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 Objections
Claims 5 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 5 and 6, line 2, state "wherein, of portions of the crest portions...". The inclusion of the phrase "of portions" adds no value in defining any limitation within the claim and makes the language less clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “size” in claim 1, line 23, is used by the claim to mean “distance in axial direction between two plates,” while the accepted meaning is “relative extent of something.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As written in the claim, “a size” could be interpreted as the distance between the two plates, area, or volume of the expansion/contraction space between the two plates. Furthermore, the use of this term in conjunction with “an outer end portion”, as written in the claim, is unclear whether the size is independent of the outer end portion or is defining the outer end portion.
The term “smallest size” in claim 1, line 26, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smallest size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As "size" is not further defined, there is no metric or reference to use in which the modifier, "smallest", would have any meaning. Claims 3-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the other portion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior identification of the element “other portion” within claim 5 or the claim it is dependent on, claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the other portion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior identification of the element “other portion” within claim 5 or the claim it is dependent on, claim 1.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claim 1, line 1, says “is used by being provided inside” which causes confusion as to intent of the claim; whether this description is to described the inventions intended use or a method for using. The language throughout follows the narrative style by describing the invention’s structure as how the pulsation damper operates or was made rather than just the structure itself. For example:
Claim 1, line 20 states a plate “enters inside” another
Claim 2, line 5, states a portion “is provided between”
Claim 5, line 4, states one portion “enters inside” and “is formed” into a curved shape
Claim 8, line 2, states a second constricted portion “is crushed in the axial direction following” a first constricted portion.
It would be recommended to use more active language while resolving these errors to improve clarity and appropriately define structure of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briesewitz et. al. (US 20130008544) in view of Barstch et. al (US 20110017332) .
Regarding claim 1, Briesewitz et. al. teaches: A pulsation damping member which is used by being provided inside a housing chamber connected to a pipe of a fluid pressure system, the pulsation damping member comprising: a first metal plate and a second metal plate provided in an axial direction along a central axis (The invention, as disclosed by Briesewitz et. al., is described to have two metallic [Para. 15, line 11] membrane shells joined together to create the pulsation damper for a piston pump [Para. 9, lines 5-7 and Fig. 1]), wherein the first metal plate and the second metal plate respectively include joint parts extending over the entire length in a circumferential direction around the central axis and joined to each other (The invention describes the two shells being joined by weld or other alternative solder at a seam that is around the entire circumference of the assembly - "wherein the membrane shells 3, 4 are mutually connected by means of material engagement along a circumferential seam 5" [Para. 9, lines 9-11 and shown in Fig. 1]), an expansion/contraction space is provided between the first metal plate and the second metal plate in a portion positioned on an inner side with respect to the joint parts in a radial direction intersecting the central axis when viewed from the axial direction (The invention includes an internal space between the two metal plates – “metal membrane housing having an evacuated internal space 1 that is separate from the pressure medium that is discontinuously conveyed by a piston pump” [Para. 9, lines 7-9] and “The internal space 1 comprises a useable volume that is necessary for the energy conversion” [Para. 11, lines 1-2 and shown in Fig. 1]), the first metal plate and the second metal plate are configured to elastically deform in the axial direction while expanding and contracting the expansion/contraction space in the axial direction in accordance with pulsation of a fluid flowing through the pipe (The invention purpose is to be a pulsation damper that compress and expands elastically during the application of an external pressure – “the pulsation damping capsule that is fixed in a pressure duct can compress and expand in a resilient-elastic manner as an energy convertor when subjected to an external pressure with the hydraulic pressure “ [Para. 9, lines 12-15]), a crest portion and a valley portion extending over the entire length in the circumferential direction are provided to line up in the radial direction in a portion positioned on an inner side with respect to the joint parts in the radial direction in each of the first metal plate and the second metal plate (The metal membrane shells are pressed into a wave shape that includes a crest and valley which is common through the entirety of each shell and line up with the corresponding crest or valley of the other shell - “the two membrane shells nestle perfectly one against the other when subjected to pressure, so that there is no space remaining between the two.“ [Para. 4, lines 1-4 and Fig. 1]), the crest portion of the second metal plate enters inside the crest portion of the first metal plate, and the valley portion of the first metal plate enters inside the valley portion of the second metal plate (The invention is illustrated to have the crest and valley portions of the wave design in the metal plate to fit within each other – “the two membrane shells nestle perfectly one against the other when subjected to pressure, so that there is no space remaining between the two.“ [Para. 4, lines 1-4 and Fig. 1]), a size in the axial direction of an outer end portion of the expansion/contraction space positioned on an outermost side in the radial direction and continuous with the joint parts increases toward an inner side in the radial direction (Due to the ambiguity present in the limitation, as described in the 112 rejection above, “a size” will be interpreted as the distance [Element 3 in Figure 1 below] between the first plate and second plate which increases radially inward from the joint. The outer end portion, as written in the claim, does not have complete definition of its bounds and therefore could be elements 1 or 2 as they are the outermost side of the damper in the radial direction.),
PNG
media_image1.png
385
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Brieswitz et. al. fails to teach the first constricted portion with has a smallest size in the axial direction position inward relative to the outer end portion.
