DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elections without traverse of Species B (for aspect 1), Species B1 (for aspect 2), and Species 4 (for aspect 3), generally corresponding to the embodiment of FIG. 3A, in the reply filed on 02 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s remarks identify claims 1-10, 12, 13 & 17 as readable on the elected species.
Claims 11, 14-16 & 18-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 3-5, 7-10, 12 & 13 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein, due to the connection of the working chamber (5) and the compensation chamber (6), a dynamic pressure profile…in the compensation chamber (6) is at least one of delayed or damped in relation to a dynamic working pressure profile… in the working chamber, resulting in a pressure difference… between the compensation chamber (6) and the working chamber (5)”.
While this limitation was likely intended to further define the apparatus in terms of its function, the limitation as presented actually appears to be defining a particular method or process step. In particular, the claim states that a dynamic pressure profile in the compensation chamber is delayed or damped in relation to a dynamic working pressure profile, resulting in a pressure difference between the compensation chamber and the working chamber. The claim does not merely state that the apparatus is configured to perform in such a manner (e.g., in the event of a pressure pulse within the working chamber) but instead appears to actually require that condition to occur.
As set forth in MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 4 recites “wherein the pressure difference… is settable between a minimum value zero and a maximum value Pmax by a geometrical design of the line device”, which raises several issues.
First, the limitation is seen to be ambiguous or vague. The limitation of “settable between a minimum value…and a maximum value… by a geometrical design of the line device” was likely intended to mean that there is a relationship between the geometry of the line device and the resulting pressure difference which may be experienced during expected use (i.e., a smaller throttle enabling a larger pressure difference, etc.), wherein, by selection of a particular geometry, a designer can adjust the design pressure difference, between a theoretical minimum (i.e., throttle providing no resistance) and maximum (throttle essentially closed). However, the limitation might also be interpreted as meaning that the particular geometrical design enables the pressure difference to be adjusted within the range (i.e., as in an adjustable throttle; the same throttle adjustable between a minimum and maximum value).
Additionally, while the design of the line device may enable a designer (or user) to adjust the throttle properties into the compensation chamber, this alone would not “set” the pressure difference, which would be dependent on the actual dynamic pressure profiles when in use. The limitations implication that the line device geometrical design can set the pressure difference causes the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Finally, while a designer could select the geometrical design for the line device in order to “set” a design pressure difference, at least in the case of fixed throttle designs such as the tube in FIG. 3A, it does not appear that the pressure difference would be “settable” by the resulting geometrical design of the line device (i.e., the design is not capable of setting the pressure differential; rather, the designer is performing the action of setting via selection of a corresponding design). In other words, this claim might be seen as stating that alternative line device designs could result in different pressure differences, however, the claimed apparatus is directed only to the final apparatus with the selected line device design, and it is unclear how a limitation which suggests that the device could perform differently with other designs would limit the claimed apparatus itself. As such, this limitation might be interpreted as a design technique / method of making the apparatus, which is inappropriate in an apparatus claim.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the separating diaphragm (4) is relieved of load from a quasi-static proportion of the working pressure… due to an approximately same quasi-absolute pressure prevailing in the working chamber… and the compensation chamber…based on the line device” which raises several issues.
First, as with claim 3, this limitation appears to be setting forth a required method step rather than further defining the apparatus by describing its functionality.
Next, the term “approximately same quasi-stationary absolute pressure” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately same” 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.
Finally, while this limitation was likely intended to mean that the pressures in the two chamber are approximately equal at steady-state conditions due to communication through the line device, the phrase “based on the line device” is confusing, and appears to incorrectly suggest that the line device is responsible for setting this absolute pressure. As understood, while the line device damps or delays communication between the chambers, it does not “set” the absolute pressure, which would depend instead on the system pressure provided to the working chamber.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the housing (2) is dimensioned in relation to a maximum absolute working pressure”, which is ambiguous or vague. It is unclear which “dimension” or “dimensions” are required to be selected in relation to a maximum absolute working pressure, it is unclear how the maximum absolute working pressure is to be defined, and it is unclear what relationship is required between such unspecified dimensions and such unspecified maximum absolute working pressure, causing the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that the housing is designed to withstand an intended maximum absolute working pressure (i.e., as a pressure vessel), however, it is noted that any housing which is capable of containing a pressurized fluid would have a corresponding maximum absolute working pressure (e.g., a maximum pressure the housing can contain prior to failure), by virtue of its dimensions, materials, construction, etc., whether intended or not.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the separating diaphragm… is dimensioned in relation to the pressure difference… between the compensation chamber... and the working chamber…”, which raises several issues.
First, it is unclear which “dimension” or “dimensions” are required to be selected in relation to the pressure difference.
Additionally, while claim 3 establishes that a damping or delay between the dynamic pressure profiles of the working chamber and the compensation chamber causes a pressure difference between the two chambers, as understood, this pressure difference would not be a single value, but would instead also be a dynamic pressure profile which is likely to be time-variant, and dependent upon the particular application in which it is used. It is unclear if the term “pressure difference” in claim 8 is referring to, e.g., a design pressure difference, a maximum expected pressure difference, an average expected pressure difference, etc.
Finally, it is unclear what relationship is required between such unspecified dimensions and the pressure difference causing the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that the separating diaphragm is designed to withstand an intended maximum pressure difference, or otherwise designed to operate within an expected range of pressures (e.g., flexible enough to operate at the lower end of the range and strong enough to operate at the higher end of the range, etc.) however, it is noted that any at least partially elastic diaphragm which separates a working chamber and a compensation chamber in a damping apparatus would, by virtue of its dimensions, materials, construction, etc., having a corresponding pressure difference (or range of pressure differences) in which it would be capable of operating.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the line device comprises an exchangeable element formed as a separate component with respect to the housing”. It is unclear what range of activity is intended to be encompassed by the term “exchangeable” in this context, causing the scope of the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
At one end of the spectrum, the term “exchangeable” might be narrowly interpreted to mean that the element can be readily removed from the apparatus non-destructively (e.g., as by threading or clamping, etc.) and replaced with another element (i.e., user exchangeable).
At the other end of the spectrum, the term “exchangeable” might be broadly interpreted to merely mean that a designed could select from a variety of different designs for the element but, once manufactured, the selected element is fixed / permanent (i.e., exchangeable during design / manufacture).
The term “exchangeable” might also be interpreted between the two extremes, to include any element that could conceivably be “exchanged” without irreversibly destroying the apparatus as a whole: e.g., a line device secured by welding or adhesive could be cut free from the apparatus and a replacement subsequently welded or glued in place; or in the case of the line device forming part of the diaphragm, the entire diaphragm could be removed and exchanged with one having a difference line device, etc.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the line device is at least one of adaptable or adjustable by a variable aperture or a variable length”. It is unclear what range of activity is intended to be encompassed by the terms “adaptable or adjustable” in this context, causing the scope of the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
The term “adjustable” is understood to encompass at least embodiments wherein the line device is adjustable, either manually, automatically via a control system (as in FIG. 9B), or mechanical arrangement (as in FIG. 8).
With respect to the term “adaptable”, applicant’s remarks filed 12/02/2025 state that the embodiment of FIG. 3A, having a replaceable line device, falls within the scope of claim 10 since one could replace the line device with another in order to adapt a difference characteristic damping curve. However, this raises questions as to whether such a line device could reasonably be considered as “adaptable or adjustable by a variable aperture or a variable length” merely by being replaceable, or whether it is more reasonable to consider the apparatus to adaptable by replacement of an otherwise non-adaptable / non-adjustable line device.
On the other hand, as claim does not necessarily require such an adjustment or adaptation to occur, only that the line device be capable of such, it may be difficult to define what is actually excluded from the above limitation. If the phrase is intended to encompass any line device which may be adjusted or replaced with another line device then the questions regarding exchangeability (as described for claim 9 above) remain pertinent here: would any line device which could conceivably be replaced with a different line device (either during manufacture or through other retrofit processes, e.g., cutting and re-welding, etc.) be considered “adaptable or adjustable”?
Furthermore, even for a simple fixed orifice in a tube or plate, such a line device could conceivably by adjusted or adapted, e.g., by enlarging the orifice by drilling/boring, or by restricting the orifice by a choke / restrictor insert, curable fillers, filling and boring, etc.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the separating diaphragm comprises a bellows which is closed on one side”.
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 “closed” has common and accepted definitions which include “physically obstructed, sealed, etc.”, “made impassable”, “sealed or covered”, etc.
Applicant’s specification indicates one end of the bellows in each of the figures with “4b” (“the closed bellows end 4b”). Indeed, in every embodiment except those shown in FIGs. 3A & 3B, the end indicated at 4b is sealed. By contrast, in FIGs 3A & 3B, the corresponding end is penetrated by the line device, which allows fluid communication across that end. Thus, the “closed end” is no longer “closed”. However, when the specification describes that end 4b with respect to FIG. 3A, the term “closed bellows end” is still used and, in the remarks filed 12/02/2025, applicant indicates that claim 13 is intended to be generic to all species, including the elected species as shown in FIG. 3A.
As such, the term “closed” in claim 13 appears to be used in an imprecise or informal manner (e.g., closed, except for the presence of any line devices, etc.), rather than using the accepted meanings. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Without additional clarification, the scope of the claim would take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty since, once an exception is made for the line device, the term “closed” might be seen as a relative or subjective term and it may be unclear if further exceptions to the term “closed” would exist for other potential openings in the otherwise closed end.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8, 12 & 13 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters (US 3,061,039).
Regarding claim 1, Peters discloses (fig. 28) an apparatus for damping pressure pulsations (see col. 12, lines 33-38: “…the above-described device can also serve as a surge chamber…. In such installations both the pulsating pressure and the sound is reduced.”), the apparatus comprising:
a working chamber (130) to which a working pressure (i.e., Px, within line 30) is appliable (via the connection tubing shown, equivalent to that indicated at 116);
a compensation chamber (within 120) which is separated from the working chamber by an at least partially elastic separating diaphragm (bellows 112); and
a line device (pipe 121 having a “small opening”) which fluidically connects the working chamber (130) and the compensation chamber (within 120) to one another (via line 30).
Regarding the final limitation where the line device fluidically connects the working chamber and the compensation chamber, as shown in fig. 28 of Peters, the line device fluidically connects the compensation chamber to the main line 30, which itself is in fluid communication with the working chamber. As such, the line device is reasonably seen as fluidically connecting the working chamber and the compensation chamber.
Examination Note: the claim does not require the line device to directly connect the compensation chamber and the working chamber. Of note, applicant’s own disclosed embodiments in at least figs. 1, 2, 4-6, and 9A & B include line devices which do not connect the compensation chamber to directly to the working chamber within the bellows but instead to a bore of the connecting piece communicating with the working chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Peters discloses the additional limitation wherein the line device (121) acts as a damping throttle. In particular, Peters discloses that, when a surge occurs in the main line, the working chamber pressure will vary with the pressure in the main line; however, the smaller size of the line device damps/delays the corresponding pressure change in the compensation chamber, resulting in a pressure differential (see col. 12, lines 6-25). As such, the line device in the apparatus of Peters is reasonably seen to act as a damping throttle.
Regarding claim 3, Peters discloses the additional limitations wherein, due to the connection of the working chamber and the compensation chamber (i.e., via the line device 121), a dynamic pressure profile in the compensation chamber (i.e., a pressure change resulting from a surge in the main line) is at least one of delayed or damped in relation to a dynamic working pressure profile in the working chamber (i.e., a pressure change resulting from the same surge in the main line), resulting in a pressure difference between the compensation chamber and the working chamber.
See col. 12, lines 15-22: “When a surge takes place in the line 30 the pressure in the chamber 130 will be varied in accordance with the pressure in the line. However, the pressure in the chamber 130 will follow that of the pressure in the line faster than that of the pressure of the fluid within the chamber 120. The differential is the result of the difference in openings between the tube 121 and the conduit 116”.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the apparatus of Peters reads on the additional limitation wherein the pressure difference is settable between a minimum value zero and a maximum value Pmax by a geometrical design of the line device.
In particular, Peters already explains that a differential between the pressure change in the working chamber and the delayed pressure change in the compensation chamber is the result of a difference in openings between the smaller line device (connecting the compensation chamber to the main line) and the larger connecting piece (connecting the working chamber to the main line).
Thus, based on the geometrical design of the line device, the pressure difference would be set between a minimum value zero (i.e., when the system is at steady state) and a maximum value Pmax (i.e., the maximum pressure differential which would occur for a given pressure surge in a particular application, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the apparatus of Peters reads on the additional limitation wherein the separating diaphragm is relieved of load from a quasi-static proportion of the working pressure due to an approximately same quasi-stationary absolute pressure prevailing in the working chamber and the compensation chamber based on the line device.
In particular, as both the working chamber and compensation chamber (via the line device) are fluidly connected to the main line, the “quasi-stationary absolute pressure” prevailing in the working chamber and the compensation chamber would be approximately the same, i.e., that of the main line.
See also col. 12, lines 26-30: “Under static conditions the volume of the resonant chamber 130 is independent of the pressure within the line 30. The…bellows 112 do not become tuned unless there are changes in pressure in the line 30.”
Regarding claim 6, the apparatus of Peters further comprises a housing (120) which receives the separating diaphragm (112) and defines the compensation chamber (i.e., the chamber within 120 surrounding the bellows 112).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the apparatus of Peters reads on the additional limitation wherein the housing (120) is dimensioned in relation to a maximum absolute working pressure.
In particular, as can be seen from fig. 28, the compensation chamber defined in the housing is configured to receive pressurized fluid from the main line via line device (121) and also contains therein bellows 112, similarly configured to receive pressurized fluid from the main line whereby, if the pressure in the compensation chamber is less than that of the working chamber in the bellows, the bellows will expand to seek equilibrium (as is conventional).
As the housing itself is configured to contain the pressurized fluid, the housing would necessarily be dimensioned to be capable of containing a maximum absolute working pressure.
Stated differently, any pressurized housing would have a maximum absolute working pressure, based at least in part on its dimensions, which the housing would be capable of containing before failure. The maximum absolute working pressure of the housing may be defined as the highest working pressure which, due to at least in part to its dimensions, the housing is capable of tolerating.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the apparatus of Peters reads on the additional limitation wherein the separating diaphragm (i.e., bellows 112) is dimensioned in relation to the pressure difference between the compensation chamber and the working chamber.
In particular, Peters discloses that the apparatus is configured such that a pressure difference between the working chamber (130) and the compensation chamber (120) causes a change in the volume of the working chamber within the bellows to allow the bellows to “serve momentarily as a surge chamber” (col. 12, lines 22-25); and further discloses that “under static conditions the volume of the resonant chamber 130 is independent of the pressure within the line 30. The… bellows 112 do not become tubes unless there are changes in pressure in the line 30” (col. 12, lines 26-30).
Thus, the separating diaphragm (bellows 112), which is responsive to the differential pressure between the working pressure and the compensation chamber but is balanced with respect to the steady-state pressure in the main line, is understood as being dimensioned in relation to the pressure difference between the compensation chamber and the working chamber as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, the apparatus of Peters reads on the additional limitation wherein the separating diaphragm (112) is connected to the housing (120), or to a connecting piece (i.e., 116) for connecting the housing (120) to a further article (i.e., main line 30), in a pressure-resistant manner (see col. 12, lines 2-5: “The bellows portion 112 of the device is attached to the line by means of a short length of tubing 116. The chamber 120 surrounds the bellows 112 and is sealed to the tubing 116”).
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus of Peters reads on the additional limitation wherein the separating diaphragm (112) comprises a bellows (see fig. 28; also, Peters explicitly refers to 112 as “bellows 112”) which is closed on one side (i.e., closed on the lower side, as oriented in fig. 28).
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 9 & 10 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters as applied to claims 1 & 6 above, and further in view of Becke et al. (US 5,797,430; hereafter Becke) and Schmid (US 3,422,853).
Regarding claim 9, in the apparatus of Peters, the line device comprises an element (i.e., line 121) which is formed as a separate component with respect to the housing (as shown).
Regarding the limitation wherein the device comprises an “exchangeable element”, the line device of Peters reasonably appears that it would be capable of removal and replacement (e.g., by separating the line device from the main line and housing, and attaching a replacement), however, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teachings are provided.
Becke teaches (fig. 1) an apparatus for damping pressure pulsations comprising a working chamber (7), a compensation chamber (14), and a compensation line (16) fluidically connecting the working chamber and the compensation chamber (via pressure line 4), the compensation line having disposed therein a line device in the form of an “adjustable throttle 15” to throttle fluid communication to the compensation chamber.
Becke explains “By adjustment of the throttle 15, the yielding of the pulsation damper can be adjusted during rapid changes of the operating pressure in line 4. The greater the throttle resistance, the more rigid the hydraulic coupling between pump 1 and consumer 5 becomes….The lower the throttle resistance of throttle 15, the more rapidly a pressure equalization can take place between the chamber 14 and the pressure line 4.” (col. 5, line 63 – col. 6, line 13).
Schmid teaches (fig. 1) a pulsation dampener comprising a line device in the form of an exchangeable throttling orifice (19) which is attachable via threads to a component of the dampener (see col. 2, lines 64-66), the line device throttling fluid entering into a chamber from a main pressure line. Schmid explains that the orifice (19) comprises an orifice opening (20), wherein the size of the orifice opening is selected to provide a particular effect on the pressure response within the chamber resulting from a pressure pulse in the main line. Figures 2-5 illustrate pressure-time relationships for the same device but with different orifice sizes (fig. 2 showing no orifice control, figs. 3-5 showing undersized, oversized, and optimal sized orifice results, respectively).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Peters such that the line device comprises an exchangeable element formed as a separate component with respect to the housing, in view of the teachings of Becke and Schmid, to enable a user to adjust the throttle resistance of the line device leading to the compensation chamber (i.e., as in Becke) via selecting a replaceable orifice element having a particular orifice size suitable to produce the desired response behavior for the application (i.e., as in Schmid).
Regarding claim 10, with respect to the limitation wherein the line device is at least one of adaptable or adjustable by a variable aperture or a variable length, Peters teaches that the differential between a surge in the working chamber and a corresponding delayed surge in the compensation chamber is the result of the difference in openings between the tube 121 and the connecting piece 116. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the line device of Peters is adaptable or adjustable at least by a variable aperture (i.e., varying the size of the opening of the line device) in order to alter the differential between the working chamber and the compensation chamber.
However, to promote compact prosecution, it is further noted that when the apparatus of Peters is modified in view of Becke and Schmid as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 9 above such that the line device comprises an exchangeable orifice element to enable a user to adjust the throttle resistance by selecting an orifice element with a particular orifice size, the resulting combination would further read on the limitation of claim 10 wherein the line device is at least one of adaptable or adjustable by a variable aperture or a variable length.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burden et al. (US 4,145,959; hereafter Burden) and Santos et al. (US 6,126,152; hereafter Santos).
Regarding claim 17, Peters discloses that the line device provides a throttled flow path between the working fluid line (communicating with the working chamber) and the compensation chamber so as to produce a time-dependent response to pressure changes in the working fluid (enabling a pressure balance across the diaphragm at steady-state conditions and/or during slow pressure changes, and enabling pressure difference across the diaphragm during rapid surges, via delayed propagation of the surge into the compensation chamber). Peters does not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein the line device is arranged in the separating diaphragm. Rather, as shown, the line device runs external to the housing.
Burden teaches (figs. 1, 4 & 5) an apparatus comprising a housing (10 / 40 / 70) having a movable separating element (i.e., piston 14 / 44 / 74) located between a first chamber (8 / 38 / 68) and a second chamber (6 / 36 / 66), and a throttled flow path (incl. 20/22, 50/52, 80/82, etc.) including a line device (e.g., 18) having a restricted orifice (58/60; 88/90, etc.) providing a fluidic connection between the first chamber and the second chamber.
In the embodiments of figs 1 & 4, the flow path including the line device is arranged external to the housing, communicating with the chambers via ports through the housing. However, with the embodiment of fig. 5, Burden teaches that such a restricted flow path / line device can be arranged in the movable separating element rather than external to the housing.
Burden explains “A second embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 5, wherein the flow control valve has been internally mounted, in distinction to the external mounting of a flow control valve…in FIG. 4. The second embodiment of FIG. 5 functions in a manner identical to the preferred embodiment of FIG. 4 while allowing a more compact arrangement of structure.” (col. 11, lines 42-48).
Santos teaches (FIG. 12) an apparatus comprising a working chamber defined within a bellows / separating diaphragm (12’’), a compensation chamber formed within a housing (28) in which the bellows is received, and a line device in the form of an orifice (112) arranged in a closed end (24) of the bellows, the line device providing fluidic communication between the working chamber within the bellows and the surrounding compensation chamber.
Santos explains (col. 12, lines 22 – 50) that the line device provides a time-dependent response to a pressure increase in the working chamber. In particular, Santos explains that the line device permits a gradual egress of fluid from the working chamber into the compensation chamber sufficient to compensate for a gradual pressure change (e.g. a rate which allows the pressure to equilibrate in between 0.5 and 5 seconds, in one application). However, when working pressure increases quickly, the effect of the line device is negligible.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Peters such that the line device is arranged in the separating diaphragm, in view of the teachings of Burden and Santos, as the simple substitution of one known restricted line device arrangement (i.e., the original external throttling line arrangement of Peters) for another (i.e., an orifice located in a closed end of a bellows, directly connecting the working and compensating chambers, as in Santos) to obtain predictable results (e.g., retaining the time-dependent response via throttled communication between the working and compensation chambers, but in a more compact arrangement which avoids external lines and eliminates the need for additional ports in the housing), especially considering that Burden otherwise teaches that an external line device connecting two chambers can instead be located directly in a separating element between the two chambers to provide the same functionality with a more compact structural arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753