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 Group I (claims 1-9, drawn to an accumulator) and Species A (Figs. 2A-E; accumulator with a plunger having a valve and a rod) in the reply filed on 07 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 43, lines 7-8: “The first surface 210 may define a first end of the body 200 and the second surface 215 may define a second end of the body 200” should read “The second surface 210 may define a first end of the body 200 and the third surface 215 may define a second end of the body 200”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the first surface comprises a cylindrical tube” which is ambiguous.
As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that the first surface is a surface of cylindrical tube and, more specifically, an internal surface of a cylindrical tube. However, as currently presented, this limitation may raise doubt as to whether it encompasses embodiments where the first surface is some other surface of a cylindrical tube (e.g., an outer or end surface), or whether this was intended to mean that the first surface includes a cylindrical tube (e.g., as a sub-component of the first surface).
Claim 2 appears to require the second surface to be coupled to both the first end of the cylindrical tube and the second end of the cylindrical tube. As best understood in view of the specification, the second surface (210) is coupled to a first end of the cylindrical tube (205) while the third surface (215) is coupled to the second end of the cylindrical tube.
For examination in this action, this portion of claim 2 will be interpreted consistent with the above (i.e., the second surface coupled to the first end, the third surface coupled to the second end), however, appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the cylindrical tube comprises an interior surface having a fixed circumference”. However, claim 2 recites that “the first surface comprises a cylindrical tube”. Thus, claim 6 appears to be reciting that the first surface comprises a cylindrical tube which comprises an interior surface, which is confusing. It is unclear if the “interior surface” is simply the same surface as the “first surface”, or if the first surface and interior surface may be different surfaces of the cylindrical tube, etc.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the plunger is circular shaped having the fixed circumference and the plunger is in direct contact with the interior surface of the cylindrical tube” which raises several issues.
First, the “fixed circumference” is established in claim 6 as a fixed circumference of an interior surface of the cylindrical tube. Claim 7 appears to be requiring the plunger and the interior surface of the cylindrical tube to have exactly the same circumference, however, the specification recites that these circumferences may be “approximately the same” (para. 45).
It is also unclear if the “fixed circumference” of the plunger and the limitation wherein the plunger is in “direct contact” with the interior surface are intended to take into account any compressible seals, O-rings, etc., that may be present to seal between a rigid plunger portion and the interior surface, or if the rigid (fixed) plunger portion itself must be exactly the same circumference as the interior surface.
On one hand, requiring a plunger to have both a “fixed” (i.e., rigid) circumference which is exactly the same circumference as the interior surface, and requiring the plunger to be in direct contact with the interior surface, could potentially result in interference and/or excess friction during use (depending on materials, operating temperatures, plunger geometry, etc.).
On the other hand, a plunger with a resilient / compressible sealing feature could adopt the same circumference as the interior surface and be in direct contact therewith, but it is unclear if this would be considered a “fixed circumference” due to the compressibility / resilience of the feature. Furthermore, it does not appear that any such features are disclosed.
See MPEP § 2173.03: “[a] claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell (US Pat No. 592,235; published 26 Oct 1897).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell discloses an accumulator (figs 1-5), comprising:
a body comprising a first surface (“1st Surface” annotated below), a second surface (“2nd Surface”), and a third surface (“3rd Surface”), wherein the first surface, the second surface, and the third surface define an interior region (as shown);
an inlet (t in fig. 1 [“inlet-pipe t”]; see “Inlet” below) coupled to the first surface and arranged adjacent to the second surface (as shown);
an outlet (incl. at least D in fig. 1 [“outlet-pipe D”] or, alternatively, incl. at least C & D; see “Outlet” below) coupled to the third surface (as shown);
an apparatus comprising:
a plunger (E; “Plunger” below) disposed within the interior region; and
a rod (F; “Rod” below) coupled to the plunger (at M), wherein the rod is partially disposed within the interior region (as shown); and
a valve (J; “Valve” below) disposed within the plunger (see figs 1 & 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: to promote compact prosecution, see also US 370,896 (Schuehle; 1887), US 898,659 (Kuehl; 1908), and US 2024/0052820 A1 (Nozawa).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell discloses the additional limitations wherein the first surface (“1st Surface”) comprises a cylindrical tube (A; pg. 1, lines 37-38: “In the drawings, A designates the pump-cylinder…”; pg. 1, line 44: “cylinder A”);
the second surface (“2nd Surface”; formed by a “lower head of the cylinder”, mounted upon support B [see pg. 1, lines 37-44]) is circular shaped (matching the shape of the cylinder) and coupled to a first (lower) end of the cylindrical tube (as shown); and
the third surface (“3rd Surface”; formed by plate d) is circular shaped (also matching the shape of the cylinder; see figs. 1, 2, 4) and coupled to a second (upper) end of the cylindrical tube (as shown).
Regarding claim 3, Campbell discloses the additional limitation wherein the second surface (“2nd Surface”) comprises a through-hole arranged at a geometric center of the first surface (i.e., the through-hole for rod F as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell discloses the additional limitation wherein the rod (F) is disposed within the through-hole (see fig. 1; see also pg. 1, lines 42-44: “…the piston-rod F, which passes downward through a gland in the lower head of the cylinder A”).
Regarding claim 5, the accumulator of Campbell reads on the additional limitation wherein the interior region has a fixed volume.
As shown in fig. 1, the first surface is the interior surface of the cylindrical tube and the second and third surfaces are defined by plates secured to the upper and lower ends of the cylindrical tube. Thus, the interior region defined by the first, second and third surfaces would have a fixed volume.
Regarding claim 6, the accumulator of Campbell reads on the additional limitation wherein the cylindrical tube (A) comprises an interior surface (the “1st Surface”) having a fixed circumference (i.e., the interior circumference of the cylindrical tube which, as shown in fig. 1, would be fixed).
Regarding claim 7, the accumulator of Campbell reads on the additional limitations wherein the plunger (E; “Plunger”) is circular shaped having the fixed circumference (see figs. 1 & 5; explicitly shown as circular in fig. 5) and the plunger is in direct contact with the interior surface of the cylindrical tube (see fig. 1).
In fig. 1, the entire outer circumference of the plunger reasonably appears to be in direct contact with the interior surface of the cylindrical tube. In practice, at least packing G of the plunger, and likely one or more of flanges Q and P, would be in direct contact with the interior surface of the cylindrical tube.
Regarding claim 8, the accumulator of Campbell reads on the additional limitation wherein the valve (J; “Valve” above) comprises a check valve that is responsive to a pressure differential within the interior region (see figs 1 & 3; see also pg. 2, lines 61-72: “…upon the downward movement of said piston or plunger E the gas within the lower end of the cylinder A will lift the valve J, and through the opening thus formed a portion of the gas from the lower side of the piston E will escape to the upper side of said piston, and the pressure at the lower side of the piston having been thereby relieved, the valve J will reseat itself and thereby prevent any return of the gas from the upper to the lower side of the piston”).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pereira (US 2018/0180041 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the valve (J) of Campbell comprises a one-way valve (see figs 1 & 3; see also pg. 2, lines 61-72), however Campbell does not disclose the valve as being responsive to a control signal.
Pereira teaches (fig. 3) that a one-way valve (41 / 61) disposed within a plunger (3) may be configured as a “semi-commanded valve” by providing an electromagnetic field generating element (71) which is capable of assisting and/or preventing opening or closing of the valve (e.g., paras. 16-18, 51-53). As such, Pereira explains that the valve can be selectively driven “electronically” (e.g., by a control signal activating the electromagnet) and/or “automatically” (by a pressure difference).
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 accumulator of Campbell such that the valve comprises a one-way valve responsive to a control signal (e.g., responsive to an electrical signal activating an electromagnet), in view of the teachings of Pereira, as the use of a known technique (providing a one-way valve disposed within a plunger of a compression cylinder device with a controllable electromagnetic actuator to assist and/or prevent opening or closing of the one-way valve, as in Pereira) to improve a similar device (the device of Campbell, having a one-way valve disposed in the plunger) in the same way (e.g., enabling a control system to alter and/or override the default valve switching behavior, providing additional control capabilities / bypass modes / flexibility vs a conventional one-way valve).
Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that one-way valves responsive to control signals are otherwise known in the art. See, e.g., US 2,981,199 to Weissmann et al., US 5,988,985 to Steinruck, US 2011/0209784 A1 to Stein et al., US 2014/0377082 A1 to Lilie et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. To promote compact prosecution, the following reference is noted as being particularly relevant:
US 2024/0052820 A1 to Nozawa discloses a device comprising a cylindrical body, an inlet coupled to the cylinder proximate a first end, an outlet coupled to a second end, a plunger (piston) disposed within the cylindrical body, a rod coupled to the plunger and extending through the first end, and a valve disposed within the plunger.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights