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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, line 15 through page 10, line 7, filed May 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Beyer fails to teach evaluating a signal over a plurality of measurements over time. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 10,054,115 to Seith. Seith teaches a pumping system which determines whether the system is primed based on an evaluation of a plurality of measurements over time.
The corrections to the claims are noted with appreciation. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claims Status
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 15-19 are currently pending. Claims 15-18 stand withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 19 are being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 26 recites “forms of debris in the liquid; liquid, and” and the phrase “liquid, and” at the end of the limitation does not add to the claim and appears to be an incomplete limitation. The examiner recommends deleting the phrase “liquid, and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 is 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 19 introduces multiple features which were previously introduced in claim 1: a cylindrical shaft having a diameter, a sensing dome shaped as a spherical cap with a vertical base having a diameter. Claim 19, lines 3 and 4 both introduce “an end of the cylindrical shaft”. Since each of these features was previously introduced in claim 1, it is unclear whether claim 19 is referring to the previously introduced feature, or is introducing new features. The issue causes further confusion when claim 19 refers to the features without specifying which, such as “said cylindrical shaft” in lines 2, 3, and 4.
For the purpose of examination, claim 19 will be treated as referring to the same features as claim 1.
The examiner notes that if claim 19 is referring to the same features as claim 1, then claim 19 fails to further limit claim 1 and is an improper dependent claim which will be rejected under 35 USC 112(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0271518 to Beyer in view of applicant admitted prior art and in further view of US 10,054,115 to Seith.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 19
Beyer teaches:
A pumping system, comprising:
a primary pump (16) for pumping fluid from an inlet (20) out an outlet (24), said primary pump including a pumping chamber (30) adapted to receive fluid from said inlet (see paragraphs 26-27 and Figure 2);
a priming chamber (50) disposed above said pumping chamber (see paragraph 28);
a primer system (vacuum line 54) for drawing fluid into said priming chamber up to at least a selected depth at which said primary pump will properly operate (see paragraphs 30-31);
a sensor (52’) comprising a probe (portion of sensor in priming chamber) extending into said priming chamber and having a sensing region (region which detects the fluid) positioned at said selected depth, having a cylindrical shaft (portion extending into priming chamber 50, see Figure 2) having a diameter, said cylindrical shaft extending into said priming chamber, said sensor being adapted to detect the presence of liquid at said selected depth in the priming chamber and signal whether liquid is present at said selected depth;
a controller (90) configured to control operation of said pump and primer system based on said signal (paragraph 35);
wherein said controller controls operation of said pump and primer system based on an evaluation of said signal to determine whether liquid is present at said selected depth;
wherein operation of said pump and primer system is based on whether said signal indicates the presence of fluid at said selected depth (paragraph 29, lines 1-7);
wherein said sensor is adapted to sense the presence of liquid in environments having various forms of debris (solid particles) in the liquid (see paragraph 5 and preamble of claim 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beyer fails to teach:
The sensor has a sensing dome on an end of the cylindrical shaft at said selected depth, said sensing dome shaped as a spherical cap with a vertical base on an end of the cylindrical shaft, said cap vertical base having a diameter less than the cylindrical shaft diameter, said sensor being adapted to detect the presence of liquid using primer detection settings of a combination of at least two of an electromagnetic field, electric conductance field, and magnetic field at said selected depth in the priming chamber, said evaluation of said signal is over a plurality of measurements over time and based on said at least two primer detection settings, and at least one of said primer detection settings monitored by said sensor is adjustable.
Seith teaches:
A pumping system (10) comprising a controller (102) and a sensor (42) which signals whether the pump is primed, wherein said controller controls operation of said pumping system based on an evaluation of said signal over a plurality of measurements over time (average of the pressure signal or rolling average of the pressure signal, see column 7, lines 56-58) (see column 7, lines 40-63).
The applicant has admitted that prior art teaches a sensor having a sensing dome on an end of the cylindrical shaft at said selected depth, said sensing dome shaped as a spherical cap with a vertical base on an end of the cylindrical shaft, said cap vertical base having a diameter less than the cylindrical shaft diameter, said sensor being adapted to detect the presence of liquid using primer detection settings of a combination of at least two of an electromagnetic field, electric conductance field, and magnetic field at said selected depth in the priming chamber, and at least one of said primer detection settings monitored by said sensor is adjustable.
The applicant stated “there were prior art sensors when this application was filed, and there are still such sensors, having the structure and functionality described in the application whereby liquid level detection is determined based on whether or not the sensed electromagnetic field, electric conductance field and magnetic field are consistent with the presence of fluid” (page 6, lines 6-10 of the remarks filed August 20, 2025). Therefore, the examiner considers the structure and functionality of the sensor to be known in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pumping system of Beyer by configuring the controller to evaluate the signal over a plurality of measurements over time as taught by Seith for the purpose of better determining when the pump has become primed, such as by avoiding false positives from individual signals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pumping system of Beyer by replacing the sensor with a sensor having a sensing dome with a diameter less than the diameter of the cylindrical shaft and which is adapted to detect the presence of liquid using primer detection settings of a combination of at least two of an electromagnetic field, electric conductance field, and magnetic field, and wherein the primer detection settings are adjustable in view of applicant admitted prior art which is a simple substitution of one known liquid presence sensor for another liquid presence sensor which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is a sensor which determines when the liquid level reaches the selected depth and the pump is primed.
When modifying the pumping system of Beyer with the teachings of Seith and the applicant admitted prior art, the controller would evaluate the sensor signal based on said at least two primer detection settings over a plurality of measurements over time to determine whether liquid is present at the selected depth.
Regarding claim 19, Beyer as modified by Seith and applicant admitted prior art teaches the pumping system of claim 1, which comprises the sensor having the cylindrical shaft having a diameter with the sensing dome shaped as a spherical cap with the vertical base, where the vertical base has a diameter less than the cylindrical shaft diameter (as taught by applicant admitted prior art).
In Reference to Claim 2#
Beyer as modified by Seith and applicant admitted prior art teaches:
The pumping system of claim 1, wherein said sensor is adapted to adjust the sensitivity of said sensor in correlation with characteristics of said fluid in said priming chamber based on said primer detection settings used in said evaluation of said signal.
As stated above, the applicant stated sensors having the functionality described in the application are known in the prior art. Claim 2 is directed to the functionality of the sensor and therefore is known in the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Beyer as modified by Seith and applicant admitted prior art teaches:
The pumping system of claim 1, wherein said sensor periodically signals to a controller (90 of Beyer) whether liquid is present at said selected depth; and said controller changes pump operation between prime and not prime states when said sensor signal indicates a changed state for a selected period (see paragraph 35) based on said evaluation of said signal.
Regarding the “periodic” signals and “selected period”, the sensor is inherently sending signals repeatedly to the controller to determine whether the pump is primed, which is the broadest reasonable interpretation of “periodic” (reoccurring at intervals of time, definition 1 from dictionary.com), and the “selected period” is the time period over which the “average” or “rolling average” of Seith is measured.
In Reference to Claim 5#
Beyer as modified by Seith and applicant admitted prior art teaches:
The pumping system of claim 1, wherein a controller (90 of Beyer, see paragraph 35) is adapted to control operation of said pump and primer system by:
activating said primer system when said sensor signal indicates that liquid is not present at said selected depth based on said evaluation of said signal (paragraph 30 of Beyer), and
allowing said primary pump to be operated when said sensor signal correlates with a fluid depth (Beyer, height where the sensor 52’ is located) in said priming chamber which is at least the selected fluid depth for fluid having characteristics (particles of debris, see paragraph 5 and claim 20 of Beyer) correlating to said fluid in said priming chamber (see paragraph 35 of Beyer).
In Reference to Claim 6#
Beyer as modified by Seith and applicant admitted prior art teaches:
The pumping system of claim 5, wherein one of said fluid characteristics is the presence of particles of debris that can be present in the water being pumped and accounted for in said evaluation of said signal (paragraph 5 and claim 20 both show Beyer teaches a pump which has particles of debris (solid particles) as a characteristics of the fluid in the pumping chamber).
In Reference to Claim 7#
Beyer as modified by Seith and applicant admitted prior art teaches:
The pumping system of claim 1, wherein said controller allows operation of said pump when said signal indicates the presence of liquid at the selected depth for a selected period of time based on said evaluation of said signal. The “selected period of time” is the time period over which the “average” or “rolling average” of Seith is measured.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights