DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 7, 2026 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 38, lines 1-2: “a non-circular cross-sectional shape” should read --the non-circular cross-sectional shape--.
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.
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, 15, 17, 28, 29, 36, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St. Michel et al. (US 2007/0140869 – herein after Michel) in view of Smith, Jason D (US 2016/0108910 – herein after Smith).
In reference to claim 14, Michel teaches a fluid end (22; see fig. 3) of a reciprocating pump (see abstract), comprising (see fig. A below):
a casing including intersecting conduits (vertical conduit in which valve components are provided; horizontal conduit in which plunger and closure element are provided) that collectively define a plurality of segments (labeled “S1”, “S2”) intersecting at a pumping chamber (64), wherein a segment (“S1”) of the plurality of segments extends along an axis (“axis”) from an external surface (“e.s.”) of the casing to the pumping chamber within the casing, wherein the segment comprises a wall (“w”) and defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis, having a shape (“cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis, having a shape” being an inherent feature); and
a closure element with a closure section (“c.s.”) and a seating section (“s.s.”) extending from the closure section radially beyond the closure section (the asserted closure section “c.s.” extends in ← direction from the closure section “c.s.” and also extends in radial ↨ direction beyond the closure section “c.s.”) and the segment (left end portion of the asserted closure section “c.s.” extends beyond the segment “S1”), wherein the closure element is configured to be secured to the casing such that the seating section extending radially beyond the segment closes the segment and the closure section extends from the seating section away from the pumping chamber and along the wall (the closure section “c.s.” extends in → direction, which is away from the pumping chamber 64 and along the wall “w”), and wherein the closure element comprises a cross-sectional shape corresponding to the shape of the segment.
PNG
media_image1.png
948
1284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
718
1130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 3 of Michel to show claim interpretation.
Michel does not teach the fluid end wherein the cross-section of the wall has “non-circular” shape and wherein the closure element comprises a “non-circular” cross-sectional shape corresponding to the non-circular shape of the segment.
However, Smith teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a segment (segment defining port 238 and bore 244, see fig. 7), wherein the segment comprises a wall (wall defining port 238) and 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); and a closure element (200, see fig. 3A) comprising a non-circular cross-sectional shape corresponding to the non-circular shape of the segment [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 and the cross-section of the segment’s wall in Michel’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith 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 in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the segment’s wall and the closure element.
In reference to claim 15, Michel, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, wherein an additional segment (see fig. A above: “S2”) of the plurality of segments extends along an additional axis (see fig. A above: “A2”) and intersects with the segment (“S1”) to form an edge surface (surface in circled region; see fig. A above, bottom image), and the seating section (“s.s.”) of the closure element is configured to engage the edge surface to close the segment (“S1”).
In reference to claim 17, Michel, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, wherein the segment (“S1”) includes an access segment (“a.s.”) that provides access to at least the pumping chamber (64) [removing the closure element from the segment S1 provides access to the pumping chamber 64].
In reference to claim 28, Michel, as modified above in claim 14, teaches the fluid end, wherein the seating section (“s.s.”; see fig. A above) of the closure element comprises a surface (left surface) facing and exposed to the pumping chamber (64).
In reference to claim 29, Michel teaches a fluid end (22; see fig. 3) of a reciprocating pump (see abstract), the fluid end comprising (see fig. B below):
a casing including intersecting conduits (vertical conduit in which valve components are provided; horizontal conduit in which plunger and closure element are provided) that collectively define a plurality of segments (labeled “S1”, “S2”), wherein a first segment (“S1”) of the plurality of segments extends along a first axis (labeled “axis” in fig. B below) from an external surface (“e.s.”) of the casing, wherein a second segment (“S2”) of the plurality of segments extends along a second axis (labeled “A2” in fig. B below), transverse to the first axis, and intersects with the first segment to form an edge surface (see fig. B below) and to define a pumping chamber (64) within the casing, wherein the first segment (“S1”) defines a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the first axis, having a shape (cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis, having a shape being an inherent feature); and
a closure element (shaded component; see fig. B below), wherein the closure element comprises a closure section (“c.s.”; see fig. B below) and a seating section (“s.s.”; see fig. B below) extending from the closure section radially beyond the closure section (the asserted closure section “c.s.” extends in ← direction from the closure section “c.s.” and also extends in radial ↨ direction beyond the closure section “c.s.”) to define a shoulder (see fig. B below), wherein the shoulder is configured to engage the edge surface at where the first segment and the second segment intersect one another, and the closure element comprises a cross-sectional shape corresponding to the shape of the first segment.
PNG
media_image3.png
924
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 3 of Michel to show claim interpretation.
Michel does not teach the fluid end wherein the cross-section of the wall has “non-circular” shape and wherein the closure element comprises a “non-circular” cross-sectional shape corresponding to the non-circular shape of the segment.
However, Smith teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a segment (segment defining port 238 and bore 244, see fig. 7), wherein the segment comprises a wall (wall defining port 238) and 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); and a closure element (200, see fig. 3A) comprising a non-circular cross-sectional shape corresponding to the non-circular shape of the segment [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 and the cross-section of the segment’s wall in Michel’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith 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 in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the segment’s wall and the closure element.
In reference to claim 36, Michel, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the seating section (labelled “s.s.” in fig. B above) of the closure element extends (←) past the first segment (labelled “S1” in fig. B above) toward the pumping chamber (64) while the closure element (102) is secured within the first segment (“S1”) such that the seating section faces (←) and is exposed to the pumping chamber (64).
In reference to claim 38, Michel, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein (see proposed modification discussed above in claim 29) the closure element comprises the non-circular cross-sectional shape (in view of Smith’s teaching), as taken along the first axis while the closure element is secured within the first segment, the non-circular cross-sectional shape of the closure element corresponding to the non-circular shape of the cross-section defined by the first segment.
In reference to claim 39, Michel, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the edge surface (see fig. B above) faces the pumping chamber (64).
Claims 16 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel in view of Smith and evidenced by Smith, Jason D. (US 2019/0264683 – herein after Smith II).
Regarding claim 16,
Michel, 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 to the external surface (“e.s.”).
Michel, 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.
However, Smith II evidences a fluid end wherein an access section (section that receives components 126; see fig. 10) that is tapered outward (see surface pointed by reference number 140 in fig. 10) 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 access section in the modified Michel’s fluid end for provision of outward taper such that the cross-sectional area of the access section increases toward the external surface of the casing as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the component (in this case, wall portion of the segment). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed tapered shape.
Regarding claim 37,
Michel, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein (see fig. B above) the first segment (“S1”) comprises an access section (“a.s.”), and the closure element terminates prior to the access section (“a.s.”) while the closure element is secured within the first segment (“S1”).
Michel, as modified, remains silent on the access section that is tapered to the external surface of the casing.
However, Smith II evidences a fluid end wherein an access section (section that receives components 126; see fig. 10) is tapered (see surface pointed by reference number 140 in fig. 10) to (→) the external surface of the casing.
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with tapering 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 access section in the modified Michel’s fluid end for provision of a taper as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the component (in this case, wall portion of the segment). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed taper in the access section.
Claims 24, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel in view of Smith and evidenced by Jian et al. (US 2021/0355927 – herein after Jian).
Regarding claim 24,
Michel, as modified above in claim 15, does not teach the fluid end, comprising a seal positioned between the closure section and the wall and extending from the seating section of the closure element toward the external surface.
However, Jian teaches a fluid end, comprising a suction packing seal assembly (4; see figs. 1-2) inserted between a closure element (2) and a wall (wall portion in casing 1) and extending toward (→ in view of fig. 1) an external surface of a casing (1).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Michel’s closure section for providing a seal taught by Jian between the closure section and the wall in the modified fluid end of Michel since Jian states (see ¶12) “the sealing form of O-ring or D-ring in the prior art is replaced by the suction packing seal assembly between the suction gland and the valve housing; there is no need to open grooves for filling the O-ring or D-ring in the processing of the suction gland or the valve housing; good sealability; in view of the current continuous operation with high pressure and large displacement, in the actual use of the hydraulic end assembly, the sealing of the suction gland by the suction packing seal assembly can meet the sealing requirements under the current increasing pressure and fluid flushing more, compared with the O-ring or D-ring; reducing the abrasion of the suction gland or/and the valve housing; further effectively prolonging the service life of the suction gland or/and the valve housing”. With respect to the location of the seal between the closure section and the wall, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate Jian’s seal between the closure section and the wall in the modified fluid end of Michel since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality of locating the seal between the closure section and the wall.
Thus, Michel, as modified, teaches the fluid end, comprising a seal (of Jian) positioned between the closure section (“c.s.”; see fig. A above) and the wall (“w”; see fig. A above) and extending from the seating section (“s.s.”; see fig. A above) of the closure element toward the external surface (“e.s.”; see fig. A above).
Regarding claim 40,
Michel, as modified above, does not teach the fluid end, wherein the closure section is radially offset from the first segment while the closure element is secured within the first segment to define a channel between the closure section and the first segment.
However, Jian teaches a fluid end, comprising a suction packing seal assembly (4; see figs. 1-2) inserted between a closure element (2) offset from its corresponding segment (wall portion of casing 1) while the closure element is secured within its corresponding segment to define a channel (as evident from fig. 1) between the closure element and its corresponding segment.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Michel’s closure section such that it is radially offset from the first segment to define a channel for providing a seal taught by Jian in the modified fluid end of Michel since Jean states (see ¶12) “the sealing form of O-ring or D-ring in the prior art is replaced by the suction packing seal assembly between the suction gland and the valve housing; there is no need to open grooves for filling the O-ring or D-ring in the processing of the suction gland or the valve housing; good sealability; in view of the current continuous operation with high pressure and large displacement, in the actual use of the hydraulic end assembly, the sealing of the suction gland by the suction packing seal assembly can meet the sealing requirements under the current increasing pressure and fluid flushing more, compared with the O-ring or D-ring; reducing the abrasion of the suction gland or/and the valve housing; further effectively prolonging the service life of the suction gland or/and the valve housing”. With respect to the location of the seal between the closure section and the first segment, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate Jian’s seal between the closure section and the first segment in the modified fluid end of Michel since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality of locating the seal between the closure section and the first segment.
Regarding claim 41,
Michel, as modified above, teaches the fluid end, wherein one or more seals (of Jian) are configured to be disposed in the channel (as evident from Jian’s fig. 1) and extend from the seating section (“s.s.” in fig. B above; of Michel) of the closure element toward the external surface (“e.s.” in fig. B above; of Michel).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel in view of Smith and evidenced by Morreale et al. (US 2017/0159655 – herein after Morreale).
Michel, as modified above in claim 15, does not teach the fluid end, wherein the edge surface is contoured to smooth a transition from the pumping chamber to the segment of the plurality of segments, to smooth a transition from the additional segment of the plurality of segments to the segment, or both.
However, Morreale states (see ¶11 and fig. 1) “In an effort to reduce the degree of stress concentrations in these areas and to reduce the amount of pump downtime caused repair and/or replacement, the edges that are formed at the intersections of the various pump bores in some prior art pumps, such as the edges 118e and/or 110e of the pump fluid end 100, are often dressed by grinding or machining to have radiused or chamfered configurations”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to contour the edge surface as taught by Morreale to smooth a transition from the pumping chamber to the segment of the plurality of segments, to smooth a transition from the additional segment of the plurality of segments to the segment, or both in the modified pump of Michel for the purpose of reducing the degree of stress concentrations, as recognized by Morreale above .
Claims 27, 30, 34, 35, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel in view of Smith and evidenced by Ramos et al. (US 2014/0331856 – herein after Ramos).
Regarding claim 27,
Michel, 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.
Michel, as modified, remains silent on the shape being “elongated ovular”.
However, Ramos evidences (see fig. C below) a non-circular shape of “elongated ovular” provided to a component (“closure element”) inserted into its corresponding oval shaped bore in a pump housing (12).
PNG
media_image4.png
818
1050
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. C: Edited fig. 1 of Ramos to show claim interpretation.
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 Michel’s fluid end as “elongated ovular” as evidenced by Ramos 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 in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with this claimed elongated ovular shape.
