DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 & 3-8 are pending in the application. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) and/or PCT Article 7, Paragraph (1). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The structure required for the shuttle to advance and retract in conjunction with the output gear rotating, i.e., the structure which prevents the shuttle from rotating with the output gear; see 112 rejections below for clarification
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 & 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by omitting essential detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a shuttle linearly displacing toward and away from the output gear and contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as the output gear rotates to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve…the shuttle retracts to permit rotation of the sleeve.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the shuttle is able to advance and retract.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, the original disclosure lacks sufficient written description in how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. As such, sufficient written description is not provided on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 1.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, sufficient written description has not been provided, since it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 1 is rejected for lack of sufficient written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the invention is and how it works.
As to Claim 7, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by omitting essential detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a shuttle linearly displacing toward and away from the output gear contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve, wherein the output gear rotates to force the shuttle to advance and retract.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the shuttle is able to advance and retract.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, the original disclosure lacks sufficient written description in how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. As such, sufficient written description is not provided on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 1.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, sufficient written description has not been provided, since it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 7 is rejected for lack of sufficient written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the invention is and how it works.
As to Claim 8, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by omitting essential detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “an axially reciprocating shuttle…such that the output gear rotates to force the shuttle pin to move within the shuttle cam slot and thereby cause the shuttle to advance and retract by linearly displacing toward and away from the output gear as the output gear rotates to either block or permit rotation of the sleeve.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the shuttle is able to advance and retract.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, the original disclosure lacks sufficient written description in how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. As such, sufficient written description is not provided on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 1.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, sufficient written description has not been provided, since it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 8 is rejected for lack of sufficient written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the invention is and how it works.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 & 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “a shuttle linearly displacing toward and away from the output gear and contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as the output gear rotates to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve” in Lines 26-28, is indefinite, in light of the specification.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the claimed shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, since the original disclosure has not provided sufficient explanation as to 1) how the reciprocating structure replaces the interlock structure; 2) how the shuttle is prevented from rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates; and 3) how the shuttle may be both connected to the output gear and not connected to the output gear. As such, it is not clear how the shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, rendering the claim indefinite.
The phrase “the shuttle comprises shuttle pin”, in Line 31, should read --the shuttle comprises a shuttle pin.
As to Claim 7, the limitation “a shuttle linearly displacing toward and away from the output gear contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve, wherein the output gear rotates to force the shuttle to advance and retract” in Lines 26-28, is indefinite, in light of the specification.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the claimed shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, since the original disclosure has not provided sufficient explanation as to 1) how the reciprocating structure replaces the interlock structure; 2) how the shuttle is prevented from rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates; and 3) how the shuttle may be both connected to the output gear and not connected to the output gear. As such, it is not clear how the shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 8, the limitation “an axially reciprocating shuttle…such that the output gear rotates to force the shuttle pin to move within the shuttle cam slot and thereby cause the shuttle to advance and retract by linearly displacing toward and away from the output gear as the output gear rotates to either block or permit rotation of the sleeve” in Lines 26-29, is indefinite, in light of the specification.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the claimed shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, since the original disclosure has not provided sufficient explanation as to 1) how the reciprocating structure replaces the interlock structure; 2) how the shuttle is prevented from rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates; and 3) how the shuttle may be both connected to the output gear and not connected to the output gear. As such, it is not clear how the shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, rendering the claim indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a)/112(b) rejections, Applicant believes instant application Paragraphs 180-186 provide sufficient support for the claimed invention. Applicant also argues the amendments to the claims overcome the rejections. Examiner disagrees.
First, it should be noted, the rejections are based on the lack of written description. As such, amending the claims to clarify the disputed structure does not help to overcome the rejection. The original disclosure does not have support for the claimed structure. As such, the only way to overcome the rejection is to remove the rejected limitations, and any associated limitations from the claims.
Although Paragraphs 180-186 broadly describe how the output gear, the shuttle, the sleeve, and the plunger work together. None of Paragraphs 180-186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system replaces the flexible interlock system, only that the reciprocating shuttle system replaces the flexible interlock system. The original disclosure and Applicant’s arguments each imply it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, Examiner contends it would not be obvious.
As noted in the rejections above, none of Paragraphs 180/186 –in addition to the rest of the original disclosure— describe how the shuttle 7005 can be coupled to the output gear 7002 without interfering with sleeve 7001, nor how the shuttle 7005 is prevented from rotating with the output gear 7002 as output gear 7002 rotates. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to other structure which is required, but this structure is not described, nor would the structure be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, or how to implement the structure into the claimed pump when replacing the flexible interlock system. For instance, it is not clear how the output gear, the shuttle, nor the undisclosed structure would be placed within the pump, because none of these relationships are described in the original disclosure. Applicant has not addressed this problem in any of their arguments despite this aspect of the rejection being the core of the rejection.
Applicant argues the drawings do not conflict with each other, because Figures 72A-72C do not show shuttle 7005 within the output gear. Examiner disagrees. Instant application Paragraph 00186 describes cam structure 7007 –see Figure 71-- as being part of output gear 7002, and shuttle pin 7009 as being part of shuttle 7005. As such, Figures 72A-72C show shuttle 7005 within the output gear 7002/7007.
Figures 72A-72C show shuttle 7005 is remaining centered on output gear 7002/7007, since output gear 7002/7007 is shown rotating in Figures 72A-72C while shuttle 7005 is shown moving linearly via shuttle pin 7009 and shuttle cam slot 7008. Based on Figures 72A-72C, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude cam structure 7007 is round, since cam structure 7007 maintains the same rectangular structure during rotation. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude shuttle 7005 is within the round cam structure 7007 due to the dashed lines representing the outline of shuttle 7005 within cam structure 7007, and the dark lines of shuttle 7005 through shuttle cam slot 7008. As a result, when viewing Figures 72A-72C, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude shuttle 7005 is within circular cam structure 7007, which is part of output gear 7002.
Figures 70A-70L clearly show shuttle 7005 offset from output gear 7002/7007.
In light of the above, the figures clearly conflict with each other.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights