DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 Line 3 currently states:
“corresponding surfaces enclose an angle of be-tween 0° and 90° both with the axis of movement”.
Should be changed to state:
--corresponding surfaces enclose an angle of [[be-tween]] between 0° and 90° both with the axis of movement--.
Claim 22 Line 3 currently states:
“to cause a relative movement between the corresponding sur-faces.”.
Should be changed to state:
--to cause a relative movement between the corresponding [[sur-faces]] surfaces.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "8a" and "7a" have both been used to designate the same structural feature in Fig 1.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “8a” has been used to designate both a part of element 7a in Fig 1 and a part different from element 7a in Fig 2.
The drawings are objected to because there is a lead line in Fig 2 without an element number, this superfluous lead line in Fig 2 should be deleted.
The drawings are objected to because elements 6a & 2b identify an empty space and not a surface of a particular element, thus it is unclear what structure is intended to correspond to particular surfaces associated with elements 6a & 2b as described in the SPEC filed 06/27/2023.
The drawings are objected to because the brief description of the Figures (Page 7-8 of the SPEC) indicates that Fig 2 is a different view of the structure shown in Fig 1. However the location of element 8 in Fig 1 is different from the location of element 8 in Fig 2, such that given the current drawings (when viewed in combination with the right hand rule with respect to the coordinate system shown in Figs 1 & 2) it is not clear how Fig 2 can be a different view of the structure shown in Fig 1. One possible explanation would be that the entire ramp structure illustrated in Fig 1 in white is really part of control element 8. If this is indeed the case, the white ramp structure in Fig 1 should have the same crosshatching as element 8 in Fig 1 & Fig 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 15-28 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.
Regarding Claim 15: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “α = 90°”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claims 15, 20, and 21:
Claim 15 Line 13 states: “a control axis which encloses an angle α > 0°, preferably α = 90°, with the axis of movement,”.
Claim 20 Line 1-4 states: “wherein the control element and the stop element have two mutually corresponding, preferably flat, surfaces, wherein the two mutually corresponding surfaces enclose an angle of between 0° and 90° both with the axis of movement and with the control axis”.
Claim 21 Line 1-3 states: “wherein an angle β the angle which the two mutually corresponding surfaces enclose with the control axis, wherein 5° > β > 45°,”.
It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically the way the respective claims are written requires a particular axis/surface (i.e. the control axis/ the surfaces of the control element and the stop element/ the two mutually corresponding surfaces) to enclose an angle with one or more axes, however the axes/surfaces & axes (e.g. control axis 101 and movement axis 100 in Fig 1) do not enclose/surround an angle as claimed, thus the scope of the claim is uncertain. However it is noted that the claimed elements do appear to form an angle as claimed. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the claim language in question will be read as:
Claim 15 Line 13: --a control axis which forms an angle α > 0°, preferably α = 90°, with the axis of movement,”.
Claim 20 Line 1-4 states: “wherein the control element and the stop element have two mutually corresponding, preferably flat, surfaces, wherein the two mutually corresponding surfaces form an angle of between 0° and 90° both with the axis of movement and with the control axis”.
Claim 21 Line 1-3 states: “wherein an angle β the angle which the two mutually corresponding surfaces form with the control axis, wherein 5° > β > 45°,”.
Regarding Claim 16: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “and preferably also does not act on the control element”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 18: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “wherein preferably the actuator has a blocking element, wherein a movement of the control element is prevented with the blocking element when the blocking element is activated”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 20: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “flat”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 21: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “10° > β > 35° and particularly preferably β = 14°.”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 22: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “roughened”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 23: Line 1-5 states: “wherein the stop element and the control element are positively connected to each other, wherein the positive connection allows a relative movement between the control element and the stop element exclusively in a direction along the corresponding surfaces, said direction lying in a plane spanned by the control axis and the movement axis”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear what particular structure applicant is referring to with the language “the corresponding surfaces”, thus the scope of the claim is uncertain. For the purpose of examination the language in the relevant portion of Line 3-4 of claim 23 will be read as --[[the]] corresponding surfaces--.
Regarding Claim 24: the phrase "preferably" in Line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “and preferably the control element each”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 24: the phrase "particularly preferably" in Line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “wherein particularly preferably a section of the drive housing is arranged in a form-fitting manner in the opening of the stop element, so that the stop element can be moved exclusively along the axis of movement , while a distance is provided between the opening of the control element and a section of the drive housing which is accommodated in the opening of the control element, which distance permits movement of the control element along the control axis”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 25: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “and preferably the control element”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 27: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “and preferably the control element”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 28: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase (i.e. “and preferably the control element”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 18-20, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lombard USPN 4192223.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Lombard USPN 4192223 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 15: Lombard USPN 4192223 does disclose the limitations: A dosing pump (the dosing pump is defined by the sum of its parts, and includes the metering pump (title, abstract) disclosed by Lombard) for delivering a dosing volume of a fluid (i.e. delivering a metered volume of the fluid moved by the disclosed dosing/metering pump of Lombard) having a displacement element (=1,2; Fig 1, Column 2 Line 50-59) and a dosing chamber (=chamber partially defined by diaphragm 1 that is located between the inlet and outlet valves in Fig 1), wherein the displacement element delimits the dosing chamber (it does, as seen in Fig 1) and can be moved back and forth (Column 2 Line 60-68) between a pressure position (i.e. position associated with the end of the power stroke) and a suction position (i.e. position associated with the end of the suction stroke) on an axis of movement (= left-right axis in Fig 1 that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of rod 2 in Fig 1, also see Annotated Figure 1 of Lombard USPN 4192223 (Attached Figure A) above), wherein a volume of the dosing chamber in the pressure position of the displacement element (i.e. volume of the pump chamber at the end of the discharge stroke) is smaller than a volume of the dosing chamber in the suction position of the displacement element (it is, the volume of the pump chamber at the end of the power stroke is inherently smaller than a volume of the pump chamber at the end of the suction stroke – given how diaphragm pumps operate as known in the art), (drive = elements 4,5, Column 2 Line 50-68, Figs 1-2), wherein a drive is provided with which a driving force can be applied (i.e. the driving force from eccentric 5 via roller 4 can be applied by slide block 3, Column 2 Line 50-68, Figs 1-2) to the displacement element (i.e. to element 2 of the displacement element 1,2 via the connection between elements 3 and 2 shown in Fig 2) in the direction of the pressure position (given the structural arrangement shown in the Figures, the driving force is inherently applied in the direction towards the pressure position as claimed, Column 2 Line 50-59), wherein a biasing element (= return spring 8) is provided which exerts a restoring force on the displacement element in the direction of the suction position (given the structural arrangement shown in the Figures, a restoring force generated by spring 8 is inherently applied via element 3 to the displacement element 1,2 – in the direction towards the suction position as claimed, Column 2 Line 50-59), wherein a stop element (= slide block 3, also see Attached Figure A) is provided which limits the movement of the displacement element in the direction of the suction position (slide block 3 is rigidly connected to element 2 of the displacement element – thus the position of element 3 limits the movement of the displacement element as described in Column 3 Line 1-15), wherein the stop element can be adjusted along the axis of movement (it can, adjustment of knob 21 causes the external surface of ball 15 to move inclined face 18 formed in the slide block 3 closer/further from the pumping chamber thereby causing a decrease/increase of the return stroke along the axis of movement in Fig 1, Column 3 Line 1-47) in order to adjust the suction position of the displacement element (Column 3 Line 1-47), wherein a control element is provided (control element = 15, Column 3 Line 1-15), wherein the control element is arranged in such a way that the control element can be moved along a control axis (Attached Figure A; rotation of knob 21 and screw 19 causes the ball to move along the vertical control axis indicated in Attached Figure A, Column 3 Line 1-Column 4 Line 3) which forms an angle α > 0° with the axis of movement (as seen in Attached Figure A the two axes form an angle greater than 0° as claimed), the control element being arranged on the stop element (Attached Figure A) in such a way that a movement of the stop element is coupled to a movement of the control element (Attached Figure A, Column 3 Line 1-15), so that the stop element can be adjusted along the axis of movement by a movement of the control element along the control axis (Attached Figure A, Column 3 Line 1-15).
Regarding Claim 18: Lombard USPN 4192223 does disclose the limitations: wherein an actuator (21,19,23) is provided which is coupled to the control element (screw 19 is magnetically coupled to control element 15, Column 3 Line 36-Column 4 Line 9), wherein the actuator is designed in such a way that the control element can be adjusted along the control axis with the actuator (since actuator 19 is a screw, rotation of the screw causes control element 15 which is magnetically coupled to 19 – to move up and down (i.e. be adjusted) along the control axis in Attached Figure A, Column 3 Line 1-15), wherein preferably the actuator (21,19,23, Column 3 Line 1-15, Column 3 Line 36-Column 4 Line 9) has a blocking element (blocking element – seal 23), wherein a movement of the control element is prevented with the blocking element when the blocking element is activated (the seal prevents unwanted rotation of knob 21 and in turn unwanted movement of control element 15, see Column 3 Line 1-15, Column 3 Line 36-51).
Regarding Claim 19: Lombard USPN 4192223 does disclose the limitations: wherein the actuator (21,19,23) has a spindle 19 which is supported in a threaded bore 20 in a housing of the dosing pump (as seen in Fig 2 & Fig 3 – nut 20 (i.e. the threaded bore) – is supported in housing 17 of the dosing pump as claimed, Column 3 Line 1-15).
PNG
media_image2.png
812
1082
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 2 & 3 of Lombard USPN 4192223 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 20: Lombard USPN 4192223 does disclose the limitations: wherein the control element and the stop element have two mutually corresponding surfaces (it does the spherical surface of the control element 15 and the surface generally indicated by element 18 of the stop element are the claimed mutually corresponding surfaces, Column 4 Line 45-55), wherein the two mutually corresponding surfaces form an angle of between 0° and 90° both with the axis of movement and with the control axis (see Annotated Figures 2 & 3 of Lombard USPN 4192223 (Attached Figure B) above, as seen in Attached Figure B each of the corresponding surfaces forms an angle that is between 0° and 90° with the respective axes as claimed), wherein the two mutually corresponding surfaces are configured and aligned in such a way that the corresponding surfaces are in contact with one another and slide along one another in a direction of movement (the two surfaces slide along one another as slide block 3 moves in the left-right direction; a direction of movement = a direction extending horizontally in Fig 2, also see Attached Figure B) when the stop element is displaced along the axis of movement due to movement of the control element along the control axis (the structure in the prior art of Lombard is capable of performing the function of the stop element is displaced along the control axis due to movement of the control element along the control axis – that is to say movement of 15 along the control axis is able to cause movement of the stop element 3 along the movement axis due to the interaction between the surfaces of elements 15 and 3 as disclosed by Lombard; Further, the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and anticipated by the prior art of Lombard USPN 4192223 that would enable the stop element being displaced along the axis of movement due to movement of the control element along the control axis. Thus, because the structure of Lombard USPN 4192223 anticipates the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation), wherein the direction of movement lies in a plane spanned by the control axis and the axis of movement (the claimed plane spanned by the control axis and the axis of movement corresponds to the drawing plane of Fig 2 & Fig 3; as seen in Attached Figure B both the axis of movement and the control axis extend in the plane as claimed).
Regarding Claim 23: Lombard USPN 4192223 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stop element and the control element are positively connected to each other (since both the stop element 3 and the control element 15 are both part of the same assembly/pump they are positively connected to each other as claimed), wherein the positive connection allows a relative movement between the control element and the stop element exclusively in a direction along corresponding surfaces (when the control element 15 is moved downward along the control axis to engage surface 18 of the stop element 3 – the stop element 3 would move exclusively in a direction to the right (which is along the horizontal left-right direction); and the direction to the right extends along the surfaces of both elements 15 and 3), said direction lying in a plane spanned by the control axis and the movement axis (it does, the direction to the right is located in the drawing plane of Fig 2; and the claimed plane spanned by the control axis and the axis of movement corresponds to the drawing plane of Fig 2 & Fig 3, also see Attached Figure A – thus the direction lies in the plane as claimed).
Regarding Claim 25: Lombard USPN 4192223 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stop element and the control element is detachably arranged in the dosing pump (since the stop element 3 and the control element 15 are able to separate from each other as shown in Fig 3 they are detachably arranged as claimed).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horn USPN 5074757.
PNG
media_image3.png
664
970
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Horn USPN 5074757 (Attached Figure C)
Regarding Claim 15: Horn USPN 5074757 does disclose the limitations: A dosing pump (the dosing pump is defined by the sum of its parts, and includes the diaphragm pump (title, abstract) disclosed by Horn) for delivering a dosing volume of a fluid (i.e. delivering a metered volume of the fluid moved by the disclosed dosing/diaphragm pump of Horn) having a displacement element (=2,7; Fig 1, Column 4 Line 48-65) and a dosing chamber (=chamber 15 partially defined by diaphragm 2, Column 5 Line 7-12, Fig 1), wherein the displacement element delimits the dosing chamber (it does, Column 5 Line 7-12, Fig 1) and can be moved back and forth (Column 4 Line 58-Column 5 Line 12) between a pressure position (i.e. position associated with the end of the pressure stroke) and a suction position (i.e. position associated with the end of the suction stroke where element 12 abuts element 13) on an axis of movement (i.e. axis extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of element 7 in Fig 1, see Annotated Figure 1 of Horn USPN 5074757 (Attached Figure C) above), wherein a volume of the dosing chamber in the pressure position of the displacement element (i.e. volume of the chamber 15 at the end of the pressure stroke) is smaller than a volume of the dosing chamber in the suction position of the displacement element (it is, the volume of the chamber 15 at the end of the pressure stroke is inherently smaller than a volume of the chamber 15 at the end of the suction stroke – given how diaphragm pumps operate as known in the art), wherein a drive (drive = worm gear 9 and eccentric shaft, Column 4 Line 48-Column 5 Line 6, also see Attached Figure C) is provided with which a driving force (i.e. force from the eccentric shaft which presses against the displacement element, also see Attached Figure C) can be applied to the displacement element (see Attached Figure C) in the direction of the pressure position (i.e. to the left direction when element 6 is close to element 4 in Fig 1, also see Attached Figure C), wherein a biasing element 10 is provided which exerts a restoring force on the displacement element (Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 6) in the direction of the suction position (i.e. to a right direction when element 6 is furthest away from element 4, also see Attached Figure C), wherein a stop element 12 is provided which limits the movement of the displacement element in the direction of the suction position (element 12 limits the movement of the displacement element in the direction of the suction position when it abuts element 13, Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 6, also see Attached Figure C), wherein the stop element can be adjusted along the axis of movement in order to adjust the suction position of the displacement element (the position of element 12 can be adjusted along the axis of movement by element 13, Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 6, also see Attached Figure C; additionally it is noted that since the suction position is defined as the position where element 12 abuts element 13 – adjustment of the stop element 12 via element 13 inherently adjusts the suction position as claimed), wherein a control element is provided (13, Column 5 Line 3-6, Attached Figure C), wherein the control element is arranged in such a way that the control element can be moved along a control axis (Attached Figure C, moved along the identified axis by operation of handwheel 14) which forms an angle α > 0° with the axis of movement (Attached Figure C – the angle α identified in Attached Figure C is greater than 0° as claimed), the control element being arranged on the stop element (the control element being arranged on the stop element = the control element 13 abuts the stop element 12 [Wingdings font/0xE0] when the control element 13 abuts the stop element 12 – to set the length of the return stroke (Column 5 Line 3-6), the control element 13 is arranged on the stop element 12 as claimed) in such a way that a movement of the stop element (= movement of the identified stop element in Attached Figure C in the direction of the suction position in Attached Figure C) is coupled to (i.e. set by) a movement of the control element (i.e. a position of the control element 13 that is set along the control axis by handwheel 14), so that the stop element can be adjusted along the axis of movement by a movement of the control element along the control axis (Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 6, Attached Figure C).
Regarding Claim 16: Horn USPN 5074757 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stop element is arranged in the dosing pump in such a way that the driving force does not act on the stop element and preferably also does not act on the control element (as seen in Attached Figure C the driving force does not act on either the annular shoulder 12 (i.e. the stop element) or element 13 (i.e. the control element)).
Regarding Claim 18: Horn USPN 5074757 does disclose the limitations: wherein an actuator 14 is provided which is coupled to the control element (given that Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 6 – states that the control element 13 is operable by the actuator 14, element 14 is inherently coupled in some manner to element 13), wherein the actuator is designed in such a way that the control element can be adjusted along the control axis with the actuator (Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 6, also see Attached Figure C).
Claim(s) 15-19 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tarry USPN 3164024.
PNG
media_image4.png
692
1092
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Tarry USPN 3164024 (Attached Figure D)
Regarding Claim 15: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: A dosing pump (the dosing pump is defined by the sum of its parts, and includes the diaphragm pump (title, Column 1 Line 1-21) disclosed by Tarry) for delivering a dosing volume of a fluid (i.e. delivering a metered volume of the fluid moved by the disclosed dosing/diaphragm pump of Tarry) having a displacement element (=15,19,58,21 in Fig 3 also see Annotated Figure 3 of Tarry USPN 3164024 (Attached Figure D) above and Column 2 Line 62-Column 3 Line 28) and a dosing chamber 12b, wherein the displacement element delimits the dosing chamber (it does, Column 2 Line 7-Cloumn 3 Line 3, also see Attached Figure D) and can be moved back and forth (Column 2 Line 43-49) between a pressure position (i.e. position associated with the end of the discharge stroke) and a suction position (i.e. position associated with the end of the suction stroke where element 58 engages element 50, see Fig 4, Attached Figure D, and Column 4 Line 38-46) on an axis of movement (i.e. axis extending along the longitudinal axis of element 19, also see Attached Figure D), wherein a volume of the dosing chamber in the pressure position of the displacement element (i.e. volume of the chamber 12b at the end of the discharge/pressure stroke) is smaller than a volume of the dosing chamber in the suction position of the displacement element (it is, the volume of the chamber 12b at the end of the discharge/pressure stroke is inherently smaller than a volume of the chamber 12b at the end of the suction stroke – given how diaphragm pumps operate as known in the art), wherein a drive (drive = 35,28, Column 4 Line 8-46, also see Attached Figure D) is provided with which a driving force (i.e. force from bearings 28) can be applied to the displacement element (i.e. applied to surface 21a of element 21 of the identified displacement element in Attached Figure D, Column 4 Line 25-46) in the direction of the pressure position (Attached Figure D), wherein a biasing element (22, Column 3 Line 12-28, Column 4 Line 38-46) is provided which exerts a restoring force on the displacement element in the direction of the suction position (Column 3 Line 12-28, Column 4 Line 38-46, also see Attached Figure D), wherein a stop element (50, Attached Figure D) is provided which limits the movement of the displacement element in the direction of the suction position (element 50 limits the movement of the displacement element in the direction of the suction position when it abuts element 58, Column 4 Line 38-46, also see Attached Figure D), wherein the stop element can be adjusted along the axis of movement in order to adjust the suction position of the displacement element (the position of element 50 can be adjusted along the axis of movement by element 56, Column 3 Line 65-Column 4 Line 7, also see Attached Figure D; additionally it is noted that since the suction position is defined as the position where element 58 engages element 50 – adjustment of the stop element 50 via element 56 inherently adjusts the suction position as claimed), wherein a control element is provided (Attached Figure D, Column 3 Line 65-Column 4 Line 7), wherein the control element is arranged in such a way that the control element can be moved along a control axis (Attached Figure D) which forms an angle α > 0° with the axis of movement (Attached Figure D), the control element being arranged on the stop element (the control element being arranged on the stop element = the control element 56 is arranged on portion 50a of the stop element 50 as shown in Attached Figure D) in such a way that a movement of the stop element (= left-right movement of the end of the stop element 50 that engages 58) is coupled to a movement of the control element (a movement of the control element = up-down movement of the control element 56; given the structure shown in Fig 3 and Fig 6 the two movements are coupled as claimed), so that the stop element can be adjusted along the axis of movement by a movement of the control element along the control axis (Column 4 Line 1-7, Column 4 Line 38-63).
Regarding Claim 16: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stop element is arranged in the dosing pump (Attached Figure D) in such a way that the driving force does not act on the stop element and preferably also does not act on the control element (since the driving force is used to generate the discharge stroke and the return spring 22 generates the suction stroke, and 58 engages the stop element 50 to limit the suction/return stroke – the driving force which acts on element 21 does not act on either the stop element 50 or the control element 56 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 17: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein the displacement element has a drive surface 21a and a stop surface (= circular surface of element 58), wherein the drive applies the drive force to the drive surface during an operation of the dosing pump (Column 4 Line 8-19), wherein the stop surface comes into contact with the stop element in the suction position(since the suction position is defined as – the position associated with the end of the suction stroke where element 58 engages element 50; the stop surface (i.e. circular surface of element 58) would inherently come into contact with the stop element 50 in the suction position as claimed, Column 4 Line 38-63, Attached Figure D).
Regarding Claim 18: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein an actuator is provided (53,54, Attached Figure D) which is coupled to the control element (Column 3 Line 69-Column 4 Line 7, Attached Figure D), wherein the actuator is designed in such a way that the control element can be adjusted along the control axis with the actuator (Column 3 Line 69-Column 4 Line 7, Attached Figure D).
Regarding Claim 19: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein the actuator has a spindle 53 which is supported in a threaded bore 55 in a housing of the dosing pump (Attached Figure D).
Regarding Claim 24: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein the drive has a drive housing (Attached Figure D), wherein the stop element has an opening for at least partial reception of the drive housing (Attached Figure D).
Regarding Claim 25: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stop element and preferably the control element is detachably arranged in the dosing pump (since one would be able to completely unscrew/remove the control element 56 from space where it engages the stop element 50 the two parts are detachably arranged in the dosing pump as claimed).
Regarding Claim 26: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein the displacement element (15,19,58,21, Attached Figure D) comprises a diaphragm 15 as well as a contact element (19,58,21, Attached Figure D) connected to the diaphragm (via 19b, Fig 3, Column 3 Line 4-15), wherein the contact element is provided to contact both the drive and the stop element (it does element 58 of the contact element contacts stop element 50 and element 21 of the contact element contacts element 28 of the drive, also see Attached Figure D).
Regarding Claim 27: Tarry USPN 3164024 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stop element 50 is arranged in a housing of the dosing pump (Attached Figure D) in such a way that the stop element and preferably the control element is not coupled to the movement of the displacement element (i.e. not coupled to the movement of the displacement element in the direction of the pressure position).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombard USPN 4192223.
Regarding Claim 21: Lombard USPN 4192223 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 20. Additionally Lombard USPN 4192223 does disclose the limitations: wherein an angle β (angle β = identified angle the corresponding surfaces make with the control axis in Attached Figure B) is the angle which the two mutually corresponding surfaces form with the control axis (it is see Attached Figure B). Lombard USPN 4192223 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein 5° > β > 45°, preferably 10°> β > 35° and particularly preferably β = 14°”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the corresponding surfaces such that the angle β that the corresponding surfaces make with the control axis satisfies 5° > β > 45°, preferably 10°> β > 35° and particularly preferably β = 14°--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the angle β being 5° > β > 45°, preferably 10°> β > 35° and particularly preferably β = 14° versus the design taught by Lombard USPN 4192223. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the angle β being 5° > β > 45°, preferably 10°> β > 35° and particularly preferably β = 14° and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, Page 5 ¶3-4 of the SPEC indicates that the angle makes adjustments to the dosing volume (e.g. like the corresponding surfaces in Attached Figure B taught by Lombard USPN 4192223). Thus, when the corresponding surfaces are designed such that the angle β that the corresponding surfaces make with the control axis satisfies 5° > β > 45°, preferably 10°> β > 35° and particularly preferably β = 14° - the corresponding surfaces in Attached Figure B of Lombard USPN 4192223 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of making adjustments to the dosing volume.
Regarding Claim 28: Lombard USPN 4192223 discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the stop element and preferably the control element is a plastic component”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make both the stop element and the control element from plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarry USPN 3164024.
Regarding Claim 28: Tarry USPN 3164024 discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the stop element and preferably the control element is a plastic component”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make both the stop element and the control element from plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Bork USPN 5249932 – discloses a diaphragm metering pump.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746