Bartsch et. al teaches: a first constricted portion (Identified as element 1 in Figure 2 below), which has a smallest size in the axial direction in a portion of the expansion/contraction space positioned on an inner side with respect to the outer end portion in the radial direction (As the claim language is ambiguous to the exact bounds of the outer portion and the definition of size, the assumed interpretation of the claim language is such that outer end portion’s boundary is where the axial distance between the two plates begins to increase radial inwards with respect to the joint until the axial distance begins to decrease. The outer end portion is shown in the enclosed area of element 2 [Figure 2 below] and the smallest size is represented by element 1 [Figure 2 below].), is positioned on a radially outward side from a center portion between the central axis and the joint parts in the radial direction (As shown, the first constricted portion, element 1, is placed in between the center axis and joint.).
PNG
media_image2.png
477
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
It would have been obvious to someone of reasonable skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Briesewitz et. al. with the teachings of Barstch et. al. to incorporate the structure of restricting the expansion/contraction space to create a first constriction location in order to improve resistance to affects due to stress as this structure, as shown by Barstch et. al., is specifically dimensioned to withstand stresses (Abstract, line 9-10 – Barstch et. al.)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 1. Briesewitz et. al. further teaches: wherein the crest portion and the valley portion each include an apex portion (A maximum point, or apex, of both the crest portion and valley portion can be seen in box 1 in Figure 3 below) and a pair of inclined portions sandwiching the apex portion in the radial direction (The inclined portions of both the crest and valley portions shown as the slope leading to the respective apex in box 2 and 3 in Figure 3 below), and the first constricted portion is provided between the inclined portions of the first metal plate and the second metal plate (The first constricted portion is within box 3 [Figure 3 below], keeping with the location as depicted in Figure 2 for the rejection of claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
351
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 1. Briesewitz et. al. further teaches: wherein, in the first metal plate and the second metal plate, apex portions of the crest portions or the valley portions defining the first constricted portion are deviated from each other in the radial direction (As shown in Figure 4, the centerline of each apex of the crest and valley portions are deviated in the radial direction as they do not line up with each other.).
PNG
media_image4.png
237
196
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 1. Briesewitz et. al. further teaches: wherein, in the first metal plate and the second metal plate, apex portions of the crest portions or the valley portions defining the first constricted portion are formed such that, in a longitudinal sectional view in the axial direction, a radius of curvature of the apex portion of the crest portion or valley portion on a side of entering inside the other crest portion or valley portion is smaller than a radius of curvature of the apex portion of the crest portion or valley portion on a side into which the other crest portion or valley portion enters (The apex portions of the crest and valley portions defining the first constricted portion, as shown in Figure 5 below, indicate that the radius of the one portion, element 2 or 4, has a smaller radius than the other portion, element 1 or 3. This can be seen in the dotted lines below the diagram that are taken from the diameter of the curvature of each element.).
PNG
media_image5.png
385
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 1. Barstch et. al. further teaches: wherein, of portions of the crest portions or the valley portions defining the first constricted portion (Indicated as element 1 in Figure 6 below) in the first metal plate and the second metal plate, one portion (Indicated as element 2 in Figure 6 below) of the portions enters inside the other portion (Indicated as element 3 in Figure 6 below) and is formed in a curved surface shape which is convex toward the other portion, and the other portion has a linear shape in a longitudinal sectional view in the axial direction (The one portion in Figure 6 below is shown as generally convex shape towards the other portion while the other portion has a linear shape, element 4.).
PNG
media_image6.png
477
853
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 1. Briesewitz et. al. further teaches: wherein, of portions of the crest portions or the valley portions defining the first constricted portion (The apex portions of the crest and valley portions, elements 1-4, which determine the location of the first constricted portion as element 3, as shown in Figure 7 below.) in the first metal plate and the second metal plate, one portion of the portions enters inside the other portion and is formed in a curved surface shape which is convex toward the other portion (As shown by element 2 and 4 in Figure 7 below. Indicates one portion having a curved shape, as evident by the circle overlaying the arc.), and the other portion is formed in a curved surface shape which is convex in the same direction as the direction in which the one portion is convex (As shown by element 1 and 3 in Figure 7 below. Indicates other portion having a curved shape, as evident by the circle overlaying the arc.), and a radius of curvature of the other portion is larger than a radius of curvature of the one portion in a longitudinal sectional view in the axial direction (The radius of the one portion, element 2 or 4, has a smaller radius than the other portion, element 1 or 3. This can be seen in the dotted lines below the diagram that are taken from the diameter of the curvature of each element.).
PNG
media_image7.png
385
766
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 1. Barstch et. al. further teaches: wherein the crest portion and the valley portion each include an apex portion and a pair of inclined portions sandwiching the apex portion in the radial direction (Apex portions circled and their inclined portions indicated by the dashed lines in Figure 8 below), and the first constricted portion is defined in an outer inclined portion, of the pair of inclined portions of the crest portion or the valley portion continuous with the joint part, positioned on an outer side in the radial direction (The first constricted portion, element 1 as shown in Figure 8 below, located on an inclined portion that is radially outward with respect to a crest or valley portion continuous with the joint as there is nothing that breaks continuity from the joint to this location.).
PNG
media_image8.png
477
853
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 8
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 1. Barstch et. al. further teaches: wherein a second constricted portion, which is crushed in the axial direction following the first constricted portion (Element 1 in Figure 9 below) in the portion of the expansion/contraction space positioned on an inner side with respect to the outer end portion (Outer end portion encompassing a section of the expansion/contraction space circled in Figure 9 below) in the radial direction to bring the first metal plate and the second metal plate into contact with each other when a fluid pressure in the housing chamber has risen, is positioned on an inner side with respect to the first constricted portion in the radial direction (The second constricted portion can be interpreted as any location that where the two plates come into contact under pressure after that is radially inward of the first constricted portion. Therefore, the second constricted portion could encompass any location between central axis and first constricted portion where the two plates would contact each other, which would include elements 2-4 in Figure 9 below. Thus, Barstch et. al. teaches a second constricted portion as defined by the present invention.).
PNG
media_image9.png
477
853
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 9
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Briesewitz et. al. and Barstch et. al. discloses all limitations of claim 8. Barstch et. al. further teaches: wherein the crest portion and the valley portion each include an apex portion and a pair of inclined portions sandwiching the apex portion in the radial direction (Where the inclined portions are the dashed lines and the apex portion are circled in Figure 10 below.), and of the pair of inclined portions sandwiching the same apex portion in the radial direction, the outer inclined portion positioned on an outer side in the radial direction defines the first constricted portion (In Figure 10 below, the first constricted portion is shown as element 1 and is in between two inclined portions radially outward, i.e the outer inclined portion, leading to an apex portion), and an inner inclined portion positioned on an inner side in the radial direction defines the second constricted portion (In Figure 10 below, the second constricted portion is shown as element 2 and is in between two inclined portions on the inner side of the same apex portion as the first constricted portion).
PNG
media_image10.png
477
853
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 10
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kai et. al. (US 20190152455) teaches a pulsation damper utilizing two plates .
Sato et. al. (US 20170307083) teaches bellow using a constricted shape around an endpoint to provide reduced stress on the member (Para. 12, lines 1-7).
Junger et. al. (US 20090127356) teaches a damping device for a fuel injector that has two diaphragms with a wave-like structure in a housing (Para. 36, lines 21-26 and Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753