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 6 lines 6-12, page 7, lines 9-12, and the first footnote on page 7, filed August 20, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC 103 is made in view of the applicant admitted prior art. The applicant’s statements regarding the enablement of the invention state that both the claimed sensor’s structure and functionality are known in the prior art. Specifically, programmable sensors having a cylindrical shaft with a spherical cap which detect liquid level based on whether or not the sensed electromagnetic field, electric conductance field, and magnetic field are consistent with the presence of fluid. See MPEP §2129 I for further details regarding admissions which constitute prior art.
The applicant has argued, see the first footnote on page 7, that the use of a known sensor in pump priming systems is novel and non-obvious. The examiner respectfully disagrees. US 2005/0271518 to Beyer teaches a priming system for a pump which uses a sensor to determine the fluid level and whether the pump is primed. Beyer does not teach the claimed sensor, however the applicant’s admitted prior art now states the claimed sensor is known. Accordingly, an obviousness type rejection will be put forth below.
Since art rejections are being put forth below were not previously presented or necessitated by amendments, the rejections in this Office action will be a non-final.
Claims Status
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 15-18 are currently pending. Claims 15-18 stand withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are being examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2 recites “said controller” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should be changed to “a controller”.
Claim 5, line 1 also recites “said controller” which should be changed to “a controller”.
Claim 7, line 1 also recites “said controller” which should be changed to “a controller”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 4-7 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
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’) 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;
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);
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, and at least one of said primer detection settings monitored by said sensor is adjustable.
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 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.
In Reference to Claim 2#
Beyer as modified by 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.
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 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).
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” could be the time for one signal to reach the controller (Beyer paragraph 35, lines 7-11 state the pump will “immediately turn on the main pump” when a signal indicates a need for the pump).
In Reference to Claim 5#
Beyer as modified by 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 (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 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 is present in the water being pumped (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 applicant admitted prior art teaches:
The pumping system of claim 1, wherein a controller (90 of Beyer, see paragraph 35) allows operation of said pump when said signal indicates the presence of liquid at the selected depth for a selected period of time. The “selected period of time” could be the time for one signal to reach the controller (paragraph 35, lines 7-11 of Beyer state the pump will “immediately turn on the main pump” when a signal indicates a need for the pump).
Conclusion
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