of the diaphragm”, causing the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Examination Note: claims 1 & 20 were amended to include such language. As understood in view of applicant’s remarks, claim 11 was likely intended to be similarly amended, however, no such amendment was made.
Claim 14 is rejected due to dependency upon claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 11 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid (US 4,299,254) in view of Burton (US 4,299,253) and Partington et al. (US 2010/0243723 A1; hereafter Partington), as set forth in the previous Final office action on 01/08/2024.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Burton, Partington, and Rilett (US 4,760,865), as set forth in the previous action.
Claims 11, 18 & 19 are also rejected under the principles of Res Judicata. The decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on 16 September 2025 affirmed the rejection of these claims over the cited references. See MPEP § 2190(II).
For convenience, the rejections of the claims noted above are reproduced below.
Examination Note: the rejections of amended claim 13 and claim 14 depending therefrom have been amended below, as necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claims 11 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid (US 4,299,254) in view of Burton (US 4,299,253) and Partington et al. (US 2010/0243723 A1; hereafter Partington).
Regarding claim 11, Zahid discloses (sole fig.) a pulsation dampener and an associated a method of operating a pulsation dampener, comprising:
connecting a body (10) having an internal cavity (incl. 23 & 25) and an opening (12) providing fluid communication into the internal cavity to a fluid flow external to the body (i.e., fluid flow in the system to be damped);
providing a flexible diaphragm (generally 15; including at least 24) held within the internal cavity and separating the internal cavity into a first region (23) and a second region (25), the flexible diaphragm contacting at least some fluid from the external fluid flow that enters the internal cavity through the opening (e.g., when the port at 12 is open, col. 3, lines 58-64); and
providing a quantity of reactive fluid (i.e., gas) within the first region (23) of the internal cavity and separated by the flexible diaphragm from the at least some fluid from the external fluid flow within the second region (25) of the internal cavity, the quantity of reactive fluid selected to dampen pressure pulses within the external fluid flow (see col. 2, lines 31-33: “for use in energy storage or pulsation dampener applications”; see also col. 3, line 46 – col. 4, line 5).
Zahid does not explicitly disclose that the quantity of reactive fluid within the first region of the internal cavity is a quantity of liquid reactive fluid, or that the quantity of liquid reactive fluid selected based on one of a plurality of fill lines on an internal surface of the flexible diaphragm, each of the fill lines corresponding to a different one of a plurality of predetermined quantities of the liquid reactive fluid.
Burton teaches (figs. 1 & 2) a pulsation dampener comprising a flexible diaphragm (24) and an operating method comprising providing the pulsation dampener with a quantity of liquid reactive fluid (i.e., a silicone polymer; see abstract, lines 5-6; col. 3, lines 30-33: “the upper zone 28 above diaphragm 24 is filled with a predetermined amount of the silicone fluid”). Burton suggests that they have previously disclosed a high pressure pulsation dampener that uses “a silicone base liquid as the dampening media rather than a compressed gas” (col. 1, lines 28-31), that silicone liquids (as compared to other liquids) have a low bulk modulus, enabling “a certain amount of compressibility for dampening the working fluid” in a pulsation dampener, are nontoxic, and have good thermal conductivity and high flash points, which increase safety (col. 3, lines 1-11). Additionally, unlike gas-charged dampeners, the use of silicone liquid provides a fixed dampening response or band unaffected by variations in working fluid pressure (col. 3, lines 14-18). When used in well drilling operations, the provided reliable / fixed damping band provides a constant “quiet band or zone” which may be used for communication with downhole drilling instruments (i.e., for mud pulse telemetry; col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulsation dampener and associated method of operating the pulsation dampener of Zahid such that the provided quantity of reactive fluid was a quantity of liquid reactive fluid (i.e., a liquid silicone polymer) and, in particular, a predetermined quantity of the liquid reactive fluid, in view of the teachings of Burton, as the use of a known technique (i.e. utilizing a predetermined quantity of liquid silicone reactive fluid as the reactive fluid for a hydraulic pulsation dampener, as in Burton) to improve a similar device / method (the hydraulic pulsation dampener of Zahid and associated operating method) in the same way (e.g., to provide a consistent dampening band which is less sensitive to working fluid pressure, as otherwise suggested by Burton); or otherwise obvious as the simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the original gas reactive fluid disclosed by Zahid) for another (a predetermined quantity of the liquid silicone reactive fluid of Burton) to obtain predictable results (e.g., as above, to provide a more consistent dampening band / quiet zone).
Partington teaches (figs. 1-7; esp. fig. 1) a receptacle (10) configured to receive a quantity of liquid therein, wherein the receptacle has a plurality of fill lines (collectively, 58) on an internal surface (18) of the receptacle, each of the fill lines corresponding to a different one of a plurality of predetermined quantities of liquid (see abstract: “a plurality of integrally formed projections and/or indentations located on the sidewall (18) arranged to indicate, in use, the depth of liquid within the liquid receiving volume (12)”).
Partington explains that “it is difficult to estimate the volume of liquid within a receptacle, and the known solution of providing a graduated dipstick provides on a subjective, and/or inaccurate estimate of the receptacles contents” (para. 4). In contrast, “the plurality of integrally-formed projections and/or indentations may together form a graduated scale for estimating or measuring, in use, the volume of liquid within the liquid receiving volume of the receptacle. Since the scale is integrally formed with the sidewall, it is not possible to incorrectly position or orient the scale (as can be done with a known dipstick). Thus, provided the receptacle is always placed in a known orientation, e.g., on a flat surface, the quantity of liquid within the liquid retaining volume can be more accurately estimated/measured.” (para. 10).
Finally, Partington suggests “[a]dvantageously also, since the level of the liquid within the liquid retaining volume of the receptacle is read off against a series of integrally-formed projections/indentations, there is no need to provide a printed scale on the inner surface of the receptacle, which printing constitutes, in any event, an additional manufacturing step, and which printed scale is difficult to register consistently with respect to a datum of the receptacle.” (para. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulsation dampener and associated operating method of Zahid such that internal surface of the flexible diaphragm (i.e., a receptacle for the liquid reactive fluid) is provided with a plurality of fill lines each corresponding to a different one of a plurality of predetermined quantities of the liquid reactive fluid, whereby the quantity of liquid reactive fluid is selected based on one of the plurality of fill lines, in view of the teachings of Partington, to enable a user attempting to fill the first region of the internal cavity of the pulsation dampener with a predetermined quantity of reactive fluid to accurately measure or estimate the volume of liquid actually provided, without the use of a separate dipstick or separately applied printed scale.
The above modification may otherwise be seen as obvious as the application of a known technique (i.e. providing an integrally-formed plurality of fill lines to an interior of a liquid receptacle, as in Partington) to a known device / method ready for improvement (the pulsation dampener and associated operating method of Zahid, as modified in view of Burton to include providing a predetermined quantity of liquid reactive fluid in the pulsation dampener) to yield predictable results (e.g., as above, enabling a user to accurately measure or estimate the volume of liquid within the first region, without the use of a separate dipstick or separately applied printed scale).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 11 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 18, the pulsation dampener of Zahid, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the plurality of fill lines comprise a first fill line corresponding to a volume of liquid reactive fluid (i.e., as each of the fill lines corresponds to a predetermined volume of liquid reactive fluid).
While Zahid, Burton, and Partington do not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein a first fill line corresponds to “20 gallons” of liquid reactive fluid”, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) which establishes that is has been held where the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention involves only a change of form, proportions, or degree, such a difference is unpatentable over the prior art, “even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior invention”.
As best understood in view of applicant’s disclosure, the 20 gallon volume appears to be merely preferable (e.g., as it is the volume of a conventional nitrogen filled or charge-free type dampener; see table above para. 27) rather than a critical value required to achieve some unexpected result.
The claimed invention of claim 18, wherein a first fill line corresponds to “20 gallons of liquid reactive fluid” appears to differ from the pulisation dampener of Zahid (as modified in view of Burton and Partington in claim 11 above) by only a difference in relative dimensions (i.e., volume) / proportions, and does not appear that it would perform differently than the prior art device when provided which such dimensions. Thus, claim 18 is unpatentable over the prior art of record at least in view of the above guidance.
Claims 13 & 14 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Burton and Partington as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Erdmann (US 3,442,293).
Regarding claims 13 & 14, Zahid does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the pulsation dampener further comprises a quantity of compressible foam material within the bottom portion of the flexible diaphragm (claim 13), or wherein the compressible foam material forms part of a diaphragm stabilizer (claim 14).
Erdmann teaches (fig. 1) a flexible diaphragm (3) for a pulsation dampener comprising a thin, gas-impermeable core layer (14) surrounded on either side by a layer of a stabilizing / reinforcing material (see abstract in col. 1, lines 15-25), which may be “a foam rubber or a foamed resin” (col. 1, lines 49-51). With such a construction, “the composite membrane of this invention can have a thickness materially less than that of a conventional diaphragm where gas penetration is obviated by increased thickness” (col. 2, lines 51-54). See also col. 2, lines 38-49.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulsation dampener of Zahid (as otherwise modified above) such that the flexible diaphragm was formed with a thin, gas-impermeable core layer surrounded on both sides by layers of a stabilizing / reinforcing foam rubber / foam resin material, as suggested by Erdmann, as the use of a known technique (i.e. forming a flexible diaphragm of a hydraulic accumulator / pulsation dampener to have such a construction, as in Erdmann) to improve a similar device (i.e. the flexible diaphragm of Zahid) in the same way (e.g., to enable a thinner composite diaphragm which retains gas impermeability, flexibility, and chemical resistance vs a thicker single layer diaphragm, etc., as suggested by Erdmann).
When modified as above, the pulsation dampener of Zahid would thus include a quantity of compressible foam material within the flexible diaphragm (at least along the portions which serve as a barrier between the first and second regions of the internal cavity), including within the bottom portion of the diaphragm, as required by claim 13.
Regarding the limitation of claim 14, wherein “the compressible foam material forms part of a diaphragm stabilizer”, as noted, Erdmann teaches that this foamed material provides resistance to mechanical deformation and physical / chemical deterioration, and otherwise surrounds and protects the thin, gas-impermeable inner layer. Thus, the compressible foam material is seen as forming “part of a diaphragm stabilizer” (e.g., the other layer of foam material and/or the metal mounting ring may be seen as other parts of the diaphragm stabilizer, etc.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Burton and Partington as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rilett (US 4,760,865).
Regarding claim 19, Zahid further discloses that the pulsation dampener comprises a charging valve assembly (21) arranged at a charging port (11) in communication with the reactive fluid chamber (23).
Zahid does not explicitly disclose that the pulsation dampener includes a reset pressure relief valve.
Rilett teaches (fig. 2; alt. embodiments in figs. 1 & 3) a valve assembly (20) for use with a pressure vessel / container (1; see fig. 1) which functions as both a charging valve (via valve member 10A / stem 11A) and as a reset pressure relief valve (via piston 5A, port 22, seal 23, etc.). See col. 7, lines 8-33, including lines 24-30: “…if the valve assembly 20 is incorporated in a container whose internal pressure should not exceed a certain threshold level…the valve assembly 20 [can] serve the additional and useful function of a pressure relief valve”.
As can be seen from fig. 2, the valve piston 5A is biased by disk springs 24. Thus, once excess pressure is relieved, the pressure relief valve would reset (i.e., would not require replacement as would a burst-disk type relief valve).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulsation dampener and associated operating method of Zahid such that the charging valve assembly is further provided with a reset pressure relief valve, in view of the teachings of Rilett, to enable the valve assembly to relieve excess pressure if the internal pressure in the reactive fluid chamber exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., a safety threshold, etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10 & 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 November 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 & 20 have overcome the previous grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s remarks indicate that independent claim 11 was also amended, however, no corresponding amendments to claim 11 were actually submitted.
As a result, the rejection of independent claim 11, as affirmed in the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on 16 September 2025, has been maintained in this action, as have the rejections of claims 18 & 19 depending therefrom. The rejections of claims 13 & 14, which depend from claim 11, have been amended in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s amendment to claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753