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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 54 and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130074603 (herein Pezzin) in view of US 20180187795 (herein Schwabl).
Regarding claim 54, Pezzin teaches A fault detector for indicating the occurrence of a rapid pressure rise within a housing of an electrical device (internal fault indicator 22 has an actuator mechanism, indicated generally by 30, which detects transient pressure surges, [0046]; transformer 16 corresponds to electrical device, [0059], Fig. 1), the fault detector comprising:
a barrel (56, [0057]);
an actuating mechanism in fluid communication with an interior of the housing and configured to release an actuating member in response to a rapid pressure rise within the housing (30, [0059]);
a plunger within a bore of the barrel, the plunger biased forwardly in the barrel and normally retained in an armed position by the actuating member (plunger 64, [0067]); and
a
Further regarding claim 54, Pezzin does not teach, “a static seal having a first end fixedly retained on the plunger and a second end fixedly retained on the barrel, the static seal having a central portion” that permits relative movement of the plunger and the barrel. However, Schwabl teaches such seals are called rolling diaphragm seals and are well known in the art as exhibited by rolling diaphragm 11, with one end fixed to transmission element 10 and the other to chamber wall 8 ([0021], [0022], Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 64, Pezzin teaches A method of activating an internal fault detector, comprising:
allowing a rapid pressure rise to actuate a pressure sensor (fault indicator has pressure surge detecting means for moving an actuating member in response to a rapid rise in pressure, [0019]);
moving a retaining pin in response to the actuation of the pressure sensor to allow an indicator positioned within a barrel to be displaced by a biasing force to provide an indication that a rapid pressure rise has occurred (Upon occurrence of a transient pressure surge, diaphragm 40 actuates trigger pin 50 out of engagement with trigger notch 68, thereby releasing plunger 64, which is moved outwardly through the action of spring 66, [0077]),
while retaining a first end of a static seal in sealing engagement with the barrel and retaining a second end of a static seal in sealing engagement with the indicator
Further regarding claim 64, Pezzin does not teach a flexible central portion of the seal sliding past itself. However, Schwabl teaches such seals are called rolling diaphragm seals and are well known in the art as exhibited by rolling diaphragm 11, with one end fixed to transmission element 10 and the other to chamber wall 8 ([0021], [0022], Fig. 2a).
For the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the radial seal of Pezzin with the rolling diaphragm of Schwabl beause both perform the same function of sealing an interface between a chamber and a piston. Schwabl further notes that diaphragms or pistons seal may be easily swapped ([0026]). The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 12, 14-15, 24-29, 31-33, 40, 43, and 50 are allowed.
Regarding claim 2 and dependents thereof, the prior art does not teach, “a pressure rise detecting means comprising an actuating member having a pressure-sensitive surface area available for pressure to act against, the actuating member being movable in response to a pressure differential between the interior of the housing and the interior of the chamber.” Pezzin in view of Non-Patent Literature titled, “Cheetah-compliant quadruped robot” (herein Rutihauser) remains relevant prior art as presented in Office Action filed 9/11/2025. However, the Office accepts the argument regarding the combination of the lower spring constant of Rutihauser not being obvious.
Regarding claim 24 and 40 and dependents thereof, the prior art does not teach, “a locking member having a first position and a second position, wherein in the first position the locking member is positioned to restrain forward movement of the plunger in the barrel and to prevent a transfer of forces applied to the plunger to the actuating member and in the second position the locking member is positioned to allow forward movement of the plunger,” as well as the method used presented in claim 40. Pezzin remains relevant as prior art as presented in Office Action filed 9/11/2025, and includes lock ([0017]). However, the lock of Pezzin differs because it is removable and not present during operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/16/2025 with respect to independent claims 2, 24, 40, and dependents thereof, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 2, 4, 12, 14-15, 24-29, 31-33, 40, 43, and 50 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 54 and 64 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. Pezzin remains relevant as presented previously, and the Office introduced Schwabl to teach the claimed rolling diaphragm (static seal).
Conclusion
Since the Office presents new arguments to original claims 54 and 64, this action is Non-Final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights