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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (figs. 5A-10C) in the reply filed on 10 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 11, 14 & 27 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
As directed by the amendment filed with applicant’s reply on 10 March 2026: claim 19 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added. Thus, claims 1-30 are presently pending in this application, with claims 1-8, 11, 14 & 27 currently withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9, 10, 12, 13 & 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlumpf (DE-102020116077-A1) in view of Gousseinov et al (US 2013/0043629 A1; hereafter Gousseinov) and Pignone (US 4,286,539).
Examination Note: references to description of Schlumpf refer to the corresponding English translation provided with this action.
Regarding claim 9, Schlumpf discloses (figs 1-3) a pulsation dampener comprising:
a housing (incl. at least 1) having a fluid port (i.e. port into 1a) and a fluid chamber (incl. at least 2a, 2c; may also be considered to include volume in 1a) that is in fluid communication with the fluid port;
a deformable member (2; a bellows) that is in fluid communication with the fluid chamber, such that the deformable member at least partially defines a volume of the fluid chamber (as shown; may be seen to partially define the chamber if part 1a of the housing is also included as part of the fluid chamber; or may be seen to entirely define the chamber if 1a is only considered to be the fluid port), and such that the deformable member will deform responsive to pressure changes within the fluid chamber (e.g., see paragraph at bottom of pg. 2 - top of pg. 3 of the provided translation); and
a spring actuator assembly that resists deformation of the deformable member in a direction that increases the volume of the fluid chamber (i.e., the springs biasing the deformable member downward, as oriented in the figs., opposing an upward expansion), the spring actuator assembly comprising:
a top plate (5) that is fixed with respect to the housing (via guide rods 6 & nuts 8; see also fig. 2; see pg. 4, 2nd to last line – pg. 5, line 3);
a bottom plate (3) that is translatable with respect to the top plate, the bottom plate being engaged directly or indirectly with the deformable member such that deformation of the deformable member will cause translation of the bottom plate with respect to the top plate (see figs. 1-3: bottom plate 3 is attached to the top of the bellows and will translate therewith);
a plurality of springs (4; “spring elements”) positioned between the top plate and the bottom plate, the plurality of springs providing a biasing force that biases the bottom plate away from the top plate.
Schlumpf does not explicitly disclose: a middle plate positioned between the top plate and the bottom plate, the middle plate being translatable with respect to both the top plate and the bottom plate;
the plurality of springs positioned between the top plate and the middle plate, the plurality of springs providing a biasing force that biases the middle plate away from the top plate; or
a plurality of linkage assemblies each comprising: a first link having a first end and a second end, the first end of the first link being pivotally coupled to the bottom plate; a second link having a first end and a second end, the first end of the second link being pivotally coupled to the top plate, and the second end of the first link being pivotally coupled to a portion of the second link between the first and second ends of the second link; and a third link having a first end and a second end, the first end of the third link being pivotally coupled to the second end of the second link, and the second end of the third link being pivotally coupled to the middle plate; wherein the plurality of linkage assemblies are configured such that translation of the bottom plate with respect to the top plate of a first magnitude will result in translation of the middle plate with respect to the top plate of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being greater than the first magnitude.
Examination Note: in the dampener of Schlumpf, the bottom plate (fixed to the bellows) and top plate (fixed to the housing) move relative to one another. When considered from the reference frame of the housing / top plate, the top plate is stationary while the bottom plate moves. Of course, from the reference frame of the bottom plate, it is the top plate which moves.
For the spring actuator of Gousseinov (explained below) as shown on the left of fig. 2, the mount (4) is considered “fixed” while the top seat plate (2) moves, but the same mechanics would apply if the top seat plate (2) was fixed and a force is applied in the opposing direction from the mount (4). For convenience, in the following description, the top seat plate (2) is being interpreted as corresponding to the top plate of Schlumpf (and the claimed top plate), the mount (4) is being interpreted as corresponding to the bottom plate of Schlumpf (and the claimed bottom plate), with the bottom seat plate (3) corresponding to the claimed middle plate.
However, it is noted that the alternative arrangement shown at the right in fig. 2 could also be reasonably be mapped to the claimed elements, albeit vertically inverted: the mount (4) here would schematically represent the housing, with the bottom seat plate (3) representing the claimed top plate, fixed to the housing; the un-numbered top plate to which the force F is applied being the claimed bottom plate, and the top seat plate (2) corresponding to the claimed middle plate.
Gousseinov teaches (schematically in fig. 2 at left; example embodiments in figs. 3-16) a spring actuator assembly that resists a force (F) in a first direction, the spring actuator assembly comprising:
a top plate (2; “top seat plate);
a bottom plate (4; “mount”) that is translatable with respect to the top plate (see examination note above);
a middle plate (3; “bottom seat plate”) positioned between the top plate and the bottom plate, the middle plate being translatable with respect to both the top plate and the bottom plate (as shown);
a spring (1) positioned between the top plate and the middle plate, the spring providing a biasing force that biases the middle plate away from the top plate (i.e., when configured as a compression spring, as described); and
a plurality of linkage assemblies (i.e. see various “links” in fig. 2; shown in the example of figs. 3a-c as including at least levers 5),
wherein the plurality of linkage assemblies are configured such that translation of the bottom plate (4) with respect to the top plate (2) of a first magnitude will result in translation of the middle plate (3) with respect to the top plate of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being greater than the first magnitude (see figs. 3b-c & 4; see below).
Regarding the limitation wherein the plurality of linkage assemblies are configured such that translation of the bottom plate with respect to the top plate of a first magnitude will result in translation of the middle plate with respect to the top plate of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being greater than the first magnitude, as shown in at least figs. 3b-c and as described in at least para. 41, a movement between the top plate and the bottom plate produces a corresponding movement of the of the middle plate. Due to the design of the linkages between the three plates, if the movement between the top plate and the bottom is a first magnitude X, the movement between the middle plate and the top plate would have a second magnitude of X + Y (i.e., the distance between the top plate and bottom plate decreases by X, while the distance between the top plate and the middle plate decreases by X + Y), greater than the first magnitude.
Gousseinov teaches that this arrangement functions to change the spring constant effective between the top plate and the bottom plate, and explains that, by choosing the lengths of the linkage arms (i.e., R1, the link between the top plate and bottom plate; and r1, the link between the middle plate and bottom plate) and the angle (alf) between these arms (i.e., as measured at a shared pivot point, relative to the bottom plate), the relationships between these movements may be changed as desired.
Gousseinov explains (para. 46) that if the angle (alf) is between 90 and 180 degrees, a movement bringing the top and bottom plate closer together will result in a greater movement of the middle plate towards the top plate, thereby increasing the spring constant (as shown in figs. 3-4). However, Gousseinov also explains (para. 47) that the angle (alf) may be set to be 90 degrees or less, whereby movement bringing the top and bottom plate closer together results in the middle plate moving away from the top plate, decreasing the spring constant.
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 pulsation dampener of Schlumpf such that the spring actuator assembly further includes a middle plate positioned between the top plate and the bottom plate, the middle plate being translatable with respect to both the top plate and the bottom plate; the plurality of springs positioned between the top plate and the middle plate, the plurality of springs providing a biasing force that biases the middle plate away from the top plate; and a plurality of linkage assemblies coupling the top, middle, and bottom plates; wherein the plurality of linkage assemblies are configured such that translation of the bottom plate with respect to the top plate of a first magnitude will result in translation of the middle plate with respect to the top plate of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being greater than the first magnitude, in view of the teachings of Gousseinov, to enable the pulsation dampener to comprise a spring constant which changes depending on the distance between the top and bottom plates (e.g., increasing as the deformable member expands) and/or, by selecting appropriate linkage geometry, providing a designer with additional means to control the behavior of the pulsation dampener relative to the bottom plate travel distance.
Gousseinov explains that the top, middle, and bottom plates are to be mechanically interconnected by linkages which may be provided in various forms, including as “cams, gears, levers, etc.” (see published claim 1 & abstract). Several non-limiting examples of such linkages are shown in the various figures (e.g., pivoting levers with geared cogs in figs. 3-6, rotating cams in fig. 10, etc.).
While Gousseinov does not explicitly teach a linkage assembly comprising first, second, and third pivoting links as set forth in the claim, such linkage mechanisms (i.e., having three pivoting links collectively joining together three bodies, with one link connected to an intermediate point of a second link, whereby a movement of one body with respect to a second body of results in proportional movement of a third body with respect to the second body) are otherwise known in the art.
To promote compact prosecution, one such example of this type of linkage assembly, as taught by Pignone, is described below; however, the linkage assembly of Pignone is selected as merely being illustrative of such linkage assemblies which are otherwise known in a variety of mechanical engineering contexts.
Examination Note: to further illustrate that such linkage assemblies are fundamentally known, see also US 6,053,251 to Deaton.
Pignone teaches (figs. 1-4) an actuator device comprising a plurality of linkage assemblies (two mirrored assemblies shown, each incl. links 35-37), each comprising:
a first link (37) having a first end (at pivot 38) and a second end (attached to second link 35), the first end of the first link being pivotally coupled (via pivot 38) to a first movable component (shaft 23 & plate 24);
a second link (35) having a first end (attached to 33) and a second end (attached to 36), the first end of the second link being pivotally coupled (via yoke / mount 33) to a plate (16) fixed to a housing (11), and the second end of the first link (37) being pivotally coupled to a portion of the second link (35) between the first and second ends of the second link (as shown); and
a third link (36) having a first end (attached to 35) and a second end (attached to 34), the first end of the third link being pivotally coupled to the second end of the second link (as shown), and the second end of the third link being pivotally coupled (via yoke / mount 34) to an intermediate moving component (29);
wherein the plurality of linkage assemblies are configured such that translation of the first movable component (23 / 24) with respect to the fixed plate of a first magnitude will result in translation of the intermediate component (29) with respect to the fixed plate of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being greater than the first magnitude (as can be seen from figs 1 & 2, the distance from the first end of the second link to the central pivot connecting to the first link is less than the distance from the second end of the second link to the central pivot; as such, the magnitude of movement between the fixed plate and the first movable component is proportional to the magnitude of the movement between the fixed plate and the intermediate component).
Pignone explains that the dimensions of the second link, including the relative distances from the pivot point / fulcrum to the two ends of the link, can be modified to achieve a desired mechanical advantage (see, e.g., co..3, lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf in view of Gousseinov above, to provide the plurality of linkage assemblies such that each comprises: a first link having a first end and a second end, the first end of the first link being pivotally coupled to the bottom plate; a second link having a first end and a second end, the first end of the second link being pivotally coupled to the top plate, and the second end of the first link being pivotally coupled to a portion of the second link between the first and second ends of the second link; and a third link having a first end and a second end, the first end of the third link being pivotally coupled to the second end of the second link, and the second end of the third link being pivotally coupled to the middle plate, in view of the teachings of Pignone, as the simple substitution of one known linkage assembly type (e.g., the original linkage assemblies of Gousseinov, which may have rotating gears/gear racks or cams, etc.) for another (e.g., a linkage assembly comprising only pivoted levers / links, as in Pignone; as is otherwise known in the art) to obtain predictable results (e.g., simplified design / manufacture requiring only simple linkages and connecting pins, avoiding the need for more complex gearing / tooth milling and/or potentially complex manufacture of cam profiles, etc.), especially considering that Gousseinov already suggests that the “mechanical means” forming such linkages may be provided in various forms, including as “cams, gears, levers, etc.” (see published claim 1 & abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Schlumpf discloses the additional limitation wherein the deformable member (2) comprises a bellows (see pg. 2: the member may take several forms, including “a rubber bellows” or “a metal bellows”).
Regarding claim 12, Schlumpf discloses (figs 1-3) a pulsation dampener comprising:
a housing (incl. at least 1) having a fluid port (i.e. port into 1a) and a fluid chamber (incl. at least 2a, 2c; may also be considered to include volume in 1a) that is in fluid communication with the fluid port;
a deformable member (2; a bellows) that is in fluid communication with the fluid chamber, such that the deformable member will deform responsive to pressure changes within the fluid chamber; and
a spring actuator assembly comprising:
a first member (5) connected to the housing (via guide rods 6 & nuts 8);
a second member (3) that is translatable with respect to the first member, the second member being positioned such that deformation of the deformable member will cause translation of the second member with respect to the first member (see figs. 1-3: bottom plate 3 is attached to the top of the bellows and will translate therewith);
one or more springs (4; “spring elements”) positioned to provide a biasing force between the first member and the second member.
Schlumpf does not explicitly disclose: a third member that is translatable with respect to both the first member and the second member; the one or more springs positioned to provide a biasing force between the first member and the third member; or
one or more linkage assemblies pivotally coupled to the first member, the second member, and the third member, the one or more linkage assemblies being configured such that translation of the second member with respect to the first member of a first magnitude will result in translation of the third member with respect to the first member of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being different than the first magnitude.
Examination Note: in the dampener of Schlumpf, the second member (fixed to the bellows) and first member (fixed to the housing) move relative to one another. When considered from the reference frame of the housing / first member, the first member is stationary while the second member moves. Of course, from the reference frame of the second member, it is the first member which moves.
For the spring actuator of Gousseinov (explained below) as shown on the left of fig. 2, the mount (4) is considered “fixed” while the top seat plate (2) moves, but the same mechanics would apply if the top seat plate (2) was fixed and a force is applied in the opposing direction from the mount (4). For convenience, in the following description, the top seat plate (2) is being interpreted as corresponding to the first member of Schlumpf (and the claimed first member), the mount (4) is being interpreted as corresponding to the second member of Schlumpf (and the claimed second member), with the bottom seat plate (3) corresponding to the claimed third member.
However, it is noted that the alternative arrangement shown at the right in fig. 2 could also be reasonably be mapped to the claimed elements, albeit vertically inverted: the mount (4) here would schematically represent the housing, with the bottom seat plate (3) representing the claimed first member, fixed to the housing; the un-numbered top plate to which the force F is applied being the claimed second member, and the top seat plate (2) corresponding to the claimed third member.
Gousseinov teaches (schematically in fig. 2 at left; example embodiments in figs. 3-16) a spring actuator assembly comprising:
a first member (2; “top seat plate);
a second member (4; “mount”) that is translatable with respect to the first member (see examination note above);
a third member (3; “bottom seat plate”) that is translatable with respect to both the first member and the second member (as shown);
one or more springs (1) positioned to provide a biasing force between the first member and the third member; and
one or more linkage assemblies (i.e. see various “links” in fig. 2; shown in the example of figs. 3a-c as including at least levers 5) configured such that translation of the second member (4) with respect to the first member (2) of a first magnitude will result in translation of the third member (3) with respect to the first member of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being different than the first magnitude (see figs. 3b-c & 4; see below).
Regarding the limitation wherein the one or more linkage assemblies are configured such that translation of the second member with respect to the first member of a first magnitude will result in translation of the third member with respect to the first member of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being different than the first magnitude, as shown in at least figs. 3b-c and as described in at least para. 41, a movement between the first member and the second member produces a corresponding movement of the of the third member. Due to the design of the linkages between the three members, if the movement between the first member and the second member is a first magnitude X, the movement between the third member and the first member would have a second magnitude of X + Y (i.e., the distance between the top plate and bottom plate decreases by X, while the distance between the top plate and the middle plate decreases by X + Y), which is different than the first magnitude.
Gousseinov teaches that this arrangement functions to change the spring constant effective between the first member and the second member, and explains that, by choosing the lengths of the linkage arms (i.e., R1, the link between the first member and the second member; and r1, the link between the third member and the second member) and the angle (alf) between these arms (i.e., as measured at a shared pivot point, relative to the second member), the relationships between these movements may be changed as desired.
Gousseinov explains (para. 46) that if the angle (alf) is between 90 and 180 degrees, a movement bringing the first and second members closer together will result in a greater movement of the third movement toward the first member, thereby increasing the spring constant (as shown in figs. 3-4). However, Gousseinov also explains (para. 47) that the angle (alf) may be set to be 90 degrees or less, whereby movement bringing the first and second members closer together results in the third member moving away from the first member, decreasing the spring constant.
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 pulsation dampener of Schlumpf such that the spring actuator assembly further includes a third member that is translatable with respect to both the first member and the second member; the one or more springs positioned to provide a biasing force between the first member and the third member; and one or more linkage assemblies coupled to the first member, the second member, and the third member, the one or more linkage assemblies being configured such that translation of the second member with respect to the first member of a first magnitude will result in translation of the third member with respect to the first member of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being different than the first magnitude, in view of the teachings of Gousseinov, to enable the pulsation dampener to comprise a spring constant which changes depending on the distance between the first and second members (e.g., increasing as the deformable member expands) and/or, by selecting appropriate linkage geometry, providing a designer with additional means to control the behavior of the pulsation dampener relative to the second member travel distance.
Gousseinov explains that the top, middle, and bottom plates are to be mechanically interconnected by linkages which may be provided in various forms, including as “cams, gears, levers, etc.” (see published claim 1 & abstract). Several non-limiting examples of such linkages are shown in the various figures (e.g., pivoting levers with geared cogs in figs. 3-6, rotating cams in fig. 10, etc.).
While Gousseinov does not explicitly teach the one or more linkage assemblies being pivotally coupled to the first member, the second member, and the third member as set forth in the claim, such linkage mechanisms (i.e., having three pivoting links collectively joining together three bodies, whereby a movement of one body with respect to a second body of results in proportional movement of a third body with respect to the second body) are otherwise known in the art.
To promote compact prosecution, one such example of this type of linkage assembly, as taught by Pignone, is described below; however, the linkage assembly of Pignone is selected as merely being illustrative of such linkage assemblies which are otherwise known in a variety of mechanical engineering contexts.
Examination Note: to further illustrate that such linkage assemblies are fundamentally known, see also US 6,053,251 to Deaton.
Pignone teaches (figs. 1-4) an actuator assembly comprising:
a first member (16) connected to a housing (11);
a second member (incl. 23 & 24) that is translatable with respect to the first member;
a third member (29) that is translatable with respect to both the first member and the second member; and
one or more linkage assemblies (two mirrored assemblies shown, each incl. links 35-37) pivotally coupled to the first member (i.e. link 35 [“second link” for claim 19 below] pivotally coupled to first member 16 via yoke/mount 33), the second member (link 37 [“first link” for claim 19 below] pivotally coupled to second member part 23 at 38), and the third member (link 36 [“third link” for claim 19 below] pivotally coupled to the third member 29 via yoke/mount 34), the one or more linkage assemblies being configured such that translation of the second member with respect to the first member of a first magnitude will result in translation of the third member with respect to the first member of a second magnitude, the second magnitude being different than the first magnitude (as can be seen from figs 1 & 2, the distance from the first end of the link 35 to the central pivot connecting to the link 37 is less than the distance from the second end of the link 35 to the central pivot; as such, the magnitude of movement between the first member and the second member is proportional to [but not equal to] the magnitude of the movement between the first member and the third member).
Pignone explains that the dimensions of the link 35, including the relative distances from the pivot point / fulcrum to the two ends of the link, can be modified to achieve a desired mechanical advantage (see, e.g., co..3, lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf in view of Gousseinov above, to provide the one or more linkage assemblies as linkage assemblies which are pivotally coupled to the first member, the second member, and the third member, in view of the teachings of Pignone, as the simple substitution of one known linkage assembly type (e.g., the original linkage assemblies of Gousseinov, which may have rotating gears/gear racks or cams, etc.) for another (e.g., a linkage assembly comprising only pivoted levers / links, as in Pignone; as is otherwise known in the art) to obtain predictable results (e.g., simplified design / manufacture requiring only simple linkages and connecting pins, avoiding the need for more complex gearing / tooth milling and/or potentially complex manufacture of cam profiles, etc.), especially considering that Gousseinov already suggests that the “mechanical means” forming such linkages may be provided in various forms, including as “cams, gears, levers, etc.” (see published claim 1 & abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Schlumpf discloses the additional limitation wherein the deformable member (2) comprises a bellows (see pg. 2: the member may take several forms, including “a rubber bellows” or “a metal bellows”).
Regarding claim 15, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the third member (i.e., corresponding to the “bottom seat plate 3” in fig. 2 of Gousseinov) is positioned between the first member (5 of Schlumpf; corresponding to “top seat plate 2” of Gousseinov) and the second member (3 of Schlumpf; corresponding to “mount 4” of Gousseinov).
Regarding claim 16, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the one or more springs (4 of Schlumpf; corresponding to spring 1 of Gousseinov) are positioned to bias the third member toward the deformable member (i.e., toward the second member / away from the first member).
Regarding claim 17, Schlumpf discloses the additional limitation wherein the one or more springs (4) comprise mechanical springs.
In particular, while the figures of Schlumpf depict rubber or elastomeric springs, Schlumpf further suggests that “In one embodiment of the invention, the one spring element or the several spring elements are implemented by conventional spiral springs” (pg. 4; see also published claim 7)
Regarding claim 18, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the one or more springs (4) do not comprise pressurized gas.
In particular, Schlumpf discloses (pg. 4; published claims 7-9) that the one or more springs may comprise conventional spiral springs or rubber / elastomeric springs, either of which, as understood, would not be considered to comprise pressurized gas (i.e., they are not pneumatic / air springs, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified in view of above Gousseinov and Pignone above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the one or more linkage assemblies each comprise:
a first link (i.e., corresponding to link 37 of Pignone) pivotally coupled to the second member;
a second link (i.e., corresponding to link 35 of Pignone / functionally corresponding link 5 of Gousseinov) pivotally coupled to the first member and the first link; and
a third link (i.e., corresponding to link 36 of Pignone) pivotally coupled to the second link and the third member.
See discussion in the grounds of rejection for claim 12 above. See also additional detailed discussion for corresponding relevant limitations in the rejection for claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the second magnitude is greater than the first magnitude.
In particular, Gousseinov teaches in at least figs. 3b-c and para. 41, that movement between the first member and the second member produces a corresponding movement of the of the third member. Due to the design of the linkages between the three members, if the movement between the first and second member is a first magnitude X, the movement between the third member and the second member would have a second magnitude of X + Y (i.e., the distance between the first and second members decreases by X, while the distance between the first and third members decreases by X + Y), greater than the first magnitude.
Gousseinov explains that such a relationship occurs while the angle (alf) between the arms of the linkage member (5) is between 90 and 180 degrees (para. 46). By contrast, if the angle is instead set to be less than 90 degrees a movement bringing the first and second members closer together will result in the third member instead moving away from the first member, decreasing the relative magnitude of travel (para. 47).
Regarding claim 21, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the one or more linkage assemblies are configured such that a relationship between translation of the second member with respect to the first member and translation of the third member with respect to the first member is non-linear. In particular, and as explained by Gousseinov, the relationship between translation of the second member with respect to the first member and translation of the third member is governed by the configuration of the linkage assemblies, including at least the relative lengths R1 and r1 of the pivoting lever arms, as well as the angle (alf) between them.
A relatively longer r1 would result in a relatively greater movement of the third member for a given movement of between the first and second members. As the third member is moved due to rotation of the arm, the amount of movement would also typically change as a function of the angle (e.g., based on the vertical component of the link-end movement around the arc). However, Gousseinov also explains that the design of the linkage assemblies can be selected to include further profiles and geometries to vary the distance between the members during the travel / over the rotation of the second link. By way of example, figs. 4, 7 & 10 of Gousseinov depict various additional means to alter the distance between the fulcrum / pivot of the lever 5 and the third member (thus altering the relationship between the movement of the first/second members and corresponding movement of the third member). When applied to the pivoting linkage arrangement, this would reasonably take the form of altering the relative lengths of the links in the linkage assemblies (and the angle the second link) to achieve a desired result.
Thus, if not already seen as such, 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 pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as otherwise modified above, such that the one or more linkage assemblies are configured such that a relationship between translation of the second member with respect to the first member and translation of the third member with respect to the first member is non-linear, in view of the teachings of Gousseinov, to enable the spring constant to change at different rates over different portions of travel (i.e., to achieve a particular spring constant profile, as otherwise suggested by Gousseinov).
Claims 22-24, 28 & 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlumpf in view of Hedenberg (US 6,539,975).
Regarding claim 22, Schlumpf discloses (figs 1-3) a pulsation dampener comprising:
a housing (incl. at least 1) having a fluid port (i.e. port into 1a) and a fluid chamber (i.e., volume within 1 and/or 2; incl. at least 2a, 2c; may also be considered to include volume in 1a) that is in fluid communication with the fluid port;
a deformable member (2; a bellows) in fluid communication with the fluid chamber; and
a spring (4; “spring elements”).
Schlumpf does not explicitly disclose a linkage assembly that transfers a force between the deformable member and the spring, wherein the linkage assembly is configured to amplify the force between the deformable member and the spring.
Hedenberg teaches (fig. 2) a housing (18) having a fluid port (6,8) and a fluid chamber (within 4; as shown) that is in fluid communication with the fluid port;
a deformable member (i.e., bellows defining the chamber 4) in fluid communication with the fluid chamber;
a spring (22); and
a linkage assembly (24, 26, 28) that transfers a force between the deformable member and the spring, wherein the linkage assembly is configured to amplify the force between the deformable member and the spring (see below).
In particular, Hedenberg teaches that the support (28) can be moved along a pivoting link (24) to adjust the center of rotation, achieving a lever effect. As would be understood by those skilled in the art, moving the support closer to the spring would increase the lever arm from the deformable member (thus amplifying the force applied to the linkage assembly by the deformable member), while moving the support closer to the deformable member would increase the lever arm from the spring (thus amplifying the force applied to the linkage assembly by the spring).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf to further include a linkage assembly that transfers a force between the deformable member and the spring, wherein the linkage assembly is configured to amplify the force between the deformable member and the spring, in view of the teachings of Hedenberg, to enable adjustment of the spring force applied to the deformable member by simple movement of the support / pivot point.
Regarding claim 23, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the force amplified by the linkage assembly is a force applied to the linkage assembly directly or indirectly by the spring.
As noted for claim 22 above, Hedenberg teaches that the support (28) can be moved along a pivoting link (24) to adjust the center of rotation, achieving a lever effect. As would be understood by those skilled in the art, moving the support closer to the deformable member would increase the lever arm from the spring (thus amplifying the force applied to the linkage assembly by the spring).
If not already seen as such, 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 pulsation dampener of Schlumpf such that the force amplified by the linkage assembly is a force applied to the linkage assembly directly or indirectly by the spring (i.e., by moving the support closer to the deformable member), in view of the teachings of Hedenberg, to provide an effectively increased spring constant to oppose expansion of the deformable member.
Regarding claim 24, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the force amplified by the linkage assembly is a force applied to the linkage assembly directly or indirectly by the deformable member.
As noted for claim 22 above, Hedenberg teaches that the support (28) can be moved along a pivoting link (24) to adjust the center of rotation, achieving a lever effect. As would be understood by those skilled in the art, moving the support closer to the spring would increase the lever arm from the deformable member (thus amplifying the force applied to the linkage assembly by the deformable member).
If not already seen as such, 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 pulsation dampener of Schlumpf such that the force amplified by the linkage assembly is a force applied to the linkage assembly directly or indirectly by the deformable member (i.e., by moving the support closer to the spring), in view of the teachings of Hedenberg, to provide an effectively reduced spring constant to oppose expansion of the deformable member.
Regarding claim 28, Schlumpf discloses the additional limitation wherein the deformable member (2) comprises a bellows (see pg. 2: the member may take several forms, including “a rubber bellows” or “a metal bellows”).
Regarding claim 29, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the dampener further comprises at least one additional spring and at least one additional linkage assembly.
In particular, Schlumpf explicitly discloses that the dampener may comprise multiple springs (e.g., four such springs 4 are shown in fig. 1) and further suggests that such a dampener can be easily adapted to different pressure ranges by changing the number and/or type of springs.
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, having a least one additional spring, to further include at least one additional linkage assembly, in view of the combined teachings of Schlumpf and Hedenberg, such that each spring is provided with a corresponding linkage assembly, to enable adjustment of the spring force applied to the deformable member by each of the springs (e.g. to enable balancing / fine-tuning / compensation for variations in spring constants provided by each spring, etc.).
See also MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B): “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
Claims 22, 24-26 & 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlumpf in view of Cash (US 534,951).
Regarding claim 22, Schlumpf discloses (figs 1-3) a pulsation dampener comprising:
a housing (incl. at least 1) having a fluid port (i.e. port into 1a) and a fluid chamber (i.e., volume within 1 and/or 2; incl. at least 2a, 2c; may also be considered to include volume in 1a) that is in fluid communication with the fluid port;
a deformable member (2; a bellows) in fluid communication with the fluid chamber; and
a spring (4; “spring elements”).
Schlumpf does not explicitly disclose a linkage assembly that transfers a force between the deformable member and the spring, wherein the linkage assembly is configured to amplify the force between the deformable member and the spring.
Cash teaches (figs. 1-4; modified form in figs. 5-9) a device (i.e., a pressure regulator) comprising: a housing (A1, A2) having a fluid port (b) and a fluid chamber that is in fluid communication with the fluid port; a deformable member (D; “flexible diaphragm”) in fluid communication with the fluid chamber; a spring (W); and a linkage assembly (incl. T, T’, t, t’, etc.) that transfers a force between the deformable member (D) and the spring (W), wherein the linkage assembly is configured to amplify the force between the deformable member and the spring (i.e., as a toggle mechanism, the force applied by the deformable member will be multiplied by A/2H, wherein A is the effective horizontal arm length {e.g., from the bearing d4 to the end of the arm at w or r} and H is the effective vertical arm length {e.g., from the bearing d4 to the centerline of the rod R}).
Cash explains that the force provided by a compression spring increases as the spring compresses, so the toggle type linkage mechanism (which would increase the force applied by the deformable member as the deformable member expands upwards) serves to compensate for this increasing spring force (pg. 2, lines 23-37).
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 pulsation dampener of Schlumpf to further include a linkage assembly that transfers a force between the deformable member and the spring, wherein the linkage assembly is configured to amplify the force between the deformable member and the spring, in view of the teachings of Cash, to enable the force applied by the diaphragm against the spring to be increased as the diaphragm expands, so as to compensate for an increase in the opposing spring force as the spring compresses (as suggested by Cash).
Regarding claim 24, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the force amplified by the linkage assembly is a force applied to the linkage assembly directly or indirectly by the deformable member (as described above, the toggle linkage assembly amplifies the force applied to the linkage by the deformable member, which increases as the deformable member expands).
Regarding claim 25, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the linkage assembly comprises a first member that transfers the force to the spring (e.g., corresponding to Cash’s washer w [transferring force from arm T to the left end of the spring] and/or one or more of washer w1, rod R and rod head r [transferring force from arm T1 to the right arm of the spring, via rod R]), a second member that transfers the force to the deformable member (corresponding to Cash’s screw nut D1 and/or bearing d4), and one or more linkages (corresponding to Cash’s arms T and T1) that transfer the force between the first member and the second member (as shown).
Regarding claim 26, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the one or more linkages are configured to provide a mechanical advantage between the first member and the second member.
As noted above, the linkages are configured as toggle levers, which would provide a mechanical advantage (i.e., a multiplication of force) between the first member and the second member.
Regarding claim 28, Schlumpf discloses the additional limitation wherein the deformable member (2) comprises a bellows (see pg. 2: the member may take several forms, including “a rubber bellows” or “a metal bellows”).
Regarding claim 29, further comprising at least one additional spring and at least one additional linkage assembly.
Regarding claim 30, the pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the linkage assembly (i.e., corresponding to the toggle linkage assembly of Cash) is configured such that a magnitude of amplification of the force between the deformable member and the spring varies depending on a position of the deformable member.
As noted for claim 22 above, as a toggle mechanism, the force applied by the deformable member would be multiplied by A/2H, wherein A is the effective horizontal arm length (e.g., from the bearing d4 to the end of the arm at w or r) and H is the effective vertical arm length (e.g., from the bearing d4 to the centerline of the rod R).
As can be seen from Cash, as the deformable member moves, the values of A and H would change (e.g., A increasing and H decreasing as the deformable member expands upward, thus increasing the magnitude of the force amplification). Cash also explains that the force provided by a compression spring increases as the spring compresses, so the toggle type linkage mechanism (which would increase the force applied by the deformable member as the deformable member expands upwards) serves to compensate for this increasing spring force (pg. 2, lines 23-37).
The pulsation dampener of Schlumpf, when modified to include such a linkage assembly as described above, would thus reasonably be configured such that a magnitude of amplification of the force between the deformable member and the spring varies depending on a position of the deformable member.
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