Regarding claim 30,
Michel, as modified above in claim 29, teaches the fluid end, wherein the non-circular shape of the cross-section defined by the first segment is of any shape.
Michel, as modified, remains silent on the shape comprising “two semi-circular lines connected by straight lines” i.e. an elongated ovular.
However, Ramos evidences (see fig. B above) a non-circular shape of “elongated ovular” provided to a component (“closure element”) inserted into its corresponding oval shaped bore in a pump housing (12). 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 Michel’s fluid end as “elongated ovular” as evidenced by Ramos 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 in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with this claimed elongated ovular shape.
Regarding claim 34,
Michel teaches a fluid end (22; see fig. 3) of a reciprocating pump (see abstract), the fluid end comprising (see fig. B above):
a casing including intersecting conduits (vertical conduit in which valve components are provided; horizontal conduit in which plunger and closure element are provided) that collectively define a plurality of segments (labeled “S1”, “S2”), wherein a first segment (“S1”) of the plurality of segments extends along a first axis (labeled “axis” in fig. above) from an external surface (“e.s.”) of the casing, wherein a second segment (“S2”) of the plurality of segments extends along a second axis (labeled “A2” in fig. B above), transverse to the first axis, to define a pumping chamber (64) within the casing, and wherein the first segment (“S1”) comprises a cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the first axis, having a shape (cross-section, taken along a plane perpendicular to the axis, having a shape being an inherent feature); and
a closure element (shaded component; see fig. B above) comprising a closure section (“c.s.”; see fig. B above) and a seating section (“s.s.”; see fig. B above) extending radially beyond the closure section (the asserted closure section “c.s.” extends in ← direction from the closure section “c.s.” and also extends in radial ↨ direction beyond the closure section “c.s.”), and wherein the closure element is configured to be secured to the casing such that the closure section (“c.s.”; see fig. B above) extends into the first segment (extends in → direction, which is into the first segment “S1”) and the seating section (“s.s.”; see fig. B above) extends from the closure section (extends in ← direction, which is from the closure section “c.s.”), toward the pumping chamber (64), and radially (↨) beyond the cross-section of the first segment to close the first segment (“S1”).
Michel does not teach the fluid end wherein the cross-section of the first segment has “elongated oval” (non-circular) shape and wherein the seating section of the closure element comprises a corresponding “elongated oval” (non-circular) shape.
However, Smith teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a segment (segment defining port 238 and bore 244, see fig. 7), wherein the segment comprises a wall (wall defining port 238) and 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); and a closure element (200, see fig. 3A) comprising a non-circular cross-sectional shape corresponding to the non-circular shape of the segment [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 and the cross-section of the first segment in Michel’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith 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 in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the segment’s wall and the closure element.
Michel, as modified, remains silent on the shape being “elongated oval”.
However, Ramos evidences (see fig. C above) a non-circular shape of “elongated ovular” provided to a component (“closure element”) inserted into its corresponding oval shaped bore in a pump housing (12).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “elongated oval” 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 Michel’s fluid end as “elongated ovular” as evidenced by Ramos 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 in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Michel’s fluid end to perform equally well with this claimed elongated oval shape.
Regarding claim 35,
Michel, as modified above in claim 34, teaches the fluid end, wherein the elongated oval shape of the cross-section defined by the first segment comprises an ellipse (as evident from fig. C above).
Regarding claim 42,
Michel, as modified above in claim 34, teaches the fluid end, wherein the closure section (“c.s.”, see fig. B above) and the seating section (“s.s.”, see fig. B above) extending radially beyond the closure section define a shoulder (see fig. B above) configured to engage the casing at where the first segment and the second segment intersect (intersection forming “edge surface”, see fig. B above) to close the first segment.
Regarding claim 43,
Michel, as modified above in claim 34, teaches the fluid end, wherein an entirety of the first segment comprises the elongated oval shape (in view of proposed modification discussed above in claim 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 14, 29 and 34 have been considered but they are moot. The amendment to the independent claims changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 1, in view of newly found reference of Michel.
Conclusion
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
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights