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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/048740 (herein Chong) in view of Hourne (US PGPub No. 2014/0372058).
Chong teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a system (FIG. 3) including a reciprocating member (210), the position of the reciprocating member being determined via a capacitive sensor (“second terminal” 280; paragraph 43); a pumping mechanism (FIG. 3) including a moveable piston (210, 214), wherein the first terminal is connected to the piston (marker 282 for example; paragraph 43);
PNG
media_image1.png
485
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chon does not teach particular details of the capacitive sensor outside of the two terminals;
Hourne teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a system, comprising: a first terminal (M) and a second terminal (4) movable with respect to one another; a sensor device operable to detect a change in capacitance between the first and second terminals as the first and second terminals move with respect to one another (paragraph 5, 77, in which circuit 5 measures a changing capacitance value ΔCx), wherein the sensor device comprises: a two-stage charger (FIG. 2-4) connected with a controller (a microcontroller is present but not shown in the figures; paragraph 12) and a voltage source (Vcc), the two-stage charger comprising a first capacitor (Cx) connected with a first switch (S1) and a second capacitor (Cs) connected with a second switch (S2), wherein the controller is operable to: close the first switch to connect the first capacitor with the voltage source to charge the first capacitor (paragraph 7 for example); and open the first switch and close the second switch to connect the second capacitor with the voltage source to charge the second capacitor (paragraph 9);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the capacitive sensor of Chong using structure similar to that taught by Hourne, as this is a known configuration of capacitive sensing and results in a fast and precise detection of linear movement (paragraph 117 of Hourne);
Hourne further teaches:
limitations from claim 2, wherein the controller (microcontroller; paragraph 12) is operable to equalize a first voltage of the first capacitor and a second voltage of the second capacitor for each filling and dispensing cycle of a pump chamber (paragraphs 7-10, 11, 33 of Hourne teaching the voltage equalization as the moveable component moves relative to the stationary component; Chong teaches a moveable piston 210, 214 actuated through cycles within a stationary chamber 206);
limitations from claim 6, wherein the second terminal (4) is a conductive element (paragraph 4), wherein the conductive element is coupled to a dielectric material (printed circuit 5);
limitations from claim 7, wherein the dielectric material (5) is a printed circuit board (5; paragraph 5);
limitations from claim 8, wherein the conductive element (4) has a varied shape such that capacitance between the conductive element and first terminal increases between a first end and a second end of the conductive element (FIG. 1; paragraph 5, 77);
Chong further teaches:
limitations from claim 21, wherein the system is a linear volume shuttle pump (200; paragraph 33-34);
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/048740 (herein Chong) in view of Hourne (US PGPub No. 2014/0372058) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hahn et al (US Patent No. 10,007,892).
Hourne teaches the use of an equation (paragraph 19 for example) to operate the sensor device to determine a capacitance variation, rather than a Kalman filter;
However, Hahn teaches a sensor device (FIG. 2) using capacitance charging measurements to track a moving component (capacitive sensors 112(2), capacitance data 116, and conductive element; C. 7 Lines 38-58 and C. 9 Lines 39-44); and wherein the data is processed using a Kalman filter (C. 20 Lines 60-65);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known processing method for another, such as the Kalman filter for the equation of Hourne, as taught by Hahn, as a matter of design choice in order to reach an expected result (i.e. the processing of capacitance signals). The examiner notes that Hahn teaches Kalman filtering and quadratic equations as alternatives to one another.
Hourne further teaches:
limitations from claim 4, wherein the two-stage charger comprises a third switch (FIG. 4; S3), and wherein the controller is operable to open the third switch when the first capacitor is being charged and close the third switch when the first capacitor is being discharged (paragraphs 78-83);
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Hourne: applicant argues (Pages 5-7 of the response) that Hourne fails to disclose the capacitive sensing assembly as part of a pump, particularly a piston or grip; the examiner agrees with these arguments. Hourne does not teach a pumping mechanism, but is drawn to a capacitive sensing assembly for an automobile door handle. However, the examiner does not rely on Hourne alone in the rejection of the claims, but as a modifying reference applied to the pumping device of Chong.
Regarding the combination of Chong and Hourne:
A. Applicant argues that the combination does not produce a sensor arrangement in which the first terminal is connected to the piston or is part of a piston grip. Particularly, applicant argues that Chong addresses a functional outcome of position sensing rather than the structural integration of the terminal with a piston or grip, and therefore the references say nothing about how the first terminal is mounted.
However, the examiner maintains that Chong teaches a “second terminal” (280, mounted to the stationary wall 207 or valve stop 235) and a first terminal (282, mounted to a piston 210, 214) moveable relative to one another. The first terminal (282) being mounted to a piston (FIG. 3, paragraph 43; and equated with the moveable terminal M of Hourne) and part of a capacitive arrangement with the second terminal which is stationary (the second terminal being equated with the terminal of Hourne fixed to the door handle). Therefore, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill combining the assembly of Hourne into or with the pump of Chong, would provide one terminal in the piston (see 282 of Chong) to move relatively to another (280) stationary terminal.
B. Applicant argues that there is no articulated reason to modify the combination to arrive at the claimed limitations. Applicant’s arguments are largely based on the arguments from indent A. above, in that neither reference teaches providing a terminal in a piston or grip. The examiner addressed this concern above, and relies on that response to arguments here as well. That is, the examiner maintains that Chong does teaches a terminal (282) on a piston (210, 214) which moves relative to another terminal (280) in a stationary position.
C. Applicant argues that a combination of Chong and Hourne would require modifying the fundamental principals of Hournes sensor. Applicant argues that Hourne teaches a proximity detection arrangement (stationary terminal, moving external object), and that combining the arrangement with Chong would require replacing this arrangement with a displacement measurement arrangement. Initially, the examiner notes that Chong teaches a stationary terminal (280) and a moving terminal (282). Further, the examiner notes that Chong is being modified by Hourne, Chong already has in place each of the claimed terminals and suggests that the method of sensing is a capacitive one. Hourne is introduced to teach known capacitive sensing circuitry, circuitry that may be applied to Chong to achieve the desired sensing between the piston and chamber. That is, the concept of Hourne need not be replaced, the pump of Chong (which already teaches two relatively moveable terminals) merely needs to adopt the circuitry of Hourne.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights