DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 2, 2025 has been entered. Claims 14 – 17, 24, 26 – 30 and 34 – 43 are pending in the application with claims 1 – 13, 18 – 23, 25, 31 – 33 being cancelled and claim 43 being newly added. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed June 4, 2025.
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.
Claims 14 – 17, 24, 26, 28, 29 and 36 – 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Jason D. (US 2019/0264683 – herein after Smith) in view of Smith, Jason D (US 2016/0108910 – herein after Smith II).
In reference to claim 14, Smith teaches a fluid end (200; see figs. 5-7) of a reciprocating pump (¶9), comprising (see fig. A below):
a casing (labelled in fig. A below) including intersecting conduits (labelled “1”, “2”, “3” and “4”) that collectively define a plurality of segments (labelled “s1”, “s2”, “s3” and “s4”),
wherein a segment (“s3”) of the plurality of segments (“s1”, “s2”, “s3” and “s4”) extends along an axis (labelled in fig. A below) from an external surface (labelled “e.s.”) of the casing to a pumping chamber (labelled “p.c.”) defined within the casing,
wherein the segment (“s3”) comprises a wall (labelled in fig. A below) comprising a sealing section (labelled “s.s.”) configured to surround and seal against a sealing assembly (102+rubber resilient seal; see ¶36 and fig. 4) of the reciprocating pump, and an entirety of the segment (“s3”) defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis [plane viewed as a vertical plane extending in a direction that is into and out of the page], having a circular shape to receive and secure the sealing assembly (102+seal), which has a corresponding circular cross-sectional shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
1031
1259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
974
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited figs. 6B and 7 of Smith to show claim interpretation.
Smith does not teach the fluid end wherein the entirety of segment (“s3”, in fig. A above) has the cross-section in the form of “non-circular” shape.
However, Smith II teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a similar segment (segment defining port 238 and bore 244, see fig. 7), wherein this segment comprises a wall (wall defining port 238) comprising a sealing section (section of the wall that surrounds and seals against cover 202) configured to surround and seal against a sealing assembly (202, see fig. 3A) of the reciprocating pump, and an entirety of the segment defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis [plane viewed as a vertical plane extending in a direction that is into and out of the page], having a non-circular shape (shape that is not circular) to receive and secure the sealing assembly (202), which has a corresponding non-circular cross-sectional shape (see ¶30: “As shown in FIG. 4 and described above, cover 202 includes a distal end 208 and a proximal end 210. Distal or insertion end 208 of cover 202 is preferably sized and shaped to be sealingly engaged within an access port of an industrial machine (e.g., a mud pump). While distal and proximal ends 208, 210 of cover 202 are shown as generally circular, it should be understood by those having ordinary skill that any shape or profile of access port may be accommodated using a similar or correspondingly shaped cover 202”; a PHOSITA would recognize that if the cover 202 is of non-circular shape, the retainer 204 (received in bore 244 and in contact with cover 202), and the entirety of the segment (in which cover 202 and retainer 204 are received/inserted) must also necessarily define a corresponding non-circular cross-section to receive, secure, and engage with the non-circular cover).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “non-circular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sealing assembly and the cross-section of the entirety of the segment in Smith’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith II as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith II in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Smith’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape of the entirety of the segment and the sealing assembly.
In reference to claim 15, Smith, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, comprising a seat (see fig. A above: seat defined by wall portion “w1” and angled wall portion “w2”) extending from the sealing section (left end of asserted sealing section “s.s.”) towards the pumping chamber (“p.c.”) and configured to engage the sealing assembly [engages component 102 of the asserted sealing assembly (102+seal)].
In reference to claim 16, Smith, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, wherein the wall (see fig. A above) comprises an access section (“a.s.”) that extends from the sealing section to the external surface and is tapered (152, see Smith’s fig. 6B and ¶43) inward such that a cross-sectional area of the access section decreases toward the external surface (“e.s.”) of the casing.
Smith, as modified, remains silent on the access section that is tapered “outward” such that the cross-sectional area of the access section “increases” toward the external surface of the casing.
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “outward” taper for the access section, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the taper of the access section in Smith’s fluid end for outward extension the cross-sectional area of the access section increases toward the external surface of the casing such as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (see fig. 6A of Smith: components being wall portion of 200 that defines taper 152 and outer surface 140 of component 126). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Smith’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed shape/extension of the taper.
In reference to claim 17, Smith, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, wherein the segment (“s3”) includes an access segment that provides access to at least the pumping chamber (“p.c.”) [the segment “s3” is considered to be an “access segment” because removing the sealing assembly 102 from this segment provides access to the pumping chamber].
In reference to claim 24, Smith, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, wherein the wall comprises (see fig. A above): a seat (labelled “seat”) positioned proximate the pumping chamber (“p.c.”) and an access section (“a.s.”) extending from the sealing section (“s.s.”) to the external surface (“e.s.”), the seat being configured to retain a closure element (102) of the sealing assembly in a position where a seal (“rubber resilient seal” in groove 118c, see ¶36 and fig. 4) of the sealing assembly seals against the sealing section (“s.s.”), and wherein the sealing section (“s.s.”) positioned between the access section (“a.s.”) and the seat (“seat”).
In reference to claim 26, Smith, as modified above in claim 24, teaches the fluid end, wherein the seat (“seat” in fig. A above) comprises contoured edges (labelled “c.e.1” and “c.e.2” in fig. B below) configured to smooth a transition from the pumping chamber (“p.c.”) to the seat (condition A), a transition from another segment of the plurality of segments to the seat (condition B), or both (condition C) [condition A being met: the asserted countered edges are capable of “smoothing a transition” from the pumping chamber “p.c.” to the seat].
PNG
media_image3.png
966
802
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 6B of Smith to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 28, Smith, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end (see fig. A above), wherein the sealing section (“s.s.”) of the wall of the segment (“s3”) of the plurality of segments is not tapered [no portion of the asserted sealing section “s.s.” in fig. A above is tapered].
In reference to claim 29, Smith teaches a fluid end (200; see figs. 5-7) of a reciprocating pump (¶9), comprising (see fig. A above):
a casing (labelled in fig. A above) including intersecting conduits (labelled “1”, “2”, “3” and “4”) that collectively define a plurality of segments (labelled “s1”, “s2”, “s3” and “s4”),
wherein a segment (“s3”) of the plurality of segments (“s1”, “s2”, “s3” and “s4”) extends along an axis (labelled in fig. A below) from an external surface (labelled “e.s.”) of the casing to a pumping chamber (labelled “p.c.”) defined within the casing,
wherein the segment (“s3”) comprises a sealing section (labelled in fig. A above: “s.s.”) configured to surround and seal against a closure element (102) and one or more seals (“rubber resilient seal”; see ¶36 and fig. 4) of a sealing assembly (102+rubber resilient seal), wherein an entirety of the sealing section defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis [plane viewed as a vertical plane extending in a direction that is into and out of the page], having a circular shape to receive and secure the closure element (102) and the one or more seals (rubber resilient seal), wherein the segment (“s3”) comprises a surface (“w1+w2” in fig. A above) extending toward the pumping chamber (“p.c.”) from the sealing section (“s.s.”) surrounding and sealing against the closure element (102), and wherein the segment (“s3”) includes an access segment (labelled “a.s.” in fig. A above) that provides access to at least the pumping chamber (“p.c.”) [the segment “s3” is considered to be an “access segment” because removing the sealing assembly 102 from this segment provides access to the pumping chamber]; and
the closure element (102), wherein the closure element is configured to be secured within the segment without threads (no presence of threads is disclosed by Smith on outer circumferential surface of the closure element 102), the closure element comprises a closure section (labelled “c.s.” in fig. C below) and a seating section (labelled “s.sc.” in fig. C below), the closure section (groove 118c in fig. 4 of the closure section) is configured to contact the one or more seals (“rubber resilient seal”; see ¶36 and fig. 4), and the seating section extends radially beyond the closure section to define a shoulder (labelled “s.h.” in fig. C below) configured to engage the surface (portion w1 of the asserted surface defined by “w1+w2”; see fig. A above) extending toward the pumping chamber from the sealing section surrounding and sealing against the closure element and the one or more seals to secure the closure element within the segment without threads.
PNG
media_image4.png
982
986
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. C: Edited fig. 6B of Smith to show claim interpretation.
Smith does not teach the fluid end wherein the entirety of the sealing section (“s.s.”, in fig. A above) having the cross-section in a “non-circular” shape.
However, Smith II teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a similar segment (segment defining port 238), wherein this segment comprises a sealing section (section defining port 238) configured to surround and seal against a closure element (202, see fig. 3A), wherein an entirety of the sealing section defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis [plane viewed as a vertical plane extending in a direction that is into and out of the page], having a non-circular shape (shape that is not circular) to receive and secure the closure element (202), which has a corresponding non-circular cross-sectional shape (see ¶30: “As shown in FIG. 4 and described above, cover 202 includes a distal end 208 and a proximal end 210. Distal or insertion end 208 of cover 202 is preferably sized and shaped to be sealingly engaged within an access port of an industrial machine (e.g., a mud pump). While distal and proximal ends 208, 210 of cover 202 are shown as generally circular, it should be understood by those having ordinary skill that any shape or profile of access port may be accommodated using a similar or correspondingly shaped cover 202”; a PHOSITA would recognize that if the cover 202 is of non-circular shape, the retainer 204 (received in bore 244 and in contact with cover 202), and the entirety of the segment (in which cover 202 and retainer 204 are received/inserted) must also necessarily define a corresponding non-circular cross-section to receive, secure, and engage with the non-circular cover).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “non-circular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the sealing assembly (102+seal) and the entirety of segment (which includes the sealing section) in Smith’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith II as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith II in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Smith’s pump to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the sealing assembly and the entirety of the sealing section.
In reference to claim 36, Smith, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the seating section (labelled “s.sc.” in fig. C above) of the closure element (102) extends past the sealing section (labelled “s.s.” in fig. A above) of the segment toward the pumping chamber (“p.c.”) while the closure element (102) is secured within the segment (“s3”, in fig. A above).
In reference to claim 37, Smith, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein (see fig. A above) the segment (“s3”) comprises an access section (“a.s.”) that is tapered (152, see ¶43) from the sealing section (“s.s.”) to the external surface (“e.s.”) of the casing, and the closure element (102) terminates prior to the access section (“a.s.” in fig. A above) while the closure element is secured within the segment (“s3”, in fig. A above).
In reference to claim 38, Smith, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein (see proposed modification discussed above in claim 29) the closure element (102) comprises a non-circular cross-sectional shape (in view of Smith II’s teaching), as taken along the axis while the closure element is secured within the segment, the non-circular cross-sectional shape of the closure element corresponding to the non-circular shape of the cross-section defined by the entirety of the sealing section.
In reference to claim 39, Smith, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the surface (defined by “w1+w2”; see fig. A above) of the segment faces the pumping chamber (“p.c.” in fig. A above) [“w1” of the surface faces the pumping chamber], and the seating section (“s.sc.” in fig. C above) of the closure element (102) is configured to engage the surface facing the pumping chamber while the closure element is secured within the segment (the seating section “s.sc.” engages wall “w2” of the surface “w1+w2” which has wall “w1” facing the pumping chamber “p.c.”).
In reference to claim 40, Smith, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the closure section (“c.s.” in fig. C above) is radially offset from the sealing section (“s.s.” in fig. A above) while the closure element is secured within the segment to define a channel (118c in fig. 4) between the closure section and the sealing section.
In reference to claim 41, Smith, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the one or more seals (“rubber resilient seal”; see ¶36 and fig. 4) are configured to be disposed in the channel (118c; see ¶36 and fig. 4).
Claims 27, 30, 34, 35, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Smith II and evidenced by Bruestle et al. (US 2016/0230729 – herein after Bruestle).
Regarding claim 27,
Smith, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, wherein the non-circular shape of the cross-section defined by the wall of the segment of the plurality of segments is of any shape.
Smith, as modified, remains silent on the shape being “elongated ovular”.
However, Bruestle evidences a non-circular shape of “elongated ovular” provided to a component (43, see fig. 7 and claim 11) of an assembly (42) inserted into its corresponding oval shaped bore (44) in a housing (46).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “elongated ovular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the non-circular shape in the modified Smith’s fluid end as “elongated ovular” as evidenced by Bruestle as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith II in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Smith’s fluid end to perform equally well with this claimed elongated ovular shape.
Regarding claim 30,
Smith, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the non-circular shape of the cross-section defined by the entirety of the sealing section surrounding and sealing against the closure element (102) and the one or more seals (seal) is of any shape.
Smith, as modified, remains silent on the shape comprising “two semi-circular lines connected by straight lines” i.e. an elongated ovular.
However, Bruestle evidences a non-circular shape of “elongated ovular” provided to a component (43, see fig. 7 and claim 11) of an assembly (42) inserted into its corresponding oval shaped bore (44) in a housing (46). This “elongated ovular” shape has two semi-circular lines connected by straight lines.
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “elongated ovular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the non-circular shape in the modified Smith’s fluid end as “elongated ovular” as evidenced by Bruestle as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith II in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Smith’s fluid end to perform equally well with this claimed elongated ovular shape.
Regarding claims 34 and 35,
Smith teaches a fluid end (200; see figs. 5-7) of a reciprocating pump (¶9), comprising (see fig. A above):
a casing (labelled in fig. A above) including intersecting conduits (labelled “1”, “2”, “3” and “4”) that collectively define a plurality of segments (labelled “s1”, “s2”, “s3” and “s4”),
wherein a segment (“s3”) of the plurality of segments (“s1”, “s2”, “s3” and “s4”) extends along an axis (labelled in fig. A above) from an external surface (labelled “e.s.”) of the casing to a pumping chamber (labelled “p.c.”) defined within the casing,
wherein the segment (“s3”) comprises a wall (“w”, see fig. A below) configured to surround and seal against a closure element (102) of the reciprocating pump, an entirety of the wall (“w”) of the segment surrounding and sealing against the closure element (102) defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis [plane viewed as a vertical plane extending in a direction that is into and out of the page], having a circular shape to retain and fixedly secure the closure element (102) having a corresponding circular shape within the segment without threads (no portion of the segment “s3” has threads), and the segment comprises an access section (labelled “a.s.”) proximate the external surface (“e.s.”) of the casing.
Smith does not teach the fluid end wherein the closure element (102) and the entirety of wall each having a “non-circular” cross-sectional or cross-section shape.
However, Smith II teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a similar segment (segment defining port 238), wherein this segment comprises a wall (wall defining port 238) configured to surround and seal against a closure element (202, see fig. 3A) of the reciprocating pump, and an entirety of the wall of the segment surrounding and sealing against the closure element (202) [this claimed “entirety of the wall” being a portion of wall around the sealing assembly 202] defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis [plane viewed as a vertical plane extending in a direction that is into and out of the page], having a non-circular shape (shape that is not circular) to receive and secure the closure element (202), which has a corresponding non-circular cross-sectional shape (see ¶30: “As shown in FIG. 4 and described above, cover 202 includes a distal end 208 and a proximal end 210. Distal or insertion end 208 of cover 202 is preferably sized and shaped to be sealingly engaged within an access port of an industrial machine (e.g., a mud pump). While distal and proximal ends 208, 210 of cover 202 are shown as generally circular, it should be understood by those having ordinary skill that any shape or profile of access port may be accommodated using a similar or correspondingly shaped cover 202”; a PHOSITA would recognize that if the cover 202 is of non-circular shape, the retainer 204 (received in bore 244 and in contact with cover 202), and the entirety of the segment (in which cover 202 and retainer 204 are received/inserted) must also necessarily define a corresponding non-circular cross-section to receive, secure, and engage with the non-circular cover).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “non-circular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the closure element (102) and the entirety of the segment (including the wall “w”) in Smith’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith II as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith II in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Smith’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the closure element and the entirety of the wall.
Smith, as modified by Smith II, remains silent on the non-circular shape being “an elongated oval shape”, as in claim 34; and “wherein the elongated oval shape of the cross-section defined by the entirety of the wall of the segment surrounding and sealing against the closure element comprises an ellipse”, as in claim 35.
However, Bruestle evidences a non-circular shape of “elongated oval” provided to a component (43, see fig. 7 and claim 11) of an assembly (42) inserted into its corresponding ellipse shaped bore (44) in a housing (46).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “elongated oval/ellipse” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the non-circular shape in the modified Smith’s fluid end as “elongated ovular/ellipse” as evidenced by Bruestle as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith II in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Smith’s pump to perform equally well with this claimed elongated ovular/ellipse shape.
Regarding claim 42,
Smith, as modified above in claim 34, teaches the fluid end, wherein the closure element comprises a closure section (labelled “c.s.” in fig. C above) and a seating section (labelled “s.sc.” in fig. C above) extending radially beyond the closure section to define a shoulder (labelled “s.h.” in fig. C above), and the wall (labelled “w” in fig. A above) is configured to surround and seal against the shoulder of the closure element.
Regarding claim 43,
Smith, as modified above in claim 34, teaches the fluid end, wherein (in view of proposed modification discussed above in claim 34) an entirety of the segment (“s3” in fig. A above) comprises the elongated oval shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 09/02/2025, with respect to independent claims have been considered.
With respect to amended independent claim 14 (see pages 8-9): Applicant has presented arguments in view of the amendment made to the claim 14. Specifically, applicant states “while Smith II discloses that an access port can have any shape for accommodating a cover having a corresponding shape, Smith II does not specifically disclose that an entirety of a segment defines a cross-section having a non-circular shape. See Smith II, para. [0030]”. Examiner disagrees. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize that if the cover 202 is of non-circular shape, the retainer 204 (received in bore 244 and in contact with cover 202), and the entirety of the segment (in which cover 202 and retainer 204 are received/inserted) must also necessarily define a corresponding non-circular cross-section to receive, secure, and engage with the non-circular cover. Thus, Smith II teaches an entirety of a segment (which received cover 202 and retainer 204) defines a cross-section having a non-circular shape. Thus, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
With respect to amended independent claim 29 (see page 9): This argument is moot. The amendment to claim 29 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 29, in a slightly different manner, i.e. the limitations “sealing section”, “surface”, “closure section” and “seating section” have a different interpretation.
With respect to amended independent claim 34 (see pages 9-11): These arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Rebuttal to point 6 in the filed affidavit (Non-Circular Advantages): The Applicant’s assertion that the non-circular shape provides the specific advantage of seating a closure element without a retaining element and/or without threads is unpersuasive because it focuses on a functional result rather than a structural distinction. Smith II expressly teaches that “any shape or profile of access port may be accommodated”, providing a clear invitation to move away from circularity for various mechanical purposes. The specific benefit of threadless retention is seen as a predictable result of utilizing alternative securement geometries already known in the art, such as the locking segments (126A-C) disclosed in Smith.
Rebuttal to point 7 in the filed affidavit (Ease of Installation via Axis Alignment): The argument that an elongated oval allows for easier installation through axis orientation is a natural physical consequence of using elliptical geometry. A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize that any non-circular shape with unequal axes (such as an oval or rectangle) inherently allows for “insertion without hindrance” if oriented correctly. This functions sequence is a predictable application of basic geometric principles and does not represent a “critical” technical departure from the variable shaped suggested by Smith II.
Rebuttal to point 8 in the filed affidavit (Smooth Profile and Stress Concentrations): The claim that a smooth elongated oval shape is critical for limiting stress concentrations and aiding manufacturing is not persuasive. It is a well-established engineering principle to use curved or radiused transitions to reduce stress. Therefore, selecting an oval shape – which is inherently smooth – over a “non-smooth” feature is a routine optimization that a PHOSITA would perform to ensure structural integrity and does not rise to the level of patentable non-obviousness.
Rebuttal to point 9 in the filed affidavit (Bruestle as Non-Analogous Art): The contention that Bruestle is non-analogous art because it pertains to internal combustion engines is rejected. Prior art is analogous if it is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved”. Both the current application and Bruestle address the fundamental mechanical problem of sealing an opening in a high-pressure housing. A PHOSITA seeking to optimize the cross-section of a high-pressure port would reasonably look to other high-pressure fluid systems, such as fuel injection, for geometric inspiration. Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on Bruestle to teach the overall operation of a reciprocating pump or a fluid end, but specifically to evidence that elongated oval/elliptical shapes are standard geometric solutions for components inserted into corresponding bores within high-pressure housings. While the “power flow” of an engine differs from a pump, the structural requirement of a component (43) to be received within and seal against a corresponding ellipse-shaped bore (44) is directly applicable to the structures recited in claim 34.
Rebuttal to point 10 in the filed affidavit (Disruption of Force Distribution): The argument that modifying Smith to be non-circular would create undesirable force concentrations in the locking segments is an engineering challenge, not a barrier to obviousness. If a PHOSITA chooses to adopt the non-circular shape motivated by Smith II and Bruestle, they would naturally and concurrently modify the shape of the locking segments to match the new profile. Adjusting the geometry of secondary components to accommodate a primary design change is a matter of routine mechanical design and predictable results.
Rebuttal to point 11 in the filed affidavit (Manufacturing Complexity): The Applicant’s point that circular shapes are easier to manufacture is not a deterrent to obviousness. Smith II provides a clear teaching to utilize non-circular shapes. The legal standard of obviousness does not require the proposed modification to be the “easiest” or most “cost-effective” route, only that there is a reason to perform it with a reasonable expectation of success.
Rebuttal to point 12 in the filed affidavit (Absence of Benefit): The professional opinion that there is no apparent advantage to modifying Smith with elongated oval shapes is contradicted by the references. Smith II provides the teaching of non-circular profiles while Bruestle provides a concrete example of elliptical or ovular bore used in a high-pressure environment. These references collectively provide the technical evidence that such a modification is both viable and used for high-pressure fluid end assemblies.
Rebuttal to point 13 in the filed affidavit (Failure to Reproduce Claimed Features): The summary statement that the references fail to reproduce the features of claim 34 is unpersuasive. As established in the detailed rejections, Smith provides the base pump structure, Smith II motivates the move to “any” non-circular shape for the segment, and Bruestle provides the specific “elongated oval” geometry. The combination of these teachings results in the exact structural arrangement recited in claim 34.
With respect to newly added claim 43 (see page 12): This argument is moot because the proposed modification discussed for claim 34 teaches this newly added claim.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746