DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 6-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US 2009/0044928) in view of Bahar (US 2016/0084534).
Claim 1, Brewer discloses a pumping system (fig 1, cooling system 100, par 0031) comprising: an electro-osmotic (EO) pump (electro-osmotic pump, par 0031, 0047, 0061)…;
a gas accumulator (fig 5, inlet and outlet chambers 82, 84, par 0042) operationally coupled to the EO pump (par 0041-0044);
wherein the gas accumulator comprises a gas accumulator inlet (inlet 81, par 0041), a gas accumulator outlet (outlet 86, par 0041), and a gas collection chamber (chambers 82, 84 with air pockets, 85, 87, par 0042) disposed in a working fluid flow path between the gas accumulator inlet and the gas accumulator outlet (fig 5 shows this arrangement);
wherein the gas collection chamber is configured to accumulate a gas produced by operation of the EO pump (air accumulates is trapped in the space, par 0043; gas bubbles are produced by the EO pump and move through the system, par 0047; reasonably the source of the “trapped” gas is the gas produced by operation as no other sources of gas are disclosed) while allowing a liquid working fluid to flow through the gas accumulator (water flows through the pump, par 0039);
wherein the gas accumulator inlet is a structure separate from the electrodes or the membrane (fig 5, EO pump 89 separates the accumulator structures 87 and 85; the figure 5 shows the pump 89 as distinct from accumulator structures 87 and 85, par 0041); wherein the gas collection chamber is configured to facilitate the separation of at least some of the gas and the liquid working fluid as the liquid working fluid flows through the gas collection chamber (air is trapped in air pockets 85 and 87, par 0042; the space is formed in order to form and maintain air pockets above water 84 and 82 in the same chamber; reasonably the separation must be facilitated or the water in the chamber would occupy the air spaces and thereby render the disclosed invention inoperable; Brewer discloses that the design controls the positioning and location of the air pockets 85/87 par 0045).
Brewer is silent on the electro-osmotic pump having a plurality of electrodes and a membrane. Brewer doesn’t meet the limitation because it describes its EO pump generically and is silent on the exact structure of its internal EO pump.
Bahar teaches a pumping system (fig 1 EO pump in a heat system, abstract) comprising: an electro-osmotic pump (electrochemical compressor, par 0031 this configuration of two electrodes sandwiching a membrane is an electro-osmotic pump, evidenced by Paul, par 0045-0045, 0081) having a plurality of electrodes (the cathode 34 and the anode 30 are two separate electrodes, par 0031; a POSITA would recognize that applicant’s disclosed plurality of electrodes, 126, 128 appears in their fig 18 to be a cathode and anode at opposite sides of the membrane, as is conventional, See applicant’s fig 18, par 0060) and a membrane (membrane 34, par 0031); and a gas accumulator (fig 2, cathode space, par 0031, See annotated figure) operationally coupled to the EO pump.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the generically described EO pump of Brewer with the EO pump with two electrodes and a membrane of Bahar for the expected result of providing an EO pump in a heat pump system; and also be able to use the pump to enable a more efficient control of heat and flow through the system (Bahar, par 0015).
The combination teaches the limitation “EO pump having a plurality of electrodes and a membrane.”
Claim 6, Brewer in view of Bahar discloses the pumping system of Claim 1. Brewer is silent on wherein the chamber is configured to accumulate the gas to facilitate (a) movement of gas molecules away from fluid channels, and (b) saturation of the gas in chemical reactions involved in operating the EO pump.
Nevertheless, Brewer discloses that the gas accumulates at the top of the inlet and outlet chambers (87, 85); and fluid accumulates in the lower part of both the inlet and outlet chambers (84, 82), where the fluid is in contact with the inlet and outlet ports (81, 86). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fluid inlet to membrane and the membrane to fluid outlet both beneath the gas accumulation line shown in fig 5 reasonably meets the limitation “facilitate movement of gas molecules away from the fluid channels.”
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that Brewer’s gas accumulation at the top of the inlet and outlet chambers inherently meets the limitation “accumulate gas to facilitate saturation of the gas in chemical reactions involved in operating the EO pump,” because applicant discloses that capturing and ensuring the gas stays within an enclosure operationally coupled to the EO pump facilitates saturation (Applicant’s par 0067). Since Brewer discloses enclosing gas within the chamber’s with the liquid it inherently also reasonably achieves saturation in the same manner as applicant’s disclosed invention.
Claim 7, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 1, wherein the gas accumulator inlet is coupled to a fluid channel outlet (Brewer, fig 1, tubing 112 outlet at 32, par 0031-0032).
Claim 8, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 7, wherein the gas accumulator outlet comprises a pump receptacle configured to couple to the EO pump (Brewer, housing 88 holds the pump 80, par 0041).
Claim 9, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 1, wherein the gas accumulator outlet is coupled to a fluid channel inlet (Brewer, fig 1, tubing 114 inlet at 34, par 0031-0032).
Claim 10, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 9, wherein the gas accumulator inlet comprises a heat exchanger coupler (Brewer, fig 1 shows connections 32 and 34 to heat exchanges 40 and 20, par 0031) configured for direct mechanical coupling to a heat exchanger (exchangers 20/40, par 0031; fig 1 shows a direct mechanical coupling).
Claim 11, Brewer discloses a pumping system (fig 1, 100, par 0031) comprising:
a first gas accumulator (chamber 82, par 0042) comprising a first gas accumulator inlet (inlet 81, par 0041),
a first gas accumulator outlet (implicitly an outlet exists between the channel structure of pump 89 and chamber 82 because fluid flow occurs between them, See par 0041, for disclosure of channel),
and a first gas collection chamber (85) disposed in a working fluid flow path (par 0041) between the first gas accumulator inlet and the first gas accumulator outlet (fig 5);
an electro-osmotic (EO) pump (par 0031, 0047, 0061) operationally coupled to the first gas accumulator in a fluid circuit (par 0031-0032),
wherein the working fluid of the fluid circuit is a liquid (liquid, par 0041);
… ;
a second gas accumulator (84) operationally coupled to the EO pump in the fluid circuit, the second gas accumulator comprising a second gas accumulator inlet (implicitly an inlet between pump 89 and chamber 84), a second gas accumulator outlet (86), and a second gas collection chamber (87) disposed in a working fluid (par 0041) flow path between the second gas accumulator inlet and the second gas accumulator outlet (fig 5 shows this arrangement);
wherein the first and second gas collection chambers are configured to accumulate gas produced by operation of the EO pump (air accumulates is trapped in the space, par 0043; gas bubbles are produced by the EO pump and move through the system, par 0047; reasonably the source of the “trapped” gas is the gas produced by operation as no other sources of gas are disclosed) while allowing a liquid working fluid to flow through the gas accumulator (water flows through the pump, par 0039) while allowing the working fluid to flow through the respective first and second gas accumulators (par 0041-0043).
Brewer is silent on the EO pump comprises a membrane and a plurality of electrodes; and wherein the first and second gas accumulator inlets each is a structure separate from the electrodes or the membrane.
Bahar teaches a pumping system (fig 1 EO pump in a heat system, abstract) comprising: an electro-osmotic pump (electrochemical compressor, par 0031 this configuration of two electrodes sandwiching a membrane is an electro-osmotic pump, evidenced by Paul, par 0045-0045, 0081) having a plurality of electrodes (the cathode 34 and the anode 30 are two separate electrodes, par 0031; a POSITA would recognize that applicant’s disclosed plurality of electrodes, 126, 128 appears in their fig 18 to be a cathode and anode at opposite sides of the membrane, as is conventional, See applicant’s fig 18, par 0060) and a membrane (membrane 34, par 0031); and a gas accumulator (fig 2, cathode space, par 0031, See annotated figure) operationally coupled to the EO pump.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the generically described EO pump of Brewer with the EO pump with two electrodes and a membrane of Bahar for the expected result of providing an EO pump in a heat pump system; and also be able to use the pump to enable a more efficient control of heat and flow through the system (Bahar, par 0015).
The combination teaches the limitation EO pump having a plurality of electrodes and a membrane; ; and wherein the first and second gas accumulator inlets each is a structure separate from the electrodes or the membrane (Brewer, shows the EO pump 89 as separate from the inlets and outlets 81, 86 to the chambers fig 5).
Claim 14, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 11, wherein the first gas accumulator inlet is coupled to a fluid channel outlet (Brewer, fig 1, tubing 112 outlet at 32, par 0031-0032).
Claim 15, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 11, wherein the second gas accumulator outlet is coupled to a fluid channel inlet (Brewer, fig 1, tubing 114 inlet at 34, par 0031-0032).
Process claims will be examined under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 16, Brewer discloses a method of manufacturing a pumping system (fig 1, 100, par 0031), providing an electro-osmotic pump (par 0031, 0047, 0061); proving a gas accumulator (82) comprising a gas accumulator inlet (81), a gas accumulator outlet (implicit outlet between channel structure of pump 89 and camber 82, See par 0041 for disclosure of channel), and a gas collection chamber (85) configured to facilitae flow of a liquid working fluid (par 0041) between the gas accumulator inlet and the gas accumulator outlet (air is trapped in air pockets 85 and 87, par 0042; the space is formed in order to form and maintain air pockets above water 84 and 82 in the same chamber; reasonably the separation must be facilitated or the water in the chamber would occupy the air spaces and thereby render the disclosed invention inoperable; Brewer discloses that the design controls the positioning and location of the air pockets 85/87 par 0045);
Wherein the gas collection chamber is further configured to accumulate a gas produced during operation of the of the EO pump (air accumulates is trapped in the space, par 0043; gas bubbles are produced by the EO pump and move through the system, par 0047; reasonably the source of the “trapped” gas is the gas produced by operation as no other sources of gas are disclosed) while allowing a liquid working fluid to flow through the gas accumulator (water flows through the pump, par 0039)
wherein the gas accumulator inlet is a structure separate from the electrodes or the membrane (fig 5, EO pump 89 separates the accumulator structures 87 and 85; the figure 5 shows the pump 89 as distinct from accumulator structures 87 and 85, par 0041); wherein the gas collection chamber is configured to facilitate the separation of at least some of the gas and the liquid working fluid as the liquid working fluid flows through the gas collection chamber (air is trapped in air pockets 85 and 87, par 0042; the space is formed in order to form and maintain air pockets above water 84 and 82 in the same chamber; reasonably the separation must be facilitated or the water in the chamber would occupy the air spaces and thereby render the disclosed invention inoperable; Brewer discloses that the design controls the positioning and location of the air pockets 85/87 par 0045); and operationally coupling the EO pump to the gas accumulator in a fluid circuit (id; the water circuit is a fluid circuit).
Brewer is silent on the electro-osmotic pump having a plurality of electrodes and a membrane. Brewer doesn’t meet the limitation because it describes its EO pump generically and is silent on the exact structure of its internal EO pump.
Bahar teaches a pumping system (fig 1 EO pump in a heat system, abstract) comprising: an electro-osmotic pump (electrochemical compressor, par 0031 this configuration of two electrodes sandwiching a membrane is an electro-osmotic pump, evidenced by Paul, par 0045-0045, 0081) having a plurality of electrodes (the cathode 34 and the anode 30 are two separate electrodes, par 0031; a POSITA would recognize that applicant’s disclosed plurality of electrodes, 126, 128 appears in their fig 18 to be a cathode and anode at opposite sides of the membrane, as is conventional, See applicant’s fig 18, par 0060) and a membrane (membrane 34, par 0031); and a gas accumulator (fig 2, cathode space, par 0031, See annotated figure) operationally coupled to the EO pump.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the generically described EO pump of Brewer with the EO pump with two electrodes and a membrane of Bahar for the expected result of providing an EO pump in a heat pump system; and also be able to use the pump to enable a more efficient control of heat and flow through the system (Bahar, par 0015).
The combination teaches the limitation “EO pump having a plurality of electrodes and a membrane.”
Claim 17, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 16, wherein the gas accumulator inlet is configured to operationally couple to a fluid outlet (Brewer, fig 1, tubing 112 outlet at 32, par 0031-0032).
Claim 18, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 16, wherein the gas accumulator outlet comprises a pump receptacle (Brewer, fig 5, housing 88), the pump mechanical receptacle directly mechanically coupled to the EO pump (Brewer, fig 5 shows 88 surrounding and mounting EO pump 89, par 0041).
Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer in view of Bahar in view of Watson (US 2016/053588).
Claim 2, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 1. Brewer is silent wherein the EO pump is coupled to the gas accumulator with a leak proof seal formed by an interference fit.
Brewer doesn’t meet this because though it discloses the EO pumping structure 89 in housing 88 separating the inlet and outlet chambers; it does not specify the type of fit of pump 89 in housing 88.
Watson teaches a pump housing made of separate components joined together by alternate fixing means such as interference fit, thermal fit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute as equivalents known for the same purpose the interference fit to form the housing of Watson for the generic formation of the housing of Brewer. The rule is that a reliance on an equivalency for an obviousness rejection requires that the equivalency mut be recognized in the prior art (In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958), See MPEP 2144.06). In this case, Watson recognizes that an interference fit, and thermal fit may both be used to form the housing of a pump. Therefore, showing that the claimed limitation is an obvious equivalent to form and connect a pump to a housing.
Claim 3, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 2, wherein the interference fit is the result of thermal fitting.
Watson teaches a pump housing made of separate components joined together by alternate fixing means such as interference fit, thermal fit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute as equivalents known for the same purpose the interference fit to form the housing of Watson for the generic formation of the housing of Brewer. The rule is that a reliance on an equivalency for an obviousness rejection requires that the equivalency mut be recognized in the prior art (In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958), See MPEP 2144.06). In this case, Watson recognizes that an interference fit, and thermal fit may both be used to form the housing of a pump. Therefore, showing that the claimed limitation is an obvious equivalent to form and connect a pump to a housing.
Regarding claim 12, Brewer in view of Bahar teaches the pumping system of Claim 11. Brewer is silent wherein the first gas accumulator is coupled to the EO pump by an interference fit
Watson teaches a pump housing made of separate components joined together by alternate fixing means such as interference fit, thermal fit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute as equivalents known for the same purpose the interference fit to form the housing of Watson for the generic formation of the housing of Brewer. The rule is that a reliance on a equivalency for an obviousness rejection requires that the equivalency mut be recognized in the prior art (In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958), See MPEP 2144.06). In this case, Watson recognizes that an interference fit, and thermal fit may both be used to form the housing of a pump. Therefore, showing that the claimed limitation is an obvious equivalent to form a pump housing.
Regarding claim 13, Brewer in view of Bahar in view of Watson teaches the pumping system of Claim 12. Brewer is silent wherein the interference fit is produced by a thermal fitting.
Watson further teaches a pump housing made of separate components joined together by alternate fixing means such as interference fit, thermal fit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute as equivalents known for the same purpose the interference fit to form the housing of Watson for the generic formation of the housing of Brewer. The rule is that a reliance on a equivalency for an obviousness rejection requires that the equivalency mut be recognized in the prior art (In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958), See MPEP 2144.06). In this case, Watson recognizes that an interference fit, and thermal fit may both be used to form the housing of a pump. Therefore, showing that the claimed limitation is an obvious equivalent to form a pump housing.
Regarding claim 19, Brewer in view of Bahar discloses the method of Claim 18. Brewer is silent further comprising coupling the pump receptacle to the EO pump with an interference fit.
Watson teaches a pump housing made of separate components joined together by alternate fixing means such as interference fit, thermal fit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute as equivalents known for the same purpose the interference fit to form the housing of Watson for the generic formation of the housing of Brewer. The rule is that a reliance on an equivalency for an obviousness rejection requires that the equivalency mut be recognized in the prior art (In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958), See MPEP 2144.06). In this case, Watson recognizes that an interference fit, and thermal fit may both be used to form the housing of a pump. Therefore, showing that the claimed limitation is an obvious equivalent to form a pump housing.
Regarding claim 20, Brewer in view of Bahar in view of Watson teaches the method of Claim 19. Bahar is silent wherein coupling the pump receptacle to the EO pump with an interference fit comprises coupling the pump receptacle to the EO pump with a thermal fitting.
Watson further teaches a pump housing made of separate components joined together by alternate fixing means such as interference fit, thermal fit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute as equivalents known for the same purpose the interference fit to form the housing of Watson for the generic formation of the housing of Bahar. The rule is that a reliance on a equivalency for an obviousness rejection requires that the equivalency mut be recognized in the prior art (In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958), See MPEP 2144.06). In this case, Watson recognizes that an interference fit, and thermal fit may both be used to form the housing of a pump. Therefore, showing that the claimed limitation is an obvious equivalent to form a pump housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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 on (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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746