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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Specification
The amendment filed 01/25/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the sentence “The multiple support verticle support plates 102 may constitutes portions of a contiguously casted single-piece frame of the crankcase 100. The term "support verticle plates" may be alternatively referred to as "supporting structural members" of the crankcase 100” on Page 12 is new matter, since the term “contiguously casted single-piece frame” was not include in the original disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is difficult, if not impossible to distinguish the forces in Figure 12 from each other. For example, it appears there are two F1” symbols in Figure 12.
Examiner notes Applicant submitted new drawings on 07/06/2026. These drawings were entered, since the figures in the 07/06/2026 drawings at least have darker lines than the original drawings, including Figure 12. However, entry of the 07/06/2026 drawings does not overcome this objections, because the letters used in Figure 12 are indistinguishable from each other.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they fail to comply with the following §1.84 sections.
New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(l) are required in this application because the line and text quality, in each of the figures, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention and prevents satisfactory reproduction characteristics. For example, it is not clear where any of the lines begin or end, since none of the lines are “durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.”
Examiner notes Applicant submitted new drawings on 07/06/2026. These drawings were entered, since the figures in the 07/06/2026 drawings at least have darker lines than the original drawings. However, entry of the 07/06/2026 drawings does not overcome the objections, because it is still difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish lines within each of the figures, even from the 07/06/2026 drawings.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1 & 10, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims the crankcase…is integrally formed by contiguous casting. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe the crankcase being contiguously cast.
The phrase “contiguous casting” is not a term of the art, so the phrase must be interpreted as the plain meaning for each word in the phrase. The term “contiguous”, as defined by merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contiguous, may be any of the following within the context of the application; 1) “being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point”, 2) “next or near in time or sequence”, or 3) “touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence”. The term “casting”, as defined by merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casting, means “something cast in a mold”. The original disclosure does not have support for the combination of any of the three definitions for “contiguous” in combination with the term “casting”.
With regards to the first definition of “contiguous” in combination with the term “casting”, the original disclosure has not provided any means of casting any of the disclosed parts in contact with anything.
With regards to the second definition of “contiguous” in combination with the term “casting”, the original disclosure has not provided any description of an order or sequence which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret as defining a sequenced casting.
With regards to the third definition of “contiguous” in combination with the term “casting”, the original disclosure has not provided any description of the disclosed parts or components touching or connected during casting.
In light of the above, it is clear the original disclosure does not have sufficient support for the limitation, so is considered new matter.
Applicant submitted an amended specification on 01/25/2024 which added in the subject matter at the top of Page 12. However, this was not used in the original disclosure from 12/20/2023. As such, the use of the term “contiguous casting” is considered new matter.
Applicant must remove all references to the phrase “contiguous casting” to overcome this rejection and the above objections.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 & 14-20 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “the first angle being greater than or equal to 0.8 βmax and less than or equal to 1.2 βmax, βmax being an angle formed between a direction of a maximum resultant force on the plurality of bearing seats (101) and the axial direction of the plungers”, in Lines 15-18, is indefinite. It is not clear how to determine the maximum resultant force direction, since the maximum resultant force direction can change, depending on how the plunger pump is operated. For example, when referencing instant application Figure 12, if the pump is operated in a test without any fluid through the fluid/hydraulic end, the resultant force of a hydraulic force F would essentially be zero, so the maximum resultant force direction would be essentially be Fc’. If the pump was driven at such a high rate to produce an extremely high pressure, the resultant force of a hydraulic force F would essentially be so much larger than the support force of the plunger in the vertical direction Fc, that the maximum resultant force direction would be essentially be F’. Applying these calculations to instant application Figure 13 would require the first reinforcing ribs 103 being approximately 90° from the axial direction –left and right, as viewed in Figure 13-- of the plunger. As such, the first reinforcing ribs 103 in Figure 13 would lie outside of the claimed range. In light of the specification, it is not clear how to determine the maximum resulting force direction, making it unclear how to determine βmax, 0.8βmax, and 1.2βmax, rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, if the maximum resultant force direction is colinear with the axial direction, a resultant angle would be 0°, resulting in both 0.8 βmax and 1.2 βmax equaling 0°. An angle of 0° requires two first reinforcing ribs to be placed in the same location. As such, it is not clear why or how two ribs may be placed in the same location. For the purpose of examination, the maximum resulting force direction will be interpreted as colinear with the plunger reciprocation direction, as shown in instant application Figure 13.
As to Claim 5, the limitation “an angle between extending directions of the two first reinforcing ribs (103) is greater than or equal to 1.8 βmax and less than or equal to 2.2 βmax” is indefinite. It is not clear how to determine the maximum resultant force direction, since the maximum resultant force direction can change, depending on how the plunger pump is operated. For example, when referencing instant application Figure 12, if the pump is operated in a test without any fluid through the fluid/hydraulic end, the resultant force of a hydraulic force F would essentially be zero, so the maximum resultant force direction would be essentially be Fc’. If the pump was driven at such a high rate to produce an extremely high pressure, the resultant force of a hydraulic force F would essentially be so much larger than the support force of the plunger in the vertical direction Fc, that the maximum resultant force direction would be essentially be F’. Applying these calculations to instant application Figure 13 would require the first reinforcing ribs 103 being approximately 90° from the axial direction –left and right, as viewed in Figure 13-- of the plunger. As such, the first reinforcing ribs 103 in Figure 13 would lie outside of the claimed range. In light of the specification, it is not clear how to determine the maximum resulting force direction, making it unclear how to determine βmax, 1.8βmax, and 2.2βmax, rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, if the maximum resultant force direction is colinear with the axial direction, a resultant angle would be 0°, resulting in both 1.8 βmax and 2.2 βmax equaling 0°. An angle of 0° requires two first reinforcing ribs to be placed in the same location. As such, it is not clear why or how two ribs may be placed in the same location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Specification Objections and the 112(a) rejections, Applicant argues the use of the term “contiguous casting” is merely an alternative expression to the what the specification describes as “’an integrated crankcase’ that is ‘integrally cast.’” Examiner disagrees.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the term “contiguous casting” is not a term of the art. Therefore, the phrase must be interpreted by its plain meaning. No interpretation of its plain meaning results in “’an integrated crankcase’ that is ‘integrally cast.’” As such, the original disclosure does not have sufficient support for the term. The phrase “contiguous casting” must be removed from the application to overcome the objections and rejections.
Regarding the Drawing Objections, Applicant argues Figure 12 shows force F1, and the figures are in compliance with §1.84. This is possible. However, as described above, the letters and numbers within the figure are of poor quality, so it is impossible to determine with certainty which forces are which. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider any of the figures to have “durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.” Applicant should submit higher quality figures in compliance with §1.84 to overcome this objection.
Regarding the 12(b) rejections for Claim 1, Applicant argues βmax can be clearly identified/determined. Applicant cites instant application Figures 12 and 35-37, stating one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to determine angle β, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine βmax based on the force analysis methodology provided in the original disclosure. Examiner disagrees.
As described above, one of ordinary skill would not be able to rely on Figure 12, since Figure 12 is illegible. Although it appears Figure 12 shows an angle β, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to conclusively determine β from Figure 12, since it is not clear which forces are which.
Even if one of ordinary skill in the art was able to overcome the deficiencies of Figure 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would not then be able to determine βmax with certainty since the maximum resultant force direction. The original disclosure –and the claim-- defines the maximum resultant force direction as the angle formed between a direction of a maximum resultant force on the plurality of bearing seats and the axial direction of the plungers. As outlined in the rejection above, there are scenarios where the force analysis would require the first reinforcing ribs to lie outside of the claimed range.
Applicant argues these scenarios are “extreme or hypothetical”, and the disclosed pump is only designed to be operated under “normal” conditions. Examiner disagrees with this interpretation.
First, there is nothing in the original disclosure indicating the disclosed pump may only be operated in particular operating conditions. The original disclosure also does not define “normal operating conditions”. As such, Applicant does not have support for these arguments. Additionally, it is not clear why running at a high pressure or with no fluid would be considered not normal. Pumps run at high pressure and run out of fluid quite often during use, and one of ordinary skill in the art is just as likely to interpret the scenarios in the rejection as “normal” operating conditions.
In light of the above, it is clear the boundaries of βmax are not fully defined, and the 112(b) rejection is applied correctly.
A similar argument can be made in support of the Claim 5 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights