DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
INVOKED
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a pressure adjustment mechanism” in claims 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the on-off valve reciprocating the rod with on a state of opening the air supply flow path.” The sentence is not idiomatically correct English and it is unclear what idiom applicant intended to claim with “with on state of opening.” The term “with on” is not recognizably a typographic error on a known idiom and therefore applicant’s intended meaning can not be determined for these words. Furthermore, it can not be determined how “with on” was intended to modify the other structures in the limitation. Therefore, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, such that claim 7 is rejected for indefiniteness.
For the limited purpose of examination, and for compact prosecution, the context of claims 6 and 9 which also recite the “on-off valve” will be applied. In context of the claims 6 and 9, “state of opening” could reasonably mean “while opening.” Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the on-off valve reciprocat[es] the rod [while] opening the air supply flow path”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (US 3,460,482).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Jackson fig 1
Claim 1, Jackson discloses a liquid (liquid 11, c 2 ln 37) supply device arranged in a pump case (fig 1, pump 10, c 2 ln 35), having a first flexible member (25) for partitioning a pump chamber (26 on the left side) and a pump accommodation chamber (26 on the right side with valve chamber 21), increasing a volume of the pump chamber to inject a liquid into the pump chamber (diaphragm 25 moves to the right which increases volume on left side of chamber 26 and take in liquid 11 through line 28, c 2 ln 65-68), and reducing the volume of the pump chamber to discharge the liquid in the pump chamber to an outside (diaphragm 25 moves to the left which reduces the volume on the left side of chamber 26 and fluid is discharged out of port 32, c 2 ln 68-71), the liquid supply device comprising:
a media accommodation case (single body 22, c 2 ln 54) having a second flexible member (36) for partitioning a medium accommodation chamber (42, 20, 21, 35 on the left side of 36) communicating with the pump accommodation chamber (26 is connected the other chambers of the system via passage 27) and an air chamber (41 on the right side of 36; examiner notes that the fluid worked on by apparatus does not limit the apparatus claim, MPEP 2115; in this case there are no structures which distinguish this apparatus from operating on a fluid of liquid or of air; therefore “air” will not be considered limiting);
a liquid medium (liquid through line 12 into line 17, c 2 ln 36-38, 44-47; the system is energized by the fluid, and relies on pressure changes of the fluid being transferred to each chamber; it is reasonable to conclude that the driving fluid is intended to exist in each working chamber in order to have the intended pressure transfer effects; See pressure transfer effects of fluid, c 3 ln 1-60) filled in the pump accommodation chamber (right side of 26) and the medium accommodation chamber (fluid to chamber 41 with pressure of line 17, c 3 ln 25-50);
a drive member (pump 15, c 2 ln 51) reciprocating a rod (rod 38, c 3 ln 8, rod 38 reciprocates due to pressure created by pump 15) in a discharge direction of supplying the liquid medium (rod 38 in the right direction closes valve 37 and pressurizes pump chamber 26 which discharges, c 2 ln 68-71, c 3 ln 49-60) from the medium accommodation chamber (20) to the pump accommodation chamber (right side of 26) and an injection direction (Rod 38 to the left direction opens, allowing flow and a low pressure in 26, fluid goes from 26 into 20, c 3 ln 24-47) of returning the liquid medium from the pump accommodation chamber (right side of 26) to the medium accommodation chamber (20), the rod being attached to the second flexible member (rod 38 is in diaphragm 36, c 3 ln 8); and
a pressure adjustment mechanism (air ejector / eductor 14, which includes a nozzle 18 into throat to produce reduced pressure in space 20, c 2 ln 43, 45-50) for reducing a pressure of the air chamber (41) when the rod is driven in the injection direction (rod is driven to the left opening valve 37, pressure reduces in 20) to reduce the volume of the air chamber (with reduced pressure in 20 fluid flows from 41 to 20 thereby reducing the volume of 41 and allowing diaphragm 35 to move to the right with the reduced volume of 41, c 3 ln 24-34).
Claim 2, Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, wherein the pressure adjustment mechanism has:
a cylinder (fig 2 and fig 3 show that the overall housing is a cylinder) in which a pressure adjustment chamber (20) communicating with the air chamber (41) is formed; and a pressure adjustment piston (rod 38 or valve 37) reciprocably accommodated axially in the cylinder, and
the pressure adjustment piston:
sucks air in the air chamber (41) into the pressure adjustment chamber (20) when the rod is driven in the injection direction to reduce the volume of the air chamber (when rod 38 moves to the left it opens valve 37, which creates a low pressure in 20, which sucks fluid from 41 into chamber 20); and
supplies air in the pressure adjustment chamber (20) into the air chamber when the rod is driven in the discharge direction (rod 38 is to the right which closes valve 37, which increases pressure in 20, and drives pressure into 41 via passage 42) to increase the volume of the air chamber (the increase in pressure in 20 increases the air in 41 and the volume in 41 as diaphragm 35 shifts to the left).
Claim 4, Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 2, wherein the pressure adjustment piston (38) is provided on the rod (38), and the rod causes the second flexible member (35) and the pressure adjustment piston to reciprocate synchronously (38 is attached to diaphragm 35 and they reciprocate in sync, c 3 ln 8, 24-70).
Claim 5 Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1,
wherein the pressure adjustment mechanism is a vacuum ejector (air ejector / eductor 14, which includes a nozzle 18 into throat to produce reduced pressure in space 20, c 2 ln 43, 45-50) including:
an air supply port (connection of channel 17 to nozzle 18) communicating with an air supply source (15); a diffuser (space 20, c 2 ln 47-48, 20 is a diffuser space for nozzle 18 as is known in the art because 20 is a rapid expansion in volume for the fluid path from nozzle 18 which causes a reduction in pressure) to which compressed air supplied from the air supply port is injected (injected from 17 via nozzle 18); and a suction port (42) communicating with the diffuser and communicating with the air chamber (41).
Claim 6, Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 5,
wherein an on-off valve (valve 16, conventional valves are capable of being opened and closed, which fits the plain meaning of on-off valve under a BRI) is provided in an air supply flow path (channel 17 to pump 15) between the air supply port (connection of channel 17 to nozzle 18) and a supply source of compressed air (15), and when the rod is moved in the injection direction to return the liquid medium from the pump accommodation chamber to the medium accommodation chamber, the on-off valve opens the air supply flow path (valve 16 is open when then rod 38 is reciprocating to the right and left; reasonably valve 16 must be open to allow pressure from pump 15 to power the eductor 14).
Claim 7, Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 5, further comprising:
an on-off valve (16) provided in an air supply flow path (channel 17 to pump 15) between the air supply port (17’s attachment port to 18) and a supply source of compressed air (pump 15); and a regulator (governor 50 with diaphragm 51, c 3 ln 60-75) provided between (50/51 is between valve 16 and port 17 via channel 54) the on-off valve (16) and the air supply port (17) and adjusting the pressure of the compressed air supplied to the air supply port (50 stabilizes inlet pressure increases, c 3 ln 61-63), wherein the on-off valve reciprocat[es] the rod [while] opening the air supply flow path (valve 16 is open when then rod 38 is reciprocating to the right and left; reasonably valve 16 must be open to allow pressure from pump 15 to power the eductor 14).
Claim 8, Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, wherein the pressure adjustment mechanism is a vacuum pump (eductor 14 causes a low pressure vacuum, c 2 ln 43, 48; and meets the plain meaning of vacuum pump under a BRI) having a vacuum flow path (42) communicated with the air chamber (41).
Claim 9, Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 8,
wherein an on-off valve (needle valve 44, c 3 ln 15; conventional needle valves are capable of being open and closed, which fits the plain meaning of on-off valve under a BRI) is provided in the vacuum flow path (42), and when the rod is moved in the injection direction to return the liquid medium from the pump accommodation chamber to the medium accommodation chamber, the on-off valve opens [the] vacuum flow path (valve 44 is open when then rod 38 is reciprocating to the right and left; valve 44 must be open to allow suction at chamber 41; c 3 ln 15, 48).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 2008/0145248).
Claim 12, Kato discloses a liquid supply device (fig 1) arranged in a pump case (case 42 and pump housing 12, par 0043), having a flexible member (bellows 14, par 0040) for partitioning a pump chamber (16) and an air chamber (18; air is in 18 via port 38, par 0043), increasing a volume of the pump chamber to inject a liquid into the pump chamber (bellows 14 retracts to increase volume in 16 which intakes fluid via port 22, 0040-0041), and reducing the volume of the pump chamber to discharge the liquid in the pump chamber to an outside (bellows 14 expands to decrease volume in 16 which discharges fluid via port 24, par 0040-0041), the liquid supply device comprising:
a drive member (spring 50 and air pressure in 18, par 0045) for reciprocating a rod (46) between a discharge direction (rod 46 toward diaphragm 14 expands the diaphragm and causes discharge) of discharging the liquid in the pump chamber to the outside and an injection direction (rod 46 retracting away from diaphragm 14) of injecting the liquid into the pump chamber, the rod being attached to the flexible member (46 is attached to 14, par 0044-0045); and
a pressure adjustment mechanism (pneumatic regulator 40, par 0043, 0047) for reducing a pressure of the air chamber when the rod is moved in the injection direction to reduce the volume of the air chamber (as rod 46 retracts via spring 50 to cause suction through intake port 22; air is released through 38 thereby lowering air pressure rather than it be pressurized by spring 50, par 0047).
Claim 13, Kato discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 12 wherein the flexible member is any one of:
a bellows elastically deformable in an axial direction (first of two alternatives, bellows 14 on axis of rod 46, par 0040), the pump chamber being provided outside (16 is outside 14), and the air chamber being provided inside (18 is inside 14); or
a diaphragm (second of two alternatives) elastically deformable in the axial direction, the pump chamber being formed outside, and the air chamber being formed inside.
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maraoka (US 2013/0101444) in view of Kato.
Claim 1, Maraoka a liquid supply device (fig 1, par 0019) arranged in a pump case (11), having a first flexible member (tube 15) for partitioning a pump chamber (pump chamber 16, par 0019; which is interior of tube 15) and a pump accommodation chamber (17), increasing a volume of the pump chamber to inject a liquid into the pump chamber (intake fluid into pump chamber 16, par 0034), and reducing the volume of the pump chamber to discharge the liquid in the pump chamber to an outside (discharge when fluid contracts pump chamber 16, par 0030), the liquid supply device comprising:
a media accommodation case (12) having a second flexible member (bellows 35, par 0024) for partitioning a medium accommodation chamber (driving chamber 40 which accommodates medium 41, par 0025) communicating with the pump accommodation chamber(17) and an air chamber (pressure chamber 38, par 0038; air leaking into the pressure chamber 38 is identified as a problem; the air presence meets the plain meaning of air chamber under a BRI);
a liquid medium (indirect medium 41, may be liquid oil, par 0025) filled in the pump accommodation chamber (17 and 41 have the same liquid, par 0025) and the medium accommodation chamber (par 0025);
a drive member (driving means 48, par 0028) reciprocating a rod (piston 31) in a discharge direction of supplying the liquid medium (discharge direction is caused when piston moves upward and thereby compresses chamber 16 via fluid 41) from the medium accommodation chamber (40) to the pump accommodation chamber (17) and an injection direction (injection is caused when the piston moves downward thereby expanding chamber 16 via fluid 41) of returning the liquid medium from the pump accommodation chamber (17) to the medium accommodation chamber (40), the rod being attached to the second flexible member;
Maraoka does not disclose :
a pressure adjustment mechanism for reducing a pressure of the air chamber when the rod is driven in the injection direction to reduce the volume of the air chamber.
Nevertheless, Maraoka indicates that there is a known problem in regulating the changes in volume of pressure chamber (38) in relation to the changes in volume of the driving chambers (40, 17), which thereby reduces the precision of the pump; Maraoka’s specific solution works by reducing the effect of leakage from the drive chambers (40, 17) to pressure chamber (38) causing a change in relative volume across the flexible bellows (37, par 0031-0036).
Kato teaches an analogous metering pump with a bellows (14) partitioning a liquid chamber from an air chamber (18) and a drive member (58) and a reciprocating rod (46) and
a pressure adjustment mechanism (compressed air control 40, and bore 38) for reducing a pressure of the air chamber when the rod is driven in the injection direction to reduce the volume of the air chamber (as rod 46 retracts via spring 50 to cause suction through intake port 22; air is released through 38 thereby lowering air pressure rather than it be pressurized by spring 50, par 0047) which allows one to more easily control the amount of pumping resulting from the amount of expansion and contraction of the bellows (par 0023), and that using air as the fluid in the air chamber makes it easier to detect the pressure differential between pressure differential between the pump chamber and the exterior (par 0107).
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 modify the pressure chamber (38) of Maraoka by replacing the liquid (39) with air and adding the air pressure managing system (40 and port 38) of Kato to the pressure chamber (39); thereby allowing a more precise active control of the volume of the bellows, thereby resulting in higher degree of pumping precision (par 0014) and that by replacing the liquid (39) with air results in measuring the pressure differential more easily (par 0107) which allows a more precise control of the liquid pumped and flow rate (par 0023, 0031).
Claim 10, Maraoka in view of Kato teaches the liquid supply device according to claim 1,
wherein the first flexible member is any of:
a tubephragm (first of three alternatives; Maraoka, tube 15, par 0019) elastically deformable in a radial direction (tube 15, par 0019), the pump chamber being provided inside (pump chamber 16 is inside tube 15, par 0019), and the pump accommodation chamber being provided outside (17 is outside 15);
a bellows (second of three alternatives) elastically deformable in an axial direction, the pump chamber being provided inside, and the pump chamber being provided outside; and
a diaphragm (third of three alternatives) elastically deformable in the axial direction, the pump chamber being formed outside, and the pump accommodation chamber being formed inside.
Claim 11, Maraoka in view of Kato teaches the liquid supply device according to claim 1,
wherein the second flexible member is any one [of]:
a bellows elastically deformable in the axial direction (first of two alternatives; Maraoka, bellows 35, par 0024), the air chamber being provided inside (Maraoka in view of Kato, chamber 38 is filled with air, See claim 1), the medium accommodation chamber being provided outside (40 is outside 35); or
a diaphragm (second of two alternatives) elastically deformable in the axial direction, the medium accommodation chamber being formed outside, and the air chamber being formed inside.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Jackson is the nearest prior art.
Claim 3, Jackson discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 2,wherein the pressure adjustment piston (41) is provided with a positive pressure relief valve (valve 37) for discharging the air in the pressure adjustment chamber (20) to the outside (air goes out of port 39 and channel 40) when the pressure in the pressure adjustment chamber (40) becomes higher than an allowable positive pressure (when inlet pressure increases beyond normal or a predetermined amount, the governor 50 forces open valve stem 38, c 3 ln 60-70; since the valve 37 on valve stem 38 is on the discharge side of chamber 20 while the governor 50 is on the inlet side of chamber 20, it is reasonable that an increase in inlet pressure would affect chamber 20 before it could be discharged via valve 37; Jackson’s “beyond normal or a predetermined amount” meets applicant’s intended meaning of “allowable positive pressure” as the term refers to a pressure which is within operation bounds and continues operation, but is outside of a preferred range ).
Jackson does not disclose the pressure adjustment piston (37/38) is provided with a negative pressure relief valve for supplying the air in the pressure adjustment chamber when the pressure in the pressure adjustment chamber becomes lower than an allowable negative pressure. Jackson’s governor (50) adjusts increases in pressure, but has no effect on lower inlet pressures (Jackson, c 3 ln 71 – c 4 ln 7). The negative pressure relief valve is critical (it adds air when the pressure is lower than allowable, thereby allowing the flexible member to reciprocate synchronously and thereby improve metering, applicants spec par 0008-0010, 0034-0035) and does not amount to design choice, and there is no motivation to modify the prior art to incorporate said structure or provide said arrangement. Therefore, the sum of these limitations is not disclosed by the prior art and it would not be obvious to combine references in an effort to meet all of the claimed elements.
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 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746