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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/04/2026 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: F1”.
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(m) are required in this application because the shading, particularly in Figures 4, 10 & 29, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention. 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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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 crankcase comprising the plurality of bearing seats, the plurality of supporting structures, and the first reinforcing ribs is integrally formed by contiguous casting”, in Lines 12-13, should read --the crankcase comprising the plurality of bearing seats, the plurality of supporting structural members, and the first reinforcing ribs is integrally formed by contiguous casting.
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 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Drawing Objections, Applicant argues Figure 12 shows force F1. This is possible. However, as described above, the figures are of poor quality, so it is impossible to determine with certainty what any of the figures show. Applicant should submit higher quality figures in compliance with §1.84 to overcome this objection.
Applicant continues to argue the submitted figure are in compliance with §1.84. Again, Examiner disagrees. None of the figures, as explained above, are in compliance with §1.84. 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. Examiner disagrees.
As explained above, depending on the value of the respective forces, βmax may fall outside of a reasonable range. As such, the boundaries of βmax are not clear.
A similar argument can be made in support of the Claim 5 